DETAILED ACTION
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 .
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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 03/10/2026 has been entered.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 03/10/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Regarding the argument that Jensen (DE 4122487 C1) does not teach or suggest, “the bayonet locking system being remove from the hollow interior of the blower housing”
PNG
media_image1.png
343
521
media_image1.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image2.png
174
541
media_image2.png
Greyscale
The Examiner has respectfully annotated Fig. 1 and Fig. 2 of Jensen with the area the Examiner considered the equivalent of the “hollow interior” of the Immediate Application or the “Radial Expansion Portion” of Hancock which clearly shows that at least one of the bayonet couplings (17, 19) is “remote” from the hollow interior of the blow housing as claimed, as it is effectively outside of the gas path of the impeller shown in Jensen.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claims 1-9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
Claim 1, lines 11-12 now recite, “the bayonet locking system being remote from the hollow interior of the blower housing and”
However, the term “remote” does not appear in the immediate specification, and therefore contains subject matter which was not described in the specification is such a way as to reasonably convey to one skill in the relevant art that the inventor as the time the application was filed, has possession of the claimed invention.
Claims 2-9 are rejected based on their dependencies.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 1-9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
The term “remote” in claim 1 is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite; it is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention. “remote” is defined as “separated by an interval or space greater than usual” (see Merriam Webster online dictionary). This language is indefinite as the specification does not describe how much the term “approximately” modifies a target, and implicitly requires boundaries at some maximum value above the target and at some minimum value below the target beyond which one is not “remote” the target any more.
Claims 2-9 are rejected based on their dependencies.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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.
Claims 1-9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hancock (US PGPUB 2004/0253092 A1) in view of Jensen et al. (DE 4122487 C1).
PNG
media_image3.png
487
458
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 1, Hancock discloses, a blower (Fig. 2) comprising:
a fan wheel (76); and
a blower housing (70) comprising:
a first housing portion (A, [0041]); and
a second housing portion (B, [0041]), the second housing portion being removably connectable to the first housing portion ("fastening devices and attachments" [0041]) to define a hollow interior (120, "radial expansion portion") therebetween to receive the fan wheel (Fig. 2), wherein an interface ([0041]) between the first housing portion and the second housing portion is arranged at a central plane (110, [0041], "For ease of manufacturing, the blower housing 70 is typically formed in two parts A and B which (with the exception of fastening devices and attachments, not shown) are in general mirror images taken about a plane 110 perpendicular to the axis 72 shown in FIGS. 2 and 4." of the blower housing.
However, as above in [0041], Hancock does not explicitly disclose, "a bayonet locking system operable to restrict relative rotation between the first housing portion and the second housing portion, the bayonet locking system being engageable via rotate of the first housing portion relative to the second housing portion within the central plane."
Hancock does teach, "For ease of manufacturing, the blower housing 70 is typically formed in
two parts A and B which (with the exception of fastening devices and attachments, not shown), [0041]"
PNG
media_image1.png
343
521
media_image1.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image2.png
174
541
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Jensen et al. teaches, in the field of connecting components of pump housings (Fig. 1, Fig. 3) a
set of bayonet connections (16, 18, 17, 19).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to
modify the housing of Hancock to have the rotating bayonet attachments as taught by Jensen et al., as
both references are in the same field of endeavor, and one of ordinary skill would appreciate that, "Can
be seen as a dismantling and re-assembly of the pumping unit can be made for the purpose of their
cleaning 1. You only need to turn the pump housing 4 relative to the motor housing 12 in order to
separate the relevant external bayonet connection 17, 19 so that the pump housing 4 can then be
removed, so that the pump impeller is exposed, which can now be removed and cleaned. (Pg. 3:22-41)"
Regarding claim 2, the combination of Hancock and Jensen et al. teach all of claim 1 as above,
wherein the blower housing is symmetrical about the central plane (Fig. 2, [0041]).
Regarding claim 3, the combination of Hancock and Jensen et al. teach all of claim 1 as above,
wherein the blower housing further comprises a first sidewall (see annotated Fig. 2 above), a second
sidewall (see annotated Fig. 2 above), and an outer wall (see annotated Fig. 2 above), the first sidewall
and the second sidewall being arranged at opposite sides of the outer wall (Fig. 2).
Regarding claim 4, the combination of Hancock and Jensen et al. teach all of claim 3 as above,
wherein the first housing portion includes the first sidewall and a first portion of the outer wall (Fig. 2,
[0041]; the outer wall is split into two halves A and B around 110) and the second housing portion includes the second sidewall and a second portion of the outer wall (Fig. 2, [0041]).
Regarding claim 5, the combination of Hancock and Jensen et al. teach all of claim 4 as above,
wherein the at least one of the first side wall and the first portion of the outer wall are integrally formed
and the second sidewall and the second portion of the outer wall are integrally formed ([0041]).
Regarding claim 6, the combination of Hancock and Jensen et al. teach all of claim 3 as above,
further comprising at least one flow feature (73, 124, 126) formed in at least one of the first housing
portion and the second housing portion (Fig. 2, [0041]).
Regarding claim 7, the combination of Hancock and Jensen et al. teach all of claim 6 as above,
wherein the at least one flow feature is formed in the first sidewall and the second side wall (Fig. 2, 41,
94, 92; the Examiner notes that the flow feature extends to the sidewall as the shape of the sidewall
changes, and while not relied upon for the rejection [0040] and Figs. 4-6 show the features extending from the sidewall as well).
Regarding claim 8, the combination of Hancock and Jensen et al. teach all of claim 6 as above,
wherein the at least one flow feature is formed in the outer wall (Fig. 2).
Regarding claim 9, the combination of Hancock and Jensen et al. teach all of claim 1 as above.
However, the combination of Hancock and Jensen et al. do not explicitly disclose, "wherein the
at least one of the first housing portion and the second housing portion is formed from sheet metal
shaped via a deep draw process."
Hancock does teach in [0034] "FIG. 1 shows a conventional blower housing 10. The blower housing 10 is oriented about an axis 12 and is typically formed of sheet metal or molded plastic but can be formed of any suitable material."
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to
create the blower housing of the combination Hancock and Jensen et al. from sheet metal as prior art
blower housings are "typically formed of sheet metal [0034]" as there is no apparent structural difference between the blower of Hancock and Jensen et al. formed from sheet metal as suggested in the prior art and the claimed invention, one of ordinary skill would appreciate that, ""[E]ven though product-by-process claims are limited by and defined by the process, determination of patentability is based on the product itself. The patentability of a product does not depend on its method of production. If the product in the product-by-process claim is the same as or obvious from a product of the prior art, the claim is unpatentable even though the prior product was made by a different process." (See MPEP 2113 I.).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to RYAN C CLARK whose telephone number is (571)272-2871. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Thursday 0730-1730, Alternate Fridays 0730-1630.
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, Courtney D Heinle can be reached at (571)-270-3508. 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.
/RYAN C CLARK/Examiner, Art Unit 3745
Prosecution Insights