DETAILED ACTION
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 29 April 2026 has been entered. Claims 1 – 10, 12 and 13 are pending and currently being examined.
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Claim Objections
The previously made claim objections are hereby withdrawn in view of cancellation of Claim 11.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(d):
(d) REFERENCE IN DEPENDENT FORMS.—Subject to subsection (e), a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, fourth paragraph:
Subject to the following paragraph [i.e., the fifth paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112], a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
Claim 2 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(d) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, 4th paragraph, as being of improper dependent form for failing to further limit the subject matter of the claim upon which it depends, or for failing to include all the limitations of the claim upon which it depends. All the limitations of Claim 2 have already been claimed in Claim 1. Applicant may cancel the claim(s), amend the claim(s) to place the claim(s) in proper dependent form, rewrite the claim(s) in independent form, or present a sufficient showing that the dependent claim(s) complies with the statutory requirements.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claim(s) 1 – 10, 12 and 13 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tung (PG Pub US 20070013242 A1) in view of Ho (PG Pub US 20060257254 A1) and as evidenced by Lu (PG Pub US 20060002103 A1).
PNG
media_image1.png
588
804
media_image1.png
Greyscale
First annotated Figure 8 of Tung
PNG
media_image2.png
566
844
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Second annotated Figure 8 of Tung
In Re Claim 1, the Figure 8 embodiment of Tung discloses an axial fan comprising: an impeller cup (83); a fan (86) extending in a radial direction from the impeller cup (83); a motor (6, 84) inside the impeller cup (83); a base portion (see first annotated figure 8 above) to which the motor (6, 84) is attached; and a housing (2) which stores the impeller cup (83), the fan (86) and the motor (6, 84), the housing (2) including an inlet (top of the figure – see label 19 in the Figure 2 embodiment) that takes in air and an outlet (bottom of the figure – see label 17 in the Figure 4 embodiment) that discharge taken-in air, wherein an outer peripheral portion of the base portion is provided with an outer peripheral wall portion (see first annotated figure 8 above) extending in an air-blowing direction (from top to bottom is the air blowing direction),the outer peripheral wall portion includes an upstream end (see first annotated figure 8 above) being an end on an upstream side in the air-blowing direction, and a downstream end (see first annotated figure 8 above) being an end on a downstream side in the air-blowing direction, the upstream end is located inward in the radial direction relative to an outer peripheral side surface of the impeller cup (this is revealed upon a careful examination of the upstream end relative to the outer peripheral side surface in the first annotated figure 8 above), the downstream end (see first annotated figure 8 above) is located outward in the radial direction relative to the upstream end (see first annotated figure 8 above) and is located at the outlet (bottom most line in the first annotated figure 8 above), the outer peripheral wall portion includes an undersurface (see first annotated figure 8 above) and an uppermost surface (see first annotated figure 8 above) opposite the undersurface in the air-blowing direction, the uppermost surface faces a gap (see second annotated figure 8 above) in the air-blowing direction, the gap is provided between the uppermost surface and the impeller cup (83) in the air- blowing direction (see second annotated figure 8 above), and the upstream end is located on the uppermost surface (see second annotated figure 8 above), the outer peripheral wall portion has a largest outer diameter at the downstream end located at the outlet (see second annotated figure 8 above), and the downstream end located at the outlet is a connecting portion of the outer peripheral wall portion and the undersurface (since flow is able to reach the undersurface from the outlet), the downstream end (see first annotated figure 8 above) is located outward in the radial direction relative to the outer peripheral side surface of the impeller cup (83) (paragraph [0004]; Figure 8).
The examiner first contends above that Tung discloses that the outer peripheral wall portion has a largest outer diameter at the downstream end located at the outlet. Alternatively, if this is not clear to applicant:
PNG
media_image3.png
632
820
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Annotated Figure 3B of Ho
However, the Figure 3B embodiment of Ho discloses that the outer peripheral wall portion has a largest outer diameter at the bottom end of the base portion (see annotated figure 3B above; paragraph [0031]). Note that Ho also discloses that the upstream end is located inward in the radial direction relative to an outer peripheral side surface of the impeller cup.
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed the invention to modify the diameter of the outer peripheral wall portion at the downstream end of Tung such that it is the largest as taught by Ho because the results of the substitution/modification are predictable as evidenced in paragraph [0031] of Ho which states that the slope (262) can be flat or curved (the curved shape is similar to the configuration of Tung) – "[I]n many cases a person of ordinary skill will be able to fit the teachings of multiple patents together like pieces of a puzzle." KSR Intl. Co. v. Teleflex Inc. at 420, 82 USPQ2d at 1397; The rigid requirement of a teaching, suggestion, or motivation to combine known elements in order to show obviousness has been rejected. Id. At 398,419 (2007). This a rationale that can be used to support a conclusion of obviousness (MPEP 2141, Section III, Rationale B).
Although Tung discloses that the outer peripheral wall portion further includes an outer peripheral side surface connecting the upstream end and the downstream end (a portion of which is a convex curved surface), the entirety of the outer peripheral side surface is not convex curved because there is also a stepped portion.
PNG
media_image4.png
529
822
media_image4.png
Greyscale
First annotated Figure 3B of Ho
However, paragraph [0031] of Ho in combination with Figure 3B of Ho discloses that an upstream end and downstream end of the peripheral wall portion of the base are connected by an entirely convex curved surface (paragraph [0031]: “slope 262 is flat or curved”) as depicted in the First annotated Figure 3B of Ho above (the embodiment shown in Figure 3B is the flat-slope embodiment, the examiner has drawn what the curved-slope embodiment looks like).
PNG
media_image5.png
760
914
media_image5.png
Greyscale
First annotated Figure 3D of Lu
Alternatively, since Ho does not provide a figure for the curved-slope embodiment, if it is not clear to Applicant that the curved-slope embodiment of Ho is an entirely convex curved surface between the upstream and downstream ends, evidentiary reference Lu (paragraph [0027]; Figures 3C, 3D) discloses an outer peripheral wall portion of base (32) where the upstream and downstream ends are connected by an entirely convex curved surface (see First annotated Figure 3D above), and like Ho the surface is also referred to as a curved slope (paragraph [0027]: “The slope can have a flat surface (FIG. 3C) or a curved surface (FIG. 3D)”). The flat slope of Figure 3C is the flat slope 262 of Ho depicted in Ho’s Figure 3B. Figure 3D of Lu illustrates the curved-slope embodiment of Ho whose figure was not provided by Ho. Lu is not a modifying reference, it only being cited to provide the definition/meaning in the art of the phrase “slope 262 is flat or curved” in paragraph [0031] of Ho, and to demonstrate that the curved slope of Ho is indeed applicant’s entirely convex curved surface.
PNG
media_image6.png
720
830
media_image6.png
Greyscale
First modified Figure 8 of Tong (in view of Ho/Lu)
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed the invention to modify the outer peripheral side surface of Tong such that it is convex curved in its entirety as taught by Ho (and as evidenced by Lu) as shown in the above First modified figure 8 of Tong above for the purpose of reducing/saving machining costs of making the additional stepped flat portion adjacent to the convex curved surface.
In Re Claim 2, the combined references above disclose all the limitations of Claim 1, and Tung further discloses that the downstream end (see first annotated figure 8 above) is located outward in the radial direction relative to the outer peripheral side surface of the impeller cup (83).
In Re Claim 3, the combined references above disclose all the limitations of Claim 1, and Tung further discloses that the upstream end and the downstream end are connected by a convex curved surface (as depicted - see second annotated figure 8 above). Ho also discloses that the upstream end (top end of 262) and the downstream end (bottom end of 262) are connected by a convex curved surface (paragraph [0031]: “The slope 262 is flat or curved”).
PNG
media_image7.png
608
862
media_image7.png
Greyscale
Third annotated Figure 8 of Tung
In Re Claim 4, the combined references above disclose all the limitations of Claim 1, and Tung further discloses that an angle of inclination being an angle formed by a virtual line passing through the upstream end and the downstream end and a cross section orthogonal to the air-blowing direction appears to be in the claimed range of 110° to 130° (see third annotated figure of Tung above). Ho also appears to disclose that the angle of slope 262 is in the claimed range of 110° to 130°.
PNG
media_image8.png
614
854
media_image8.png
Greyscale
Fourth annotated Figure 8 of Tung
In Re Claims 5 and 6, the combined references above disclose all the limitations of Claim 1, and Tung further discloses that the upstream end (see fourth annotated figure 8 above) is located downstream of a downstream edge of the impeller cup (83), and the upstream end is located upstream of a board (see fourth annotated figure 8 above; for a clearer view of the board see label 57 in Figure 4) of the motor (6, 84).
In Re Claim 7, the combined references above disclose all the limitations of Claim 1, and Tung further discloses that the impellor cup (83) includes a downstream edge (see fourth annotated figure 8 above) which defines the gap (see second annotated figure 8 above) between the upstream end of the outer peripheral wall portion and the downstream edge of the impellor cup (83).
In Re Claim 8, the combined references above disclose all the limitations of Claim 1, and Tung further discloses that the base portion includes the undersurface and the outer peripheral wall portion extending from the undersurface toward the upstream side in the air-blowing direction (best seen in first annotated figure 8 above).
In Re Claim 9, the combined references above disclose all the limitations of Claim 5, and Tung further discloses that the upstream end of the outer peripheral wall portion of the base portion is placed in such a manner as to be hidden by the impeller cup (83) from view when the base portion is viewed along the air-blowing direction from the inlet via the impeller cup (83)(the entire extent of the upstream end/ uppermost surface is radially interior of the outer surface of the impeller cup; First annotated figure 8 above demonstrates the claimed limitations would be met when viewed from the top rather than the side view shown of figure 8).
In Re Claim 10, the combined references above disclose all the limitations of Claim 9, and Tung further discloses that the axial fan is an outer rotor axial fan (the magnet portion 84 is radially outside the stator 6, and is therefore an outer rotor).
In Re Claim 12, the combined references above disclose all the limitations of Claim 1, and Tung further discloses that the outer peripheral wall portion has the largest outer diameter at the downstream end located at the outlet (see rejection of claim 1) so that a difference between a velocity of flow of air discharged from the outlet and a velocity of flow of air flowing along the undersurface is reduced (since the structure of the prior art is the same, the same result of the reduction in difference of velocity is expected because flow from the outlet is able to reach the undersurface).
PNG
media_image9.png
720
830
media_image9.png
Greyscale
Second modified Figure 8 of Tong (in view of Ho/Lu)
In Re Claim 13, the combined references above disclose all the limitations of Claim 1, and with reference to the Second modified Figure 8 above, Tung further discloses that the convex curved surface is the entirety of the outer peripheral side surface of the outer peripheral wall portion from the upstream end to the downstream end, the upstream end of the convex curved surface is located inward in the radial
direction relative to the outer peripheral side surface of the impeller cup (83), and the downstream end of the convex curved surface is located outward in the radial
direction relative to the outer peripheral side surface of the impeller cup (83).
Response to Arguments
Applicant has argued on Page 6 of Applicant’s Response that “It is respectfully submitted that Ho does not contain any description regarding "an entirety of the outer peripheral side surface of the outer peripheral wall portion is a convex curved surface" as claimed. Ho merely discloses "curved surface" without details”.
Examiner’s Response: Since paragraph [0031] of Ho states that the slope 262 is flat OR curved, therefore, when choosing the curved option, the entire slope 262 has to be curved because it cannot have any flat sections. Although Ho does not explicitly state that the curved surface is “convex”, there are only two possible choices for a curved surface: it is either concave or convex. A convex curved surface is clearly taught by Tong. Choosing a convex surface as taught by Tong as the curved surface of Ho is only a matter of choosing from a finite number of options (two) with the expectation of predictable results (MPEP 2141, Section III, Rationale E). Note that portion “F” of Ho that is also described in paragraph [0031] as “curved” is clearly shown in Figure 3B as a convex curved surface, and one skilled in the art would tend to interpret the curved surface option for 262 to have the same convex contour as presented in the below annotated figure.
PNG
media_image10.png
529
822
media_image10.png
Greyscale
Figure 3B clearly shows the flat option for slope 262. The examiner contends that In view of the teachings of paragraph [0031] and Figure 3B of Ho, one skilled in the art would appreciate that the curved option for slope 262 of Ho would be represented by the addition shown in the above annotated figure. In any case, the examiner has provided an evidence reference Lu which shows why one skilled in the art would interpret “curved slope” disclosure of Ho as an entirely convex curved surface.
Applicant has argued on Page 10 of Applicant’s response that “In contrast, Tong's stepped structure may generate abnormal noise. Specifically, after passing the impeller, the airflow may hit a flat area of the outer peripheral side surface and split into two streams: one traveling radially outward along the outer peripheral side surface, and the other traveling radially inward toward the stepped structure. This may create turbulence at the corner of the stepped structure, thereby generating abnormal noise”.
Examiner’s Response: Applicant is assuming that the stream of air continues in a straight line after it has left the downstream end of the impeller cup with no radial component until it reaches the stepped portion.
PNG
media_image11.png
680
854
media_image11.png
Greyscale
The examiner contends that the stream of air leaving the downstream end of the impeller cup would have multiple directional vectors before it reaches the convex curved surface as depicted above.
PNG
media_image12.png
608
737
media_image12.png
Greyscale
This is confirmed by Applicant’s Figure 2 above which shows that the stream of air leaving the downstream end of the impeller cup has a radially inward component.
PNG
media_image13.png
638
704
media_image13.png
Greyscale
Even in applicant’s apparatus, there is no structure that prevents at least some of the air to flow in the radially inward direction after the air hits the convex curved surface and collide with the magnet portion 41/42 in the annotated figure above, thus creating more noise. As such Tong’s configuration would be just as effective at reducing noise as applicant’s claimed invention, due to the existence of the convex curved surface of Tong as compared to the prior art discussed` by Applicant in Applicant’s Figure 4.
Contact Information
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to DNYANESH G KASTURE whose telephone number is (571)270-3928. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Thu, 7:30 AM to 6:00 PM.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Essama Omgba can be reached at 469-295-9278. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/D.G.K/Examiner, Art Unit 3746
/NATHAN C ZOLLINGER/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3746
Prosecution Insights