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 .
Response to Amendment
The amendment submitted 12/04/2025 has been entered. Claims 1-2, 4, 6-11, 13, 18, and 20-24 remain pending.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 12/04/2025 have been fully considered and were found persuasive. However, the amendments to the claims have changed the scope of the claims necessitating new grounds of rejection. Please see new grounds of rejection below.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claim(s) 1-2, 6, 9, 11, and 21-22 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 8172524 to Uchise in view of US 4482302 to Grignon as evidenced by US 4221546 to Papst.
(a) Regarding claim 1:
(i) Uchise discloses an air blowing device (see title) comprising:
a stator vane including a fixed hub (supporting body 16, Fig 1) and a plurality of fixed blades (stationary vanes 17, Fig 1) that protrude radially outward from the fixed hub and are circumferentially spaced apart from one another (Fig 1); and
a rotor vane (impeller 12, Fig 1) including a plurality of rotary blades (rotating vanes 12a, Fig 1) and disposed upstream of the stator vane (Fig 1),
the fixed blade having a chord line (line from leading to trailing edges of stationary vanes 17, Figs 2-4) inclined downstream in a rotation direction of the rotor vane throughout a radial direction (Figs 2-4),
an average of an installation angle (complementary angle of angle θ, Figs 2-4) on an outer peripheral side of the fixed blade from a midpoint of a straight line extending in the radial direction from an outer peripheral end of an upstream edge of the fixed blade to an outer peripheral surface of the fixed hub being less than an average of the installation angle on an inner peripheral side of the fixed blade from the midpoint of the straight line (Figs 2-4 in view of Figs 1/7/9),
where the installation angle is formed by the chord line of the fixed blade with respect to a plane perpendicular to an axis (plane V, Figs 2-4),
the rotary blade having a chord line inclined upstream in the rotation direction throughout the radial direction (Figs 2-4),
wherein the fixed blade includes an outer peripheral end connected to an annular shroud (outer casing 15, Fig 1), and
the annular shroud including an inclined portion (flare portion 15b, Fig 1).
(ii) Uchise does not disclose:
the annular shroud including an upstream inclined portion and a downstream inclined portion,
the downstream inclined portion being downstream from the upstream inclined portion,
the upstream inclined portion having a first incline,
the downstream inclined portion having a second incline less than the incline of the upstream incline portion,
the fixed blade being attached to the annular shroud at the upstream inclined portion and the downstream inclined portion,
the upstream inclined portion having an upstream inclined surface which is straight in a radial cross-section and the downstream inclined portion having a downstream inclined surface which is straight in the radial cross-section,
the upstream incline surface and the downstream incline surface being directly adjacent.
(iii) Grignon is also in the field of fans (see title) and teaches an air blowing device comprising:
a fixed blade (2/102) extending radially outward from a hub (Figs 2/6),
the fixed blade includes an outer peripheral end connected to an annular shroud (junction portion 13/113/213a, Figs 2/6/8),
the annular shroud including an upstream inclined portion (inclined portion of junction portion 13/113/213a nearest cylindrical portion 9/109/209, Figs 5-6/8) and a downstream inclined portion (inclined portion of junction portion 13/113/213a nearest outlet face 11/111/211a, Figs 5-6/8),
the downstream inclined portion being downstream from the upstream inclined portion (Figs 5-6/8),
the upstream inclined portion having a first incline (inclined relative to an axis of rotation, Figs 5-6/8),
the downstream inclined portion having a second incline less than the incline of the upstream incline portion (portion of downstream portion adjacent outlet 11/111/211 inclined less relative to an axis of rotation than upstream portion near inflection point 16, Figs 5-6/8),
the fixed blade being attached to the annular shroud at the upstream inclined portion and the downstream inclined portion (junction portion 13/113/213a are S-shaped sections having a point of inflection at the midpoint of the axial length of the junction portion, i.e. the transition from the upstream inclined portion to the downstream inclined portion at an axial midpoint of the junction portion; arms 2/102 extends towards the interior of the fan housing over approximately three-quarters the axial length of the junction portion, i.e. the fixed blade extends across the downstream inclined portion and the upstream inclined portion; Col 2 Lns 2-9; best shown using corresponding structures of a first embodiment comprising arms 2, junction portion 13, inflection point 16, Figs 2/5),
the upstream inclined portion having an upstream inclined surface which is straight in a radial cross-section (surface of junction portion 13/113/213a immediately adjacent and upstream of inflection point 16, Fig 5; reasonably disclosed to be straight, Figs 5-6/8) and the downstream inclined portion having a downstream inclined surface which is straight in the radial cross-section (surface of junction portion 13/113/213a immediately adjacent and downstream of inflection point 16, Fig 5; reasonably disclosed to be straight, Figs 5-6/8),
the upstream incline surface and the downstream incline surface being directly adjacent (at inflection point 16, Figs 2/5).
(iv) It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the inclined portion as disclosed by Uchise with the above aforementioned upstream inclined portion and downstream inclined portion as taught by Grignon for the purpose of reducing a noise level of the air blowing device (see abstract) and preventing separation of airflow from the fixed blade (Col 2 Lns 19-30).
(v) Uchise as modified by Grignon does not teach wherein the upstream and downstream inclined surfaces are entirely straight.
(vi) Applicant has disclosed no criticality (e.g. Par 0071 of Applicant’s specification), nor any new or unexpected results, from having the upstream and downstream inclined surfaces be entirely straight and the prior art would perform the same having upstream and downstream inclined surfaces that are entirely straight. Mere changes in shape support a prima facie obviousness determination, see MPEP 2144.04(IV)(B). Moreover, having upstream and downstream inclined surfaces which are entirely straight is well known in the art, as evidenced by Papst (diffuser section 34 and surface downstream of diffuser section 34, Fig 3 and unlabeled in Fig 8).
(vii) It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the upstream and downstream inclined surfaces as taught by the combined teachings of Uchise as modified by Grignon to be entirely straight as claimed as an obvious matter of design choice arriving at a configuration that is well known in the art as evidenced by Papst.
(b) Regarding claim 2:
(i) Uchise as modified by Grignon as evidenced by Papst teaches the air blowing device of claim 1.
(ii) Uchise further discloses wherein the installation angle decreases gradually from the inner peripheral side toward the outer peripheral side of the fixed blade (Figs 2-4).
(c) Regarding claim 6:
(i) Uchise as modified by Grignon as evidenced by Papst teaches the air blowing device of claim 1.
(ii) Uchise further discloses wherein the shroud includes a downstream end having an inner peripheral surface constituting an inclined surface inclined downstream toward the outer peripheral side (flare portion 15b, Fig 1).
(d) Regarding claim 9:
(i) Uchise as modified by Grignon as evidenced by Papst teaches the air blowing device of claim 1.
(ii) Uchise further discloses a motor (motor 13, Fig 1) configured to rotate the rotor vane (Col 4 Lns 12-15), the motor being attached to the fixed hub (Col 3 Lns 51-52; Fig 1).
(e) Regarding claim 11:
(i) Uchise as modified by Grignon as evidenced by Papst teaches the air blowing device of claim 1.
(ii) Uchise does not disclose an air conditioning system comprising: the air blowing device of claim 1.
(iii) The limitation of “an air conditioning system” represents an intended use/function of the air blowing device of claim 1. Since the air blowing device of Uchise discloses all structural limitations of the air blowing device of claim 1 the air blowing device of Uchise is capable of performing the intended use/function as claimed.
(f) Regarding claims 21-22:
(i) Uchise as modified by Grignon as evidenced by Papst teaches the air blowing device of claims 1 and 2.
(ii) Uchise further discloses
wherein the installation angle at an inner peripheral end of the upstream edge of the fixed blade is greater by 14 or more degrees than the installation angle at the outer peripheral end of the upstream edge of the fixed blade (difference in installation angle between at least cross sections A and C are reasonably disclosed in Figs 2-4 as being far greater than 14 degrees).
Claim(s) 4, 13, and 23 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 8172524 to Uchise in view of US 4482302 to Grignon as evidenced by US 4221546 to Papst as applied to claims 1, 2, and 21 above, and further in view of US 10578322 to Sato.
(a) Regarding claims 4, 13, and 23:
(i) Uchise as modified by Grignon as evidenced by Papst teaches the air blowing device of claims 1, 2, and 21.
(ii) Uchise further discloses wherein in a circumferential sectional view, an angle formed by a centerline and the axis at a downstream end of the fixed blade (must exist as defined) and where the centerline extends through a center of the fixed blade in a thickness direction (must exist as defined).
(iii) Uchise does not disclose wherein the angle formed by a centerline and the axis at a downstream end of the fixed blade is constant throughout the radial direction.
(iv) Sato is also in the field of fans (see abstract) and teaches wherein in a circumferential sectional view, an angle (outflow angle θ2, Fig 12) formed by a centerline and an axis (rotational axis P, Fig 13a) at a downstream end of the fixed blade (fixed blade 60, Figs 13a-13c) in a thickness direction (Figs 13a-13c), is constant throughout the radial direction (Fig 12).
(v) It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the angle formed by a centerline and the axis at a downstream end of the fixed blade as disclosed by Miyazawa to be constant throughout the radial direction as taught by Sato for the purpose of suppressing disorder of the air current discharged from the fixed blade thereby suppressing noise (Col 15 Lns 48-50/54-60).
Claim(s) 7, 18, and 24 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 8172524 to Uchise in view of US 4482302 to Grignon as evidenced by US 4221546 to Papst as applied to claims 1, 2, and 21 above, and further in view of US 9790959 to Briand.
(a) Regarding claims 7, 18, and 24:
(i) Uchise as modified by Grignon as evidenced by Papst teaches the air blowing device of claims 1, 2, and 21.
(ii) Uchise does not disclose wherein the number of the fixed blades and the number of the rotary blades are mutually prime.
(iii) Briand is also in the field of fans (see title) and teaches wherein a number of fixed blades and a number of rotary blades are mutually prime (Col 7 Lns 46-50).
(iv) It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the number of the fixed blades and the number of the rotary blades as disclosed by Uchise to be mutually prime as taught by Briand for the purpose of reducing resonance phenomenon that generates noise (Col 7 Lns 48-50).
Claim(s) 8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 8172524 to Uchise in view of US 4482302 to Grignon as evidenced by US 4221546 to Papst as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of US 6139265 to Alizadeh.
(a) Regarding claim 8:
(i) Uchise as modified by Grignon as evidenced by Papst teaches the air blowing device of claim 1.
(ii) Uchise does not disclose wherein the rotary blade includes an outer peripheral end connected to a ring.
(iii) Alizadeh teaches a rotary blade (blade 100, Fig 5) which includes an outer peripheral end connected to a ring (blade tip support ring 101 comprising cylindrical portion 102 and outwardly-belled portion 103, Fig 5).
(iv) It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the outer peripheral end of the rotary blade as disclosed by Uchise to be connected to a ring as taught by Alizadeh for the purpose of adding stiffness to the fan structure and reducing tip vortices (Col 5 Lns 51-56).
Claim(s) 10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 8172524 to Uchise in view of US 4482302 to Grignon as evidenced by US 4221546 to Papst as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of US 11668196 to Gea Aguilera.
(a) Regarding claim 10:
(i) Uchise as modified by Grignon as evidenced by Papst teaches the air blowing device of claim 1.
(ii) Uchise does not disclose wherein the upstream edge of the fixed blade has serrations.
(iii) Gea Aguilera is also in the field of stationary blades (Col 1 Lns 17-18/21-24) and teaches wherein an upstream edge (leading edge 164, Fig 6) of a fixed blade (outlet guide vane or OGV 126, Fig 6) has serrations (serrations 28, Fig 6).
(iv) It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified an upstream edge of the fixed blade as disclosed by Uchise with the above aforementioned serrations as taught by Gea Aguilera for the purpose of avoiding aero-acoustic problems of interaction with the airflow thereby reducing noise (Col 1 Lns 39-46).
Claim(s) 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 8172524 to Uchise in view of US 4482302 to Grignon as evidenced by US 4221546 to Papst in further view of US 10578322 to Sato as applied to claim 4 above, and further in view of US 9790959 to Briand.
(a) Regarding claim 20:
(i) Uchise as modified by Grignon as further modified by Sato teaches the air blowing device of claim 4.
(ii) Uchise does not disclose wherein the number of the fixed blades and the number of the rotary blades are mutually prime.
(iii) Briand is also in the field of fans (see title) and teaches wherein a number of fixed blades and a number of rotary blades are mutually prime (Col 7 Lns 46-50).
(iv) It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the number of the fixed blades and the number of the rotary blades as disclosed by Uchise to be mutually prime as taught by Briand for the purpose of reducing resonance phenomenon that generates noise (Col 7 Lns 48-50)
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 Justin A Pruitt whose telephone number is (571)272-8383. The examiner can normally be reached T-F 8:30am - 6:30pm.
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, Nathaniel Wiehe can be reached at (571) 272-8648. 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.
/JUSTIN A PRUITT/Examiner, Art Unit 3745
/NATHANIEL E WIEHE/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3745