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 .
Claims 1-20 are currently pending. Claims 1-20 are rejected.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, see Pg. 7 of the response, filed June 01, 2026, with respect to the objections of the Specification and Claims 10, 15, 19-20 have been fully considered and are persuasive in light of amendments. The objections of the Specification and Claims 10, 15, 19-20 have been withdrawn.
Applicant’s arguments, see Pg. 7-10 of the response, filed with respect to the rejection(s) of claim(s) 1, 12, 18 under 35 U.S.C. 102 and 35 U.S.C. 103 have been fully considered and are persuasive. Therefore, the rejection has been withdrawn. However, upon further consideration, a new ground(s) of rejection is made in view of Bailey et al. (US 5,520,515). Please note Bailey was previously cited as pertinent art and is in the PTO-892 of March 02, 2026.
Regarding Claim 1, as best understood, Applicant argues Dakhoul (US 2009/0028709 A1) does not expressly teach the claimed flange in the amended claim. The Office agrees. However, this aspect is believed to be obvious in view of Bailey as detailed below.
Regrading Claims 12 and 18, similar arguments have been provided with respect to the amended interlocking features. These are believed to be obvious in view of Bailey as well, assuming they refer to similar limitations as Claim 1.
No further arguments have been provided with respect to the remaining claims.
Claim Objections
Claims 12-20 are objected to because of the following informalities:
Regarding Claims 12 and 18, Lines 3-4, 6 of Claim 12 and Lines 3, 9 of Claim 18 recite “first interlocking feature” and “second interlocking feature”. It appears as though the claims switch the labeling “first” and “second” for analogous features. See for instance, the rib between second interlocking feature and blade body in Claim 12, and the rib being between the first interlocking feature and the blade body in Claim 18. Applicant is suggested to amend such that similar features between the independent claims are recited with similar nomenclature to prevent confusion.
Claims 13-17 and 19-20 are subsequently objected to for their dependencies upon a previously objected claim.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitation(s) is/are:
Claim 12, Lines 3-4 “first interlocking feature”, Line 6 “second interlocking feature”, modified by the function of being “configured to matingly engage”.
Claim 18, Line 3 “first interlocking feature”, Line 9 “second interlocking feature”, modified by the function of being “configured to matingly engage”.
No associated structure is found in the Specification, since this terminology is not used in the original disclosure.
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112(a)
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.
Claims 12-20 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.
Regarding Claims 12 and 18, Lines 3-4, 6 of Claim 12 and Lines 3, 9 of Claim 18 recite “first interlocking feature” and “second interlocking feature”, invoking 35 U.S.C. 112(f). However, the associated structure is not found in the original disclosure. Therefore, these limitations lack sufficient written description. See the related 35 U.S.C. 112(b) rejection below.
Claims 13-17 and 19-20 are subsequently rejected for their dependencies upon a previously rejected claim.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112(b)
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.
Claims 12-20 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.
Regarding Claims 12 and 18, claim limitations “first interlocking feature” and “second interlocking feature” invoke 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. However, the written description fails to disclose the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the entire claimed function and to clearly link the structure, material, or acts to the function. No association between the structure and the function can be found in the specification, since the original disclosure does not recite interlocking features as claimed. Therefore, the claims are indefinite and rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, second paragraph.
Applicant may:
(a) Amend the claim so that the claim limitation will no longer be interpreted as a limitation under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph;
(b) Amend the written description of the specification such that it expressly recites what structure, material, or acts perform the entire claimed function, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)); or
(c) Amend the written description of the specification such that it clearly links the structure, material, or acts disclosed therein to the function recited in the claim, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)).
If applicant is of the opinion that the written description of the specification already implicitly or inherently discloses the corresponding structure, material, or acts and clearly links them to the function so that one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize what structure, material, or acts perform the claimed function, applicant should clarify the record by either:
(a) Amending the written description of the specification such that it expressly recites the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function and clearly links or associates the structure, material, or acts to the claimed function, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)); or
(b) Stating on the record what the corresponding structure, material, or acts, which are implicitly or inherently set forth in the written description of the specification, perform the claimed function. For more information, see 37 CFR 1.75(d) and MPEP §§ 608.01(o) and 2181.
Claims 13-17 and 19-20 are subsequently rejected for their dependencies upon a previously rejected claim.
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.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claims 1-6, 12-14, and 17-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Dakhoul (US 2009/0028709 A1), hereinafter Dakhoul, in view of Bailey et al. (US 5,520,515 A), hereinafter Bailey.
Regarding Claim 1, Figures 1-3 of Dakhoul teach an axial fan comprising: a blade (110) comprising a blade body (see blade portion of 110 in Figure 1, above 120 in Figure 2) and a mounting portion (120), wherein the mounting portion (120) comprises a first end (bottom of 120 in view of Figure 2), a second end (top of 120 in view of Figure 2) opposite the first end; a rib (130, note paragraph [0020] states 130 may be integral with mounting portion 120) extending radially outward relative to a central axis (vertical along center of 110 in Figure 2) of the blade (110), the rib positioned between the first end and the second end; and a hub (112) comprising a cavity (formed by portions 146 coming together) configured to receive the mounting portion (120) of the blade (110), wherein the hub (112) comprises a plurality of grooves (148) formed therein, each groove (individual 148) of the plurality of grooves (148) is configured to receive the rib (130) of the mounting portion (120) of the blade (110), and the plurality of grooves (148) corresponds to a plurality of orientations of the blade (110) relative to the hub (112) [0017-0021]. Paragraphs [0022-0025] further elaborate on the adjustment aspect of the orientation.
Dakhoul does not expressly teach a flange positioned at or adjacent to the first end; the rib positioned between the flange and the second end; the hub comprises a notch formed therein to matingly receive the flange of the blade as claimed. However, a flange and notch would have been obvious in view of Bailey.
Figures 2-3, 8 of Bailey teach an axial fan with a flange (24) positioned at or adjacent to the first end (radially inner end of 14); the hub (12, 26 being a part of 12) comprises a notch (49) formed therein to matingly receive the flange (24) of the blade (14). The flange (24) and notch (49) define shoulders (48, 25), which abut to prevent axial movement of the blade (14) (Col. 5, Lines 32-36, Col. 6, Lines 52-63). Thus, this will provide assistance in further retaining the blade of Dakhoul. Note that the combination will result in the limitation of the rib positioned between the flange and the second end, since as detailed above, the rib of Dakhoul is between the first end and the second end while the flange in Bailey is presented at or adjacent the first end.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the axial fan taught by Dakhoul with a flange positioned at or adjacent to the first end; the rib positioned between the flange and the second end; the hub comprises a notch formed therein to matingly receive the flange of the blade as suggested by Bailey, to provide the benefit of further preventing axial movement of the blade.
The limitation of for a heating, ventilation and air conditioning (HVAC) system is treated as intended use of the claimed fan. The recitation with respect to the manner in which a claimed apparatus is intended to be employed does not differentiate the claimed apparatus from a prior art apparatus if the prior art apparatus teaches all the structural limitations of the claim (see MPEP 2114, II, regarding functional language). As noted above, Dakhoul and Bailey teach all the required structure of the claim. Therefore, the claim is met by the combination.
Regarding Claim 2, Dakhoul and Bailey teach the axial fan as set forth in Claim 1.
Figures 2-3 of Dakhoul teach wherein the hub (112) comprises a first hub section (140) and a second hub section (142) configured to couple to one another to form the hub (112) [0017].
Regarding Claim 3, Dakhoul and Bailey teach the axial fan as set forth in Claim 2.
Figures 2-3 of Dakhoul teach wherein the first hub section (140) comprises a first hub recess (146 of 140), the second hub section (142) comprises a second hub recess (146 of 142), and the first hub recess (146) and the second hub recess (146) cooperatively define the cavity of the hub (112) in an assembled configuration of the hub (112) [0017-0018].
Regarding Claim 4, Dakhoul and Bailey teach the axial fan as set forth in Claim 3.
Figures 2-3 of Dakhoul teach wherein the rib (130) is a first rib, the plurality of grooves (148) is a first plurality of grooves, the first plurality of grooves is formed in the first hub section (140). This is merely a matter of labeling the structures to be the “first”.
Dakhoul does not expressly teach the second hub section comprises a second plurality of grooves formed therein, the mounting portion of the blade comprises a second rib extending radially outward relative to the central axis of the blade, and each groove of the second plurality of grooves is configured to receive the second rib of the mounting portion of the blade as claimed.
However, the courts have held various practices to be routine expedients. One such practice is the duplication of parts. A mere duplication of parts has no patentable significance unless a new and unexpected result is produced (see MPEP 2144.04, VI, B). As described in paragraphs [0017-0025] of Dakhoul and noted in Claim 1 above, the rib (130) and grooves (148) allow for the fixing of the blade (110) in a variety of orientations. Thus, additional second key and grooves have the expected result of contributing to the fixing of the blade as well. Paragraph [0019] of Dakhoul already contemplates that each surface (146 of 140 and 142) may have one or more grooves (148), i.e. that both may have the desired grooves. The record has no evidence of new and unexpected results. As such, the mere duplication of parts is a matter of design choice.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to further modify the axial fan taught by Dakhoul-Bailey such that the second hub section comprises a second plurality of grooves formed therein, the mounting portion of the blade comprises a second rib extending radially outward relative to the central axis of the blade, and each groove of the second plurality of grooves is configured to receive the second rib of the mounting portion of the blade, since the mere duplication of parts is considered an obvious matter of design choice.
Regarding Claim 5, Dakhoul and Bailey teach the axial fan as set forth in Claim 4.
Dakhoul does not expressly teach wherein the first rib and the second rib are disposed opposite one another relative to the central axis of the blade.
However, the courts have held various practices to be routine expedients. One such practice is the rearrangement of parts. The rearrangement of parts have been considered an obvious matter of design choice (see MPEP 2144.04, VI, C). The modification in Claim 4 above introduces a second rib (130). The modification in Claim 4 at least has the second key be on the other circumferential half of the central axis compared to the first key as evidenced by the two halves (140, 142) of the hub section forming their own circumferential half with respective grooves (148) in each half. The record does not evidence the exact placement of the second key to modify its operation.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to further modify the axial fan taught by Dakhoul-Bailey such that the first rib and the second rib are disposed opposite one another relative to the central axis of the blade, since the rearrangement of parts is considered an obvious matter of design choice.
Regarding Claim 6, Dakhoul and Bailey teach the axial fan as set forth in Claim 1.
Figure 2 of Dakhoul teaches a pitch indicator system (152) configured to visually indicate a particular orientation of the plurality of orientations of the blade (110) relative to the hub (112) [0021].
Regarding Claim 12, assuming sufficient written description and as far as it is definite and understood, Figures 1-3 of Dakhoul teach an axial fan, comprising: a hub (112) comprising a first hub section (140) and a second hub section (142) configured to couple to one another to form a blade cavity (formed by portions 146 coming together), wherein the first hub section (140) comprises a plurality of grooves (148) formed in an inner surface (146 of 140) of the first hub section (140); and a blade (110) comprising a blade body (see blade portion of 110 in Figure 2, above 120 in Figure 2) and a mounting boss (120), wherein the mounting boss (120) comprises a rib (130, note paragraph [0020] states 130 may be integral with the mounting boss 120) extending therefrom, wherein the rib is positioned between an end (bottom end of 120 in view of Figure 2) and the blade body, and wherein the rib (130) is configured to extend individually within the plurality of grooves (148) to orient the blade (110) at a plurality of pitch angles relative to the hub (112) [0017-0021]. Paragraphs [0022-0025] further elaborate on the adjustment aspect of the orientation.
Dakhoul does not expressly teach a first interlocking feature, a second interlocking feature opposite the blade body, wherein the rib is positioned between the second interlocking feature and the blade body, wherein the first interlocking feature is configured to matingly engage with the second interlocking feature as claimed. However, such interlocking features would have been obvious in view of Bailey.
Figures 2-3, 8 of Bailey teach an axial fan with a first interlocking feature (49), a second interlocking feature (24) opposite the blade body (22); the first interlocking feature (49) is configured to matingly engage with the second interlocking feature (24). The second interlocking feature (24) and first interlocking feature (49) define shoulders (48, 25), which abut to prevent axial movement of the blade (14) (Col. 5, Lines 32-36, Col. 6, Lines 52-63). Thus, this will provide assistance in further retaining the blade of Dakhoul. Note that the combination will result in the limitation of the rib positioned between the second interlocking feature and the blade body, since as detailed above, the rib of Dakhoul is between the respective end where the second interlocking feature (see 24 of Bailey) would be present and the blade body.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the axial fan taught by Dakhoul with a first interlocking feature, a second interlocking feature opposite the blade body, wherein the rib is positioned between the second interlocking feature and the blade body, wherein the first interlocking feature is configured to matingly engage with the second interlocking feature as suggested by Bailey, to provide the benefit of further preventing axial movement of the blade.
Regarding Claim 13, assuming sufficient written description and as far as it is definite and understood, Dakhoul and Bailey teach the axial fan as set forth in Claim 12.
Figures 2-3 of Dakhoul teach wherein the blade (110) is configured to rotate about a central axis (vertical along center of 110 in Figure 2) of the blade (110) with the mounting boss (120) disposed within the blade cavity (formed by 146) to transition the blade (110) between the plurality of pitch angles and to engage the rib (130) with each groove (individual 148) of the plurality of grooves (148) [0019-0026].
Regarding Claim 14, assuming sufficient written description and as far as it is definite and understood, Dakhoul and Bailey teach the axial fan as set forth in Claim 13.
Figures 2-3 of Dakhoul teach wherein the rib (130) and each groove (individual 148) of the plurality of grooves (148) extends in a direction along the central axis (vertical along center of 110 in Figure 2) of the blade (110).
Regarding Claim 17, assuming sufficient written description and as far as it is definite and understood, Dakhoul and Bailey teach the axial fan as set forth in Claim 12.
Figure 2 of Dakhoul teaches a pitch indicator system configured to visually indicate a particular pitch angle of the plurality of pitch angles of the blade (110) relative to the hub (112), wherein the pitch indicator system comprises: a plurality of markings (152) corresponding to the plurality of pitch angles; and an indicator (130) configured to align with a particular marking of the plurality of markings (152) corresponding to the particular pitch angle of the plurality of pitch angles [0021]. Note that the physical structure of (130) satisfies the broadest reasonable interpretation of an indicator, since it is capable of being visually seen.
Regarding Claim 18, assuming sufficient written description and as far as it is definite and understood, Figures 1-3 of Dakhoul teach an axial fan comprising: a blade (110) comprising a blade body (see blade portion of 110 in Figure 1, above 120 in Figure 2), a mounting portion (120), and a rib (130, note paragraph [0020] states 130 may be integral with mounting portion 120) integrally formed with the mounting portion (120), positioned between an end (bottom of 120 in view of Figure 2) and the blade body, and extending radially outward from the mounting portion (120) relative to a central axis (vertical along center of 110 in Figure 2) of the blade (110); and a hub (112) comprising a first hub section (140) and a second hub section (142) configured to couple to one another to form a cavity (formed by portions 146 coming together) configured to receive the mounting portion (120) of the blade (110), wherein the first hub section (140) comprises a main body (body portion of 140) and a plurality of grooves (148) integrally formed in the main body, and wherein the rib (130) is configured to extend individually within each groove (individual 148) of the plurality of grooves (148) to orient the blade (110) at a respective pitch of a plurality of pitches corresponding to each groove (individual 148) [0017-0021]. Paragraphs [0022-0025] further elaborate on the adjustment aspect of the orientation.
Dakhoul does not expressly teach a first interlocking feature integrally formed with the mounting portion, the rib is positioned between the first interlocking feature and the blade body, a second interlocking feature formed in the main body, wherein the second interlocking feature is configured to matingly engage the first interlocking feature as claimed. However, such interlocking features would have been obvious in view of Bailey.
Figures 2-3, 8 of Bailey teach an axial fan with a first interlocking feature (24) integrally formed with the mounting portion (18), a second interlocking feature (49) formed in the main body (12, 26 being a part of 12); wherein the second interlocking feature (49) is configured to matingly engage the first interlocking feature (24). The first interlocking feature (24) and second interlocking feature (49) define shoulders (48, 25), which abut to prevent axial movement of the blade (14) (Col. 5, Lines 32-36, Col. 6, Lines 52-63). Thus, this will provide assistance in further retaining the blade of Dakhoul. Note that the combination will result in the limitation of the rib positioned between the first interlocking feature and the blade body, since as detailed above, the rib of Dakhoul is between the respective end of where the first interlocking feature (see 24 of Bailey) would be present and the blade body.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the axial fan taught by Dakhoul with a first interlocking feature integrally formed with the mounting portion, the rib is positioned between the first interlocking feature and the blade body, a second interlocking feature formed in the main body, wherein the second interlocking feature is configured to matingly engage the first interlocking feature as suggested by Bailey, to provide the benefit of further preventing axial movement of the blade.
The limitation of for a heating, ventilation and air conditioning (HVAC) system is treated as intended use of the claimed fan. The recitation with respect to the manner in which a claimed apparatus is intended to be employed does not differentiate the claimed apparatus from a prior art apparatus if the prior art apparatus teaches all the structural limitations of the claim (see MPEP 2114, II, regarding functional language). As noted above, Dakhoul and Bailey teach all the required structure of the claim. Therefore, the claim is met by the combination.
Regarding Claim 19, assuming sufficient written description and as far as it is definite and understood, Dakhoul and Bailey teach the axial fan as set forth in Claim 18.
Figures 2-3 of Dakhoul teach wherein the rib (130) and each groove (individual 148) of the plurality of grooves (148) extend in a direction along the central axis (vertical along center of 110 in Figure 2) of the blade (110), and wherein the mounting portion (120) of the blade (110) is configured to rotate within the cavity (formed by 146) and about the central axis to position the rib (130) within each groove (individual 148) of the plurality of grooves (148) and orient the blade (110) in each pitch of the plurality of pitches [0019-0026].
Claims 7-9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Dakhoul and Bailey as applied to Claim 6 above, and further in view of Haldeman et al. (US 2022/0289368 A1), hereinafter Haldeman.
Regarding Claim 7, Dakhoul and Bailey teach the axial fan as set forth in Claim 6.
Dakhoul does not expressly teach wherein the pitch indicator system comprises indicia formed in the mounting portion of the fan as claimed. However, such indicia would have been obvious in view of Haldeman.
Figure 3 of Haldeman teaches a pitch indicator system for a rotor, the system comprising indicia (A, B, C, D) formed in the mounting portion (120) of the rotor. The indicia line up with the markings (1, 2, 3, 4) on the hub (102) to form a code. As such, the pitch angle may be readily identified by aligning the position of the markings [0027, 0032]. Additionally, since the system exemplified by Haldeman also functions to represent the current orientation of the blade like markings (152) of Dakhoul (Dakhoul, [0021]), one of ordinary skill simply substituting between known systems would predictably result with an adequate pitch indicating system. Both rationales of teaching-suggestion-motivation and/or simple substitution are applicable to the combination of references. While for a different kind of rotor, the teachings of Haldeman are considered analogous art, since they are in the same field of endeavor (pitch adjustable rotors) and reasonably pertinent to a problem faced by the inventor (determination of pitch angle).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to further modify the axial fan taught by Dakhoul-Bailey with a pitch indicator system that comprises indicia formed in the mounting portion of the fan as suggested by Haldeman, to provide the benefit of implementing a system where tabular codes are used to easily identify the exact pitch. Additionally, a simply substitution between the two systems of Dakhoul and Haldeman would predictably result in a system which indicates pitch.
Regarding Claim 8, Dakhoul, Bailey, and Haldeman teach the axial fan as set forth in Claim 7.
The modification in Claim 7 by Haldeman results wherein the indicia comprise a plurality of markings (A, B, C, D), and each marking of the plurality of markings corresponds to a respective orientation of the plurality of orientations, as exemplified in Figure 3 of Haldeman. Each lined up marking represents a code that is unique to the orientation [0032].
Regarding Claim 9, Dakhoul, Bailey, and Haldeman teach the axial fan as set forth in Claim 8.
The modification in Claim 7 by Haldeman results wherein the pitch indicator system comprises an indicator (1, 2, 3, 4) formed in the hub (102), and the indicator is configured to align with a respective marking (A, B, C, D) of the plurality of markings in each orientation of the plurality of orientations, as exemplified in Figure 3 of Haldeman. The resulting code from the aligning represents the current pitch orientation [0032].
Claims 10 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Dakhoul and Bailey as applied to Claim 1 above, and further in view of Tangler et al (US 6,899,524 B1), hereinafter Tangler.
Regarding Claim 10, Dakhoul and Bailey teach the axial fan as set forth in Claim 1.
Figures 1 of Dakhoul teaches wherein the blade body (110) further comprises a blade root (portion closest to center) and a blade tip (portion furthest from center).
Dakhoul does not expressly teach the blade root is defined by a first airfoil profile, and the blade tip is defined by a second airfoil profile different from the first airfoil profile as claimed. However, differing airfoil profiles would have been obvious in view of Tangler.
Figures 2-3 of Tangler teach an axial fan where the blade root (30) is defined by a first airfoil profile, and the blade tip (20) is defined by a second airfoil profile different from the first airfoil profile (compare outline profiles of Figure 2 and 3) (Col. 3, Lines 4-7). The difference is because the tip profile needs to be thin and provide a maximum lift-to-drag ratio at high life coefficient while the root profile needs to produce high life coefficient at a zero angle of attack (Col. 1, Lines 50-61). In other words, the two portions are known to have different requirements to be met by their respective profiles.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to further modify the axial fan taught by Dakhoul-Bailey such that the blade root is defined by a first airfoil profile, and the blade tip is defined by a second airfoil profile different from the first airfoil profile as suggested by Tangler, to provide the benefit of using profiles which achieve the desired goals at their respective span positions of the blade.
Claim 11 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Dakhoul, Bailey, and Tangler as applied to Claim 10 above, and further in view of Seeley (US 10,415,581 B1), hereinafter Seeley.
Regarding Claim 11, Dakhoul, Bailey, and Tangler teach the axial fan as set forth in Claim 10.
Dakhoul, Bailey, and Tangler do not expressly teach wherein the first airfoil profile and the second airfoil profile are linearly blended with one another along a length of the blade body as claimed. However, linearly blending would have been obvious in view of Seeley.
At best, the teachings of Tangler show two airfoil profiles in Figures 2-3, but is silent regarding to the span between the two. Figure 1 of Seeley exemplifies a blade body that extends a long a span (105). Seeley explains that while the blade comprises continuously changing airfoil profiles along its span, practically, to produce one, it requires smooth blending of a number of selected shapes at appropriate spanwise locations (Col. 8, Lines 49-58). The root and tip are considered spanwise locations. Additionally, maintaining of smooth transitions is desired between different profiles. Doing so minimizes spanwise airflows and mini-vortices that result from the differences in airflow velocity (Col. 12, Lines 27-39). Thus, the formation of a blade between two given profiles is desirable to be a smooth, such as a linearly, blending transition.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the claimed invention to further modify the axial fan taught by Dakhoul-Bailey-Tangler such that the first airfoil profile and the second airfoil profile are linearly blended with one another along a length of the blade body as suggested by Seeley, to provide the benefit of practically producing the span of the blade with a smooth transition that minimizes spanwise airflows and mini-vortices.
Claims 15 and 20, assuming sufficient written description and as far as they are definite and understood, are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Dakhoul and Bailey as applied to Claims 14 and 18 above, and further in view of Tangler and Seeley.
Regarding Claim 15, Dakhoul and Bailey teach the axial fan as set forth in Claim 14.
Figures 1 of Dakhoul teaches wherein the blade body (110) further comprises a blade root (portion closest to center) and a blade tip (portion furthest from center).
Dakhoul does not expressly teach the blade root is defined by a first airfoil profile, the blade tip is defined by a second airfoil profile different from the first airfoil profile as claimed. However, differing airfoil profiles would have been obvious in view of Tangler.
Figures 2-3 of Tangler teach an axial fan where the blade root (30) is defined by a first airfoil profile, the blade tip (20) is defined by a second airfoil profile different from the first airfoil profile (compare outline profiles of Figure 2 and 3) (Col. 3, Lines 4-7). The difference is because the tip profile needs to be thin and provide a maximum lift-to-drag ratio at high life coefficient while the root profile needs to produce high life coefficient at a zero angle of attack (Col. 1, Lines 50-61). In other words, the two portions are known to have different requirements to be met by their respective profiles.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to further modify the axial fan taught by Dakhoul-Bailey such that the blade root is defined by a first airfoil profile, the blade tip is defined by a second airfoil profile different from the first airfoil profile as suggested by Tangler, to provide the benefit of using profiles which achieve the desired goals at their respective span positions of the blade.
Dakhoul, Bailey, and Tangler do not expressly teach wherein the first airfoil profile and the second airfoil profile are blended with one another along a length of the blade body as claimed. However, blending would have been obvious in view of Seeley.
At best, the teachings of Tangler show two airfoil profiles in Figures 2-3, but is silent regarding to the span between the two. Figure 1 of Seeley exemplifies a blade body that extends a long a span (105). Seeley explains that while the blade comprises continuously changing airfoil profiles along its span, practically, to produce one, it requires smooth blending of a number of selected shapes at appropriate spanwise locations (Col. 8, Lines 49-58). The root and tip are considered spanwise locations. Additionally, maintaining of smooth transitions is desired between different profiles. Doing so minimizes spanwise airflows and mini-vortices that result from the differences in airflow velocity (Col. 12, Lines 27-39). Thus, the formation of a blade between two given profiles is desirable to be a smooth blending transition.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the claimed invention to further modify the axial fan taught by Dakhoul-Bailey-Tangler such that the first airfoil profile and the second airfoil profile are blended with one another along a length of the blade body as suggested by Seeley, to provide the benefit of practically producing the span of the blade with a smooth transition that minimizes spanwise airflows and mini-vortices.
Regarding Claim 20, Dakhoul and Bailey teach the axial fan as set forth in Claim 18.
Figures 1 of Dakhoul teaches wherein the blade body (110) further comprises a blade root (portion closest to center) and a blade tip (portion furthest from center).
Dakhoul does not expressly teach the blade root is defined by a first airfoil profile, the blade tip is defined by a second airfoil profile different from the first airfoil profile as claimed. However, differing airfoil profiles would have been obvious in view of Tangler.
Figures 2-3 of Tangler teach an axial fan where the blade root (30) is defined by a first airfoil profile, the blade tip (20) is defined by a second airfoil profile different from the first airfoil profile (compare outline profiles of Figure 2 and 3) (Col. 3, Lines 4-7). The difference is because the tip profile needs to be thin and provide a maximum lift-to-drag ratio at high life coefficient while the root profile needs to produce high life coefficient at a zero angle of attack (Col. 1, Lines 50-61). In other words, the two portions are known to have different requirements to be met by their respective profiles.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to further modify the axial fan taught by Dakhoul-Bailey such that the blade root is defined by a first airfoil profile, the blade tip is defined by a second airfoil profile different from the first airfoil profile as suggested by Tangler, to provide the benefit of using profiles which achieve the desired goals at their respective span positions of the blade.
Dakhoul, Bailey, and Tangler do not expressly teach wherein the first airfoil profile and the second airfoil profile are linearly blended with one another along a length of the blade body as claimed. However, linearly blending would have been obvious in view of Seeley.
At best, the teachings of Tangler show two airfoil profiles in Figures 2-3, but is silent regarding to the span between the two. Figure 1 of Seeley exemplifies a blade body that extends a long a span (105). Seeley explains that while the blade comprises continuously changing airfoil profiles along its span, practically, to produce one, it requires smooth blending of a number of selected shapes at appropriate spanwise locations (Col. 8, Lines 49-58). The root and tip are considered spanwise locations. Additionally, maintaining of smooth transitions is desired between different profiles. Doing so minimizes spanwise airflows and mini-vortices that result from the differences in airflow velocity (Col. 12, Lines 27-39). Thus, the formation of a blade between two given profiles is desirable to be a smooth, such as linearly, blending transition.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the claimed invention to further modify the axial fan taught by Dakhoul-Bailey-Tangler such that the first airfoil profile and the second airfoil profile are linearly blended with one another along a length of the blade body as suggested by Seeley, to provide the benefit of practically producing the span of the blade with a smooth transition that minimizes spanwise airflows and mini-vortices.
Claim 16, assuming sufficient written description and as far as it is definite and understood, is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Dakhoul and Bailey as applied to Claim 12 above, and further in view of Molin et al. (US 5,545,011 A), hereinafter Molin.
Regarding Claim 16, Dakhoul and Bailey teach the axial fan as set forth in Claim 12.
Figures 2-3 of Dakhoul teach wherein the mounting boss (120) comprises a circular cross-sectional profile.
Dakhoul does not expressly teach the blade cavity comprises an oblong cross-sectional profile as claimed. However, an oblong profile would have been obvious in view of Molin.
Figure 7 of Molin teaches an axial fan wherein a circular portion of the cross-sectional profile (17) interacts with a blade cavity (9) having a portion of an oblong cross-sectional profile, due to the portions (13, 13’). The surfaces (13, 13’) provide a reactionary force as the mounting boss presses against them. The size of the reactionary force may be altered by changing the shaping of surfaces (13, 13’) as desired (Col. 4, Lines 7-23). This helps adjust the amount of friction provided to hold the boss in place (Col. 2, Lines 8-19).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to further modify the axial fan taught by Dakhoul-Bailey such that the blade cavity comprises an oblong cross-sectional profile as suggested by Molin, to control the amount of frictional force holding the mounting boss resulting from a given amount of clamping force.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ELTON K WONG whose telephone number is (408)918-7626. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri 8:00AM - 5:00PM PST.
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, Court 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.
/ELTON K WONG/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3745
Prosecution Insights