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 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.
Claim(s) 1-15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lin (US 20120148394 A1) in view of Hirata (US 20080019827 A1).
Regarding claim 1, Lin teaches of:
A centrifugal air purifier, comprising:
a main housing having an air inlet (Figs. 2-3, 200 has inlet 210d), an air outlet (212), an air duct inner wall (the inner wall is defined by the central element of the fan 202), and an air duct outer wall to define an air flow channel communicating between the air inlet and the air outlet (Figs. 3-4, see inner wall shown as the interior surface of 200 with airflow 213 flowing between the inner and outer walls), the air duct outer wall having a curved extension portion and a vertical extension portion (Fig. 4, 213a is the curved portion and the side of the inner wall downstream from 213b is the vertical extension portion);
a driving motor mounted in the main housing (Fig. 2, 230 is within the housing 200);
a centrifugal fan (Fig. 2, 202)
Lin fails to explicitly teach:
an enhanced air flow arrangement, which comprises a plurality of air guiding panels inclinedly and spacedly extending from the vertical extension portion of the air duct outer wall toward the air flow channel, an angle of inclination of each of the air guiding panels is an acute angle with respect to horizontal.
Hirata teaches of:
an enhanced air flow arrangement, which comprises a plurality of air guiding panels inclinedly and spacedly extending from the vertical extension portion of the air duct outer wall toward the air flow channel, an angle of inclination of each of the air guiding panels is an acute angle with respect to horizontal (Figs. 1-3B, 10 has panels 10a and 10b extending from the vertical section of the duct outer wall towards the flow channel, each developing an acute angle with the horizontal)
The primary reference can be modified to meet this/these limitation(s) as follows:
add the enhanced flow arrangement to the vertical section of Lin
A person of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention would have been motivated to make the above modification(s) because:
it would uniformly distribute the air over the entire outlet of the fan and would therefore increase the amount of air that can be blow out by the fan (Hirata, ¶ [0025], the amount of an air blown out of the air outlet can be dispersed uniformly over the entire area of the air outlet, and thus the amount of the air blown out of the air outlet can be increased.)
Regarding claim 2, the combined teachings teach of the centrifugal air purifier, as recited in claim 1, and the combined teachings further teach:
wherein the curved extension portion of the air duct outer wall extends from the air inlet while the vertical extension portion of the air duct outer wall extends from the curved extension portion toward the air outlet, at least a portion of the curved extension portion being opposite to the vertical extension portion, air being arranged to be driven to travel from the air inlet, and sequentially pass through the curved extension portion, the vertical extension portion, and the air outlet (Lin, Fig. 4, see beginning of curved extension portion at 210e which is opposite from the vertical extension portion, air flows from 210e, along the remained of the curved portion 213a and to the vertical extension portion and then to the outlet, as shown by arrow 213)
Regarding claim 3, the combined teachings teach of the centrifugal air purifier, as recited in claim 1, and the combined teachings further teach:
wherein the air duct inner wall and the curved extension portion of the air duct outer wall is concentrically arranged with respect to the driving motor and the centrifugal fan (Figs. 2-4, see concentric arrangement of 202 and 213a with 230 as all the element share the same central axis)
Regarding claim 4, the combined teachings teach of the centrifugal air purifier, as recited in claim 1, however, the combined teachings fail to explicitly teach:
wherein the intersection between the vertical extension portion and the curved extension portion is positioned above a center of radius of the curved extension portion.
However, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have modified Lin so that the intersection of the between the vertical and curved portions is positioned above the center of radius of the curved extension portion based on the following rationale:
it has been found that when the only difference between the prior art and the claims is the shape of the prior art device, and modification to the shape of the prior art would not modify the operation of the device, then the claims are not patentably distinct over the prior art (See MPEP 2144.04.IV). In the instant case, modifying the location of 252 shown in Fig. 4 of Lin so that it is slightly above the center of radius of the curved portion would not impact the operation of Lin as Lin makes no statement of the relative position of 252 being critical to its operation, and further Applicant has placed no criticality on the location of the intersection and simply states that if the intersection is to low or to high it would adversely impact the size of the outlet, which is not a new result and unusual result and does not reach the threshold of criticality.
Regarding claim 5, the combined teachings teach of the centrifugal air purifier, as recited in claim 4, and the combined teachings further teach:
wherein a vertical distance between the intersection between the vertical extension portion and the curved extension portion is 0 mm to 20 mm (Lin, Fig. 4, 213b is the intersection between the vertical and curved portions and there is no vertical distance between the two shown, therefore it is 0 mm)
Regarding claim 6, the combined teachings teach of the centrifugal air purifier, as recited in claim 1, and the combined teachings further teach:
wherein each of the air guiding panels has a first end connected to the vertical extension portion, and a second end extending from the first end toward the air flow channel so as to optimally reduce a cross sectional area of the air outlet for increasing a pressure of the air flowing through the air outlet (Hirata, Figs. 3A-3B, each panel 10a and 10b have a first end connected to the centrical extension and a second end at 10c that extends from the first end into the flow channel and reduces the cross sectional area of the outlet)
Regarding claim 7, the combined teachings teach of the centrifugal air purifier, as recited in claim 1, and the combined teachings further teach:
wherein an angle of inclination between each air guiding panel with respect to the horizontal gradually increases from the lowest air guiding panel to the uppermost air guiding panel along the vertical extension portion (Hirata, Fig. 4, the width between 10a and 10b increases as the panels get closer to the outlet 5 and therefore 10b has a greater angle if inclination than lower panel 10a; ¶ [0087], Moreover, the third side surface 10c--whose width W becomes greater with a closer approach to the air outlet 5)
Regarding claim 8, the combined teachings teach of the centrifugal air purifier, as recited in claim 1, however, the combined teachings fail to explicitly teach:
wherein a difference of the angle of inclination with respect to horizontal for each two adjacent air guiding panels is greater than 0 degree and less than 10 degrees.
However, a person of ordinary skill in the art could have modified the combined teachings so that the difference of the angles of inclination of the panels falls within the above claimed range based on the following rationale:
It has been found that when the only difference between the prior art and the claims was a recitation of relative dimensions of the claimed device and a device having the claimed relative dimensions would not perform differently than the prior art device, the claimed device was not patentably distinct from the prior art device (Gardner v. TEC Syst., Inc., 725 F.2d 1338, 220 USPQ 777 (Fed. Cir. 1984), cert. denied, 469 U.S. 830, 225 USPQ 232 (1984)). In the instant case, the combined teachings would not perform differently with the claim angular difference and would still increase pressure and distribute airflow uniformly at the outlet as intended by Hirata and further Applicant’s specification states that the claimed range “may” be the optimal range but is dependent on the circumstances the device is manufactures and operated (see Applicant’s specification ¶ [0044]), therefore no criticality is presented form the claimed range.
Regarding claim 9, the combined teachings teach of the centrifugal air purifier, as recited in claim 1, and the combined teachings further teach:
wherein an image projection of each of the air guiding panels on the vertical extension portion are interconnected so as to ensure a vertical distance between the first ends of two adjacent air guiding panels is within a predetermined distance for ensuring each of the air guiding panels gradually increases the air pressure as air flowing toward the air outlet (Hirata, Fig. 3A. 10a and 10b are attached to the vertical wall at a predetermined distance for the particular arrangement set forth in Hirata)
Regarding claim 10, the combined teachings teach of the centrifugal air purifier, as recited in claim 6, and the combined teachings further teach:
wherein the second end of the uppermost air guiding panel extends to the top wall at the top of the air outlet (Hirata, Fig. 3A, 10b extends to the top wall of 5)
Regarding claim 11, the combined teachings teach of the centrifugal air purifier, as recited in claim 1, and the combined teachings further teach:
wherein the enhanced air flow arrangement further comprises a volute which comprises a volute tongue provided in the main housing and extended from the air duct outer wall towards the air outlet, the volute tongue being upwardly inclinedly extend from a top end of the curved extension portion of the air duct outer wall in a direction away from the air guiding panels, the volute tongue and the air guiding panels being provided on two opposite sides of the air outlet respectively (Lin, Fig. 4, 210e is on an opposite side of the outlet from the panels as modified into Lin and further extends at an angle away from the panels)
Regarding claim 12, the combined teachings teach of the centrifugal air purifier, as recited in claim 11, however, the combined teachings fail to explicitly teach:
wherein a sum of angle of inclination of the volute tongue with respect to vertical and the angle of inclination of the uppermost air guiding panel with respect to horizontal is in a range between 90 degrees and 120 degrees.
However, a person of ordinary skill in the art could have modified the combined teachings so that the sum of an angle of inclination of the volute tongue and the angle of inclination of the uppermost air guiding panel was within the claimed range based on the following rationale:
It has been found that when the only difference between the prior art and the claims was a recitation of relative dimensions of the claimed device and a device having the claimed relative dimensions would not perform differently than the prior art device, the claimed device was not patentably distinct from the prior art device (Gardner v. TEC Syst., Inc., 725 F.2d 1338, 220 USPQ 777 (Fed. Cir. 1984), cert. denied, 469 U.S. 830, 225 USPQ 232 (1984)). In the instant case, the combined teachings would not perform differently with the claim angular sum and further Applicant’s specification provides no criticality for the claimed range and simply states that it is for optimal performance of the system which is not a new or unusual outcome and does not reach the threshold of criticality.
Regarding claim 13, the combined teachings teach of the centrifugal air purifier, as recited in claim 12, and the combined teachings further teach:
wherein the volute further comprises a volute center connected to the volute tongue, wherein the angle of inclination of the volute tongue with respect to horizontal is greater than an angle of inclination between an imaginary vertical line passing through the volute center and an imaginary tangent line extending from the air duct inner wall by 5 degrees to 10 degrees (see rationale utilized above, applicant has placed no criticality on the claimed angular range and the combined teachings would not operate differently with the claimed range and therefore such a modification to the combined teachings to have the claimed range would be obvious)
Regarding claim 14, the combined teachings teach of the centrifugal air purifier, as recited in claim 13, and the combined teachings further teach:
wherein a vertical distance between the first end of the lowest air guiding panel and the volute center is approximately zero (see rationale utilized above, applicant has placed no criticality on the claimed dimension and the combined teachings would not operate differently with the claimed dimension and therefore such a modification to the combined teachings to have the claimed dimension would be obvious)
Regarding claim 15, Lin teaches of:
A centrifugal air duct, comprising:
an air inlet (Figs. 1-4, 210d);
an air outlet (212);
an air duct inner wall (202) and an air duct outer wall to define an air flow channel communicating between the air inlet and the air outlet (see inner wall shown as the interior surface of 200 with airflow 213 flowing between the inner and outer walls), the air duct outer wall having a curved extension portion and a vertical extension portion (213a is the curved portion and the side of the inner wall downstream from 213b is the vertical extension portion)
Lin fails to explicitly teach:
an enhanced air flow arrangement, which comprises a plurality of air guiding panels inclinedly and spacedly extending from the vertical extension portion of the air duct outer wall toward the air flow channel, an angle of inclination of each of the air guiding panels is an acute angle with respect to horizontal.
Hirata teaches of:
an enhanced air flow arrangement, which comprises a plurality of air guiding panels inclinedly and spacedly extending from the vertical extension portion of the air duct outer wall toward the air flow channel, an angle of inclination of each of the air guiding panels is an acute angle with respect to horizontal (Figs. 1-3B, 10 has panels 10a and 10b extending from the vertical section of the duct outer wall towards the flow channel, each developing an acute angle with the horizontal)
The primary reference can be modified to meet this/these limitation(s) as follows:
add the enhanced flow arrangement to the vertical section of Lin
A person of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention would have been motivated to make the above modification(s) because:
it would uniformly distribute the air over the entire outlet of the fan and would therefore increase the amount of air that can be blow out by the fan (Hirata, ¶ [0025], the amount of an air blown out of the air outlet can be dispersed uniformly over the entire area of the air outlet, and thus the amount of the air blown out of the air outlet can be increased.)
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MICHAEL J GIORDANO whose telephone number is (571)272-8940. The examiner can normally be reached M-Fr 8 AM - 5 PM 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.
/MICHAEL JAMES GIORDANO/Examiner, Art Unit 3762
/STEVEN B MCALLISTER/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3762