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 .
Claim Objections
Claim 1 objected to because of the following informalities: Claim 1 recites "a wall that supports and encloses a fan..." while it appears in applicant's figures that the wall does not support the fan. Further, the claim recites "the outer extension upwardly from the wall. Appropriate correction is required.
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.
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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claim(s) 1-4, 11-13, and 17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Degenhardt et al. (US 2016/0348693 A1) in view of Sharma et al. (US 2010/0248605 A1).
Regarding claim 1, Degenhardt teaches a housing (Degenhardt 1) for an HVAC blower, comprising:
A wall (see Degenhardt figure 1) that supports and encloses a fan (Degenhardt 8) within an internal volume therein, the wall defines an inlet aperture (Degenhardt 2) that direct airflow into a suction inlet of the fan (see Degenhardt figure 1) such that rotation of the fan urges air into the internal volume through the inlet aperture;
The inlet aperture is defined by an outer boundary (Degenhardt 3, 4, and 5), the outer boundary formed within the wall (see Degenhardt figure 2), and includes an outer extension (Degenhardt 3);
The outer extension extends upwardly from the wall around the entire circumference of the wall that forms the inlet aperture (see Degenhardt figure 1);
Degenhardt is silent regarding a grill extending across the inlet aperture.
However, Sharma teaches a housing (Sharma 38 and 98) for an HVAC blower comprising:
A wall (see annotated figure) that encloses a fan (Sharma 40) within an internal volume therein (see Sharma figure 11), the wall defines an inlet aperture (see Sharma figure 11) that directs air into a suction inlet of the fan (see Sharma figure 11) such that rotation of the fan urges air into the internal volume through the inlet aperture;
A grill (Sharma 54) that comprises a plurality of legs (see Sharma figure 10) that are arranged thereon to establish a plurality of openings (Sharma 74) therein to allow air flow therethrough, wherein a shape of the grill is established by the collective shape of the plurality of legs and the openings established by the plurality of legs (see Sharma figure 10);
And a filter (Sharma 52) is configured to be supported by the grill (see Sharma figure 11).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to modify Degenhardt’s housing to incorporate Sharma’s teachings of a grill supporting a filter to produce a predictable result of preventing debris from entering the air conditioner thereby protecting the fan and other downstream HVAC equipment and also improving the air quality.
Regarding claim 2, Degenhardt and Sharma as applied to claim 1 further teaches the outer extension comprises an inner side wall (see annotated figure), a top portion (see annotated figure), and an outer side wall (see annotated figure), wherein the inner side wall is proximate to the inlet aperture and the outer side wall is away from the inlet aperture and transitions to the wall (see Sharma figure 2).
PNG
media_image1.png
292
635
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Sharma figure 2 (annotated)
Regarding claim 3, Degenhardt and Sharma as applied to claim 2 further teach the outer extension (Degenhardt 3, 4, and 5) have a uniform cross-section as the outer extension extends along an entire circumference of the inlet aperture (see Degenhardt figure 1).
Regarding claim 4, Degenhardt and Sharma as applied to claim 2 teach the outer extension has a radius of 5.5mm (Degenhardt [0040]) therefore it has a diameter in between the inner side wall and outer sidewall of 11mm.
Regarding claim 11, Degenhardt and Sharma as applied to claim 2 teach the top wall transitions from the inner side wall and the outer side wall (see Degenhardt figure 2) and the top wall portion includes a curved portion (see Degenhardt figure 2).
Regarding claim 12, Degenhardt and Sharma are silent regarding the center of the top wall being planar.
However, applicant’s specification is silent regarding any advantage to a planar portion of the top wall between curved portions that connect to the side walls and a court has held that a change of shape is obvious absent evidence the particular configuration is significant. In re Dailey, 357 F.2d 669, 149 USPQ 47 (CCPA 1966)
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to modify the top wall to have a planar center portion to produce a predictable result of decreasing the inner diameter of the opening without altering the outer dimension of the outer extension.
Regarding claim 13, Degenhardt and Sharma as applied to claim 2 teach the inner side wall is curved (see Sharma figure 2).
Degenhardt and Sharma are silent regarding the inner side wall having a first straight portion that transitions to a second portion with a different profile that transitions to the top portion.
However, applicant’s specification is silent regarding any advantage to first portion and second portion forming the inner side wall and a court has held that a change of shape is obvious absent evidence the particular configuration is significant. In re Dailey, 357 F.2d 669, 149 USPQ 47 (CCPA 1966)
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to modify the inner side wall to have a first portion that is straight and a second portion with a different profile to produce a predictable result of increasing the height of the outer extension without needing to alter the radius of the curved portion.
Regarding claim 17, Degenhardt and Sharma as applied to claim 13 teaches the outer side wall includes a first portion that transitions form the wall (see annotated figure) , wherein the first portion is straight for at least a majority of its length.
PNG
media_image2.png
226
626
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Degenhardt figure 2 (annotated)
Claim(s) 5-6 and 8-9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Degenhardt et al. (US 2016/0348693 A1) and Sharma et al. (US 2010/0248605 A1) as applied to claim 2 above, and further in view of Hirose et al. (JP 2019-19762 A).
Regarding claim 5, Degenhardt and Sharma as applied to claim 2 teach the height of the outer boundary is 5.5 mm (Degenhardt [0040]).
However, Hirose teaches a blower module (see figure 2) comprising an outer extension (Hirose 123 and 125) around an inlet (Hirose 121) configured to reduce noise generating turbulent airflow by preventing radial airflow (Hirose [0060]-[0066]) and teaches height is correlated with the flow rectifying effect (Hirose [0078]).
Therefore, one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing would have understood the height of the outer extension is a results effective variable that increases airflow rectification and thereby reduces turbulence and associated undesirable noise and would therefore have optimized the height of Degenhardt’s outer extension by selecting a height of at least 10 mm to reduce turbulence and noise generated by airflow entering the housing.
Regarding claim 6, Degenhardt and Sharma as applied to claim 2 teach the height of the outer boundary is 5.5 mm (Degenhardt [0040]).
Degenhardt and Sharma as applied to claim 2 are silent regarding the outer extension having a second portion that extends to a height of at least 10mm above the position where the wall transitions into the outer side wall.
However, Hirose teaches a blower module (see figure 2) comprising an outer extension (Hirose 123 and 125) around an inlet (Hirose 121) with a first continuous portion (Hirose 123) and a second continuous portion (Hirose 125) that extends to a height of 6mm (Hirose [0048]) above the first portion and the second portion limits oblique airflows (Hirose [0051]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to modify Degenhardt’s outer extension to incorporate Hirose’s teaching of an upward extension with two portions, one 6mm taller than the first portion to produce a predictable result of limiting oblique airflow into the inlet to limit turbulence. Examiner notes that Hirose’s 6mm second portion atop Degenhardt’s 5.5mm outer extension will be greater than 10mm tall.
Regarding claim 8, Degenhardt, Sharma, and Hirose as applied to claim 6 teach the first continuous portion (Hirose 123) extends over greater than half of the circumference of the inlet aperture (see Hirose figure 3) and the second continuous portion (Hirose 125) extends over the remaining portion of the circumference of the inlet aperture.
Regarding claim 9, Degenhardt, Sharma, and Hirose as applied to claim 2 teach the inlet aperture is round (see Degenhardt figure 1) and the diameter of the inlet aperture is 105mm (Degenhardt [0040]).
However, Degenhardt further teaches diameter’s up to 110mm are acceptable (Degenhardt [0049]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to select a diameter of 110mm to limit noise generation without limiting airflow as much as smaller diameter openings (see Degenhardt table at end of paragraph [0057]).
Claim(s) 10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Degenhardt et al. (US 2016/0348693 A1) and Sharma et al. (US 2010/0248605 A1) as applied to claim 2 above, and further in view of Applicant's admission in specification.
Regarding claim 10, Degenhardt and Sharma are silent regarding the grill having a spherically shaped outer circumference.
However, in applicant’s figures 2a and 2b show a spherically shaped grill that extends to a height exceeding that of an outer extension.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to modify Degenhardt’s grill to have a spherical shape to direct airflow from different directions all towards the center of the inlet.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 7, 14-16, and 18-20 objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter: Current prior art of record is silent regarding slopes between the two continuous portions of the outer extension as recited in claim 7, the angles of the first portions recited in claims 14-16, and 18, and is further silent regarding the combination of width, height, and diameter recited in claims 19 and 20.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to CHARLES R BRAWNER whose telephone number is (571)272-0228. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 8:00am - 4:30pm EST.
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, Steve McAllister can be reached at 571-272-6785. 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.
/CHARLES R BRAWNER/ Examiner, Art Unit 3762
/STEVEN B MCALLISTER/ Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3762