DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
1. 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
2. This Office Action is responsive to the amendment filed on 03/23/2026. Applicant arguments have been fully considered and are persuasive. The Rejection of 01/15/2026 has been withdrawn upon further consideration. As directed by the amendment: claims 15-6 and 11 have been amended, no claims have been canceled, and no claims have been added. Thus, claims 1-12 are currently pending in this application.
Claim Objections
3. In light of Applicant's Amendment of 03/23/2026, the objection to claim 5 set forth in the Office Action of 01/15/2026, is hereby withdrawn.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
4. In light of Applicant's Amendment of 03/23/2026, the rejection of claims 6 and 11 under 35 U.S.C. §112, second paragraph, set forth in the Office Action of 01/15/2026, is hereby withdrawn.
5. In light of Applicant's Amendment of 03/23/2026, the rejection of claim 11 under 35 U.S.C. §112, 4th paragraph, set forth in the Office Action of 01/15/2026, is hereby withdrawn
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
6. 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 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.
7. 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 set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 148 USPQ 459 (1966), that are applied 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.
8. Claims 1-4, 6 and 9-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Findeisen et al. (hereinafter “Findeisen”) (Pub. No.: US 2021/0148277 A1) in view of Muramatsu et al. (hereinafter “Muramatsu”) (JP2006217748A cited in IDS filed 09/10/2026).
Regarding claim 1, Findeisen discloses a radiator fan module (radiator fan module 10, as stated in Abstract) for a motor vehicle, the radiator fan module comprising:
a fan shroud (shroud ring 2a that is formed as a single piece with the fan shroud 2, as presented in Paragraphs [0046] &[0048]) having a fan impeller aperture (as shown in annotated Figure 4) formed therein;
a motor support (motor holder 3 which is arranged within the fan wheel recess 4 and which is mechanically connected to the fan shroud 2 by means of struts 7, as stated in Paragraph [0046]) disposed within said fan impeller aperture (the motor holder 3 is undoubtedly being arranged within the fan impeller aperture FIA), for an electric motor (electric motor 5, see Paragraph [0046]), having a support-side housing part (support-side housing SSH3, as illustrated in annotated Figure 1) and having a plurality of struts (having the struts 7 that are arranged on a downstream side of the fan shroud 2, as discussed in Paragraph [0046]-[0047] &[0049]) that are connected to said fan shroud (the plurality of struts extending between the motor holder and a portion of the fan shroud; as stated in claim 15; the motor holder 3 is mechanically connected to the fan shroud 2 by means of struts 7, as discussed in Paragraphs [0046]-[0047])
a fan impeller (fan wheel 6) disposed in said fan impeller aperture (fan wheel 6, which is arranged in the fan wheel recess 4 or within fan impeller aperture FIA, as illustrated in annotated Figure 4 and being rotationally driven by the motor 5, as detailed in Paragraph [0046]), and is driven in rotation about an axis of rotation (the fan wheel 6 is surely driven about an axis of rotation of the fan wheel 6), said fan impeller (fan wheel 6) having a hub-side housing part (hub-side housing part HSH6, as depicted in annotated Figure 4) and a plurality of radially outwardly directed radiator fan blades (radially outwardly directed radiator fan blades FB6, as best seen in annotated Figure 4) disposed on said hub-side housing part (as shown in annotated Figure 4, the radiator fan blades FB6 are surely disposed on the hub-side housing part HSH6).
PNG
media_image1.png
598
815
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Particularly, Findeisen demonstrates the radiator fan module, wherein, as stated in Paragraph [0052], “the ring-shaped structural element 8 is arranged at least partially within the gap S. Furthermore, the ring-shaped structural element 8 has the gap cross section reduction portion 8d, mentioned in the introduction, which is in particular formed as a single piece with the ring-shaped structural element 8 and which extends, in a radial cross section, in the direction of the fan wheel 6, in particular in the direction of an outer ring of the fan wheel 6, and which is inclined at an angle α relative to the adjoining portion of the ring-shaped structural element 8, wherein the angle α is spanned in a radial plane in which the axis of rotation also extends and amounts to at least substantially 90° in the present case”.
PNG
media_image2.png
634
826
media_image2.png
Greyscale
However, although Findeisen discloses the majority of the Applicant’s claimed invention, he is silent as to the fact said support-side housing part and said hub-side housing part have different diameters.
Nonetheless, fan motors having a claimed structure are well known in the art, as taught by Muramatsu.
Muramatsu in the same field of endeavor teaches another fan module, wherein, as stated in Abstract, The fan motor includes a fan boss 72 that is fixed coaxially with a rotor 20 and is integrally rotated and houses in it the rotor 20, a stator unit 30, and a heat sink 40; and fan blades 76 that are integrally provided on the outer circumferential surface of the fan boss 72, and form an air flow F in the direction of the rotating shaft from the bottom 77 to the opening 78 of the fan boss 72. The opening 78 of the fan boss 72 is positioned in proximity to the heat sink 40. Since fresh air can be efficiently applied to the heat sink 40, the cooling efficiency of the heat sink 40 can be enhanced. Thus, the thickness of the heat sink 40 can be reduced, and the size of the brushless fan motor 10 can be reduced in the direction of its rotating shaft.
Muramatsu, in Paragraphs [0013]-[0017], specifically teaches as how: the side of the fan boss that is closer to the opening becomes the positive pressure side, and the side of the fan boss that is closer to the bottom becomes the negative pressure side.
Furthermore, the fan boss openings are positioned near the heatsink, allowing air to flow in through these openings and efficiently deliver fresh air to the heatsink. Therefore, even if the heatsink is housed inside the fan boss to ensure the fan motor's airflow efficiency, the cooling efficiency of the heatsink can be improved. As a result, the heatsink can be made thinner, which makes it possible to achieve miniaturization of the fan motor in the direction of its rotation axis. In this case, as described in claim 2, if a vent is provided on the bottom side of the fan boss, below the fan blades, that connects the inside and outside of the fan boss, the vent is connected to the negative pressure side of the fan boss in the airflow, making it possible to excite the discharge of air from inside the motor through this vent. This ensures sufficient airflow to cool the inside of the motor, including the heatsink, thereby further improving the cooling efficiency of the motor. Furthermore, as described in claim 3, if a circumferential gap is formed between the outer surface of the heat sink and the inner surface of the fan boss that communicates with the positive pressure side of the fan boss in the airflow, an air passage is formed between the heat sink and the stator in the direction of rotation axis that communicates with the circumferential gap, a connecting passage is formed in the stator that communicates with the air passage, a ventilation passage is provided in the rotor that communicates with the connecting passage via an air gap, and a vent is provided on the bottom side of the fan boss below the fan blades that connects the ventilation passage to the outside of the fan boss, then a passage for air to flow inside the motor is reliably secured, thereby further improving the cooling efficiency inside the motor, including the heat sink.
PNG
media_image3.png
358
866
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Muramatsu, in Paragraph [0034], successfully performs as how “The heat sink 40 is positioned on the opposite side of the stator unit 30 from the rotor 20, and an air passage 41 is provided between the heat sink 40 and the stator unit 30, which communicates with a circumferential gap 44, described later. As shown in Figure 8, multiple protrusions 42 serving as heat dissipation fins are provided on the flat surface of the heat sink 40 facing the stator unit 30. This projection 42 is composed of a cylindrical body that protrudes into the air passage 41.
As best seen immediately above, Muramatsu explicitly exhibits as how a support-side housing part or heat sink 40 and the hub-side housing part or fan boss 72 have different diameters.
With reference to annotated Figure 3, Muramatsu explicitly exhibits as how the support-side housing part or heat sink 40 and fan boss 72, which is designated as the hub-side housing part, including inner and outer sections with different diameters and different lengths.
Essentially, Muramatsu’s radiator fan module is designed such that said support-side housing part, which is defined by the heat sink 40, or said hub-side housing part, which is defined by the fan boss 72) that has a greater diameter overlaps the other of said support-side housing part or said hub-side housing part, with an air gap being formed.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the teaching of using a fan motor, as taught by Muramatsu, to the impeller blades of Findeisen in order to further provide a fan motor that can achieve both improved cooling efficiency inside the motor and miniaturization in the direction of rotation, as motivated by Muramatsu in Paragraph [0010].
Thus, the combination of Findeisen and Muramatsu appears to disclose all aspects of Applicant's claimed invention.
Regarding claim 2, Findeisen and Muramatsu substantially disclose the radiator fan module, as claimed and detailed above. Additionally, in Paragraph [0009], Findeisen states: a motor holder which is arranged within the fan wheel recess and which is mechanically connected to the fan shroud by means of struts, a motor, such as an electric motor, which is at least partially held in the motor holder, and a fan wheel which is arranged in the fan wheel recess and which is driven in rotation by the motor.
PNG
media_image4.png
628
767
media_image4.png
Greyscale
Especially, in Paragraph [0028], Findeisen further specifies: the struts are arranged on an upstream side of the fan shroud. This is of importance because the arrangement of the struts on the upstream or downstream side of the fan shroud, in other words on the suction side or the pressure side of the fan wheel, leads to significantly different flow characteristics, which must be taken into consideration in the design process. In one or more embodiments of the present disclosure, the separately formed ring-shaped structural element is arranged on that side of the fan shroud which is situated opposite the struts. This is advantageous in particular because, in this way, the connecting points between fan shroud and struts do not have to be taken into consideration, but rather a body which is at least substantially rotationally symmetrical in the region of the shroud ring may be used as a basis.
Furthermore, in Paragraph [0046], Findeisen notes: The cooling fan module 10 in the illustrated embodiment has: a fan shroud 2, a fan wheel recess 4 which is formed in the fan shroud 2, wherein the fan wheel recess 4 is delimited by a shroud ring 2 a, a motor holder 3 which is arranged within the fan wheel recess 4 and which is mechanically connected to the fan shroud 2 by means of struts 7, a motor 5, in particular electric motor 5, which is at least partially held in the motor holder 3, and a fan wheel 6 which is arranged in the fan wheel recess 4 and which is driven in rotation by the motor 5, wherein the cooling fan module furthermore has a separately formed, ring-shaped structural element 8 which is arranged on the shroud ring 2a.
As such, according to the combination, with reference to annotated Figure 1, one skilled in the art would surely recognize that said struts 7 or plurality of structs 7 of said motor support or motor holder 3 being disposed in front of said radially outwardly directed radiator fan blades of the fan wheel 6 in relation to a main flow direction or air flow direction L, as instantly claimed.
Regarding claim 3, Findeisen and Muramatsu substantially disclose the radiator fan module, as claimed and detailed above. Additionally, as best seen immediately below, Muramatsu evidently illustrates that the housing parts have different diameters.
PNG
media_image5.png
405
907
media_image5.png
Greyscale
In other words, according to the combination, Muramatsu explicitly exhibits as how a diameter of said support-side housing part is greater than a diameter of the hub-side housing part and/or DH5/3 of said hub-side housing part HSH6 is greater than the diameter D6 and/or DH5/6 of said support-side housing part SSH3, as instantly claimed.
Regarding claim 4, Findeisen and Muramatsu substantially disclose the radiator fan module, as claimed and detailed above.
Additionally, as depicted in annotated Figure 2, Findeisen evidently illustrates that said support-side housing part SSH3 has a housing wall or housing edge extending in an axial direction.
PNG
media_image6.png
520
612
media_image6.png
Greyscale
In fact, according to the combination, with reference to annotated Figure 3, Muramatsu explicitly exhibits as how said support-side housing part having a housing wall extending in an axial direction, which would be overlapping a housing wall, extending in an opposite direction, of said hub-side housing part; or said hub-side housing part has said housing wall or said housing edge, extending in the axial direction, which overlaps said housing wall or said housing edge, extending in an opposite direction, of said support-side housing part, as otherwise, the system cannot normally operate.
PNG
media_image3.png
358
866
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 6, Findeisen and Muramatsu substantially disclose the radiator fan module, as claimed and detailed above.
Additionally, in Paragraph [0012], Findeisen specifically teaches: a cooling fan module has a gap between a radially outer edge of the fan wheel and the shroud ring, which gap has an adverse effect on the volume of air conveyed per unit of time. For this reason, it is a known measure to configure said gap to be as narrow as possible in order to minimize the gap flow, which will be described in more detail further below. This approach generally leads to increased requirements in terms of the precision of the assembly of the fan wheel within the fan wheel recess owing to the high requirements in terms of the accuracy of the positioning of fan shroud and fan wheel relative to one another. In one embodiment of the present disclosure, the separately formed ring-shaped structural element according to the disclosure is advantageous because, in this way, it is possible to tolerate a larger gap, which facilitates the assembly process, between fan wheel and fan wheel recess, which gap is subsequently reduced to a desired dimension by means of the arrangement of the separately formed ring-shaped structural element after the installation of the fan wheel in the fan wheel recess.
PNG
media_image7.png
598
817
media_image7.png
Greyscale
Findeisen, in Paragraphs [0030]-[0031], then goes on to describe how: a gap is formed in a radial direction between the fan wheel and the shroud ring, wherein the ring-shaped structural element is arranged at least partially within said gap. For the advantages of this embodiment, reference is made to the above explanations relating to the other embodiments. In a further embodiment of the present disclosure, the ring-shaped structural element has a gap cross section reduction portion which may be for example, formed as a single piece with the ring-shaped structural element and which extends, in a radial cross section, in the direction of the fan wheel, for example, in the direction of an outer ring of the fan wheel, and which is inclined at an angle α relative to the adjoining portion of the ring-shaped structural element, wherein the angle α is spanned in a radial plane in which the axis of rotation also extends, and amounts to between 30° and 150°, for example, between 60° and 120°, for example, between 75° and 105°, or for example, at least substantially 90°. This may be advantageous in particular because, in this way, a further means is provided for adapting the gap geometry, in particular the gap cross section, to the specific conditions of the usage situation, in order, in particular by means of the angle α, to provide an additional air-guiding function. By means of the design of the structural element in accordance with this embodiment, it is possible to omit a cross-sectional thickening over the entire limb of the U-shaped profile, which in turn leads to a simplified production method and reduced material costs owing to the reduced risk of cavities.
In fact, according to the combination, Findeisen evidently demonstrates as how said hub-side housing part HSH6 and said support-side housing part SSH3 have a first, radial, gap portion formed therebetween and is covered by an overlapping edge of said housing part which has the greater diameter, with a second, axial, gap portion being formed, as instantly claimed.
Regarding claim 9, Findeisen and Muramatsu substantially disclose the radiator fan module, as claimed and detailed above.
Additionally, as stated in Abstract, the fan wheel recess is bounded by a frame ring, a motor mount, which is arranged within the fan wheel recess and is mechanically connected to the fan frame by means of struts.
Likewise, in Paragraph [0009], Findeisen further notes: a motor holder which is arranged within the fan wheel recess and which is mechanically connected to the fan shroud by means of struts, a motor, such as an electric motor, which is at least partially held in the motor holder, and a fan wheel which is arranged in the fan wheel recess and which is driven in rotation by the motor. The cooling fan module may include a separately formed, ring-shaped structural element which is arranged on the shroud ring.
Findeisen, in Paragraph [0018], then goes to describe: “Struts” within the meaning of the present disclosure are in particular beam-like or sickle-like structures which provide a mechanical connection between the motor holder and the fan shroud. By way of example, the struts may have a droplet-shaped cross section in order to realize advantageous aerodynamic and/or acoustic effects.
As such, according to the combination, said struts 7 of said motor support or motor holder 3, as disclosed by Findeisen, are surely integrally formed on an outside of said support-side housing part, as otherwise the system would not normally operate, and that Applicant has recited no structure which makes this interpretation unreasonable.
Regarding claim 10, Findeisen and Muramatsu substantially disclose the radiator fan module, as claimed and detailed above.
Additionally, in Paragraphs [0047]-0048], Findeisen specifically teaches that: the fan wheel 6 is inserted in the fan wheel recess 4 of the fan shroud 2 of the downstream cooling fan module 10. Said fan wheel is electrically driven by means of the electric motor 5, which is fastened by means of the struts 7 and the motor holder 3 to the shroud. The separately formed ring-shaped structural element 8 is mounted onto the fan shroud 2. The shroud ring 2a has a cylindrical lateral surface, wherein a normal vector of the cylindrical lateral surface is oriented at least substantially perpendicular to an axis of rotation of the fan wheel 6. In the illustrated embodiment, the shroud ring 2a is formed as a single piece with the fan shroud 2. The shroud ring 2a extends in a downstream direction away from the fan shroud 2 as far as a free end 2a 1. The ring-shaped structural element 8 has a U-shaped cross-sectional geometry 8a in a radial cross section (not shown in FIG. 1). The free end 2a 1 of the shroud ring 2a is engaged around in a radial direction by the ring-shaped structural element 8 and is at least partially received in the U-shaped cross-sectional geometry 8a of the ring-shaped structural element 8.
PNG
media_image2.png
634
826
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Further, in Paragraph [0050], Findeisen details that: FIG. 2 shows an enlarged sectional view of the cooling fan module from FIG. 1 in a further sectional illustration, FIG. 2a shows a three-dimensional illustration of a detail of the ring-shaped structural element 8, and FIG. 2b shows an enlarged detail of the illustration in FIG. 2 in the region of the gap between shroud ring 2a and fan wheel outer ring 6a.
Clearly, according to the combination, with reference to annotated Figure 4, Findeisen explicitly exhibits as how said fan impeller aperture FIA is being delimited by a shroud ring 2a and/or said fan impeller or fan wheel 6 has an outer ring that connects said radially outwardly directed radiator fan blades, as instantly claimed.
9. Claim(s) 8 rejected 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Findeisen in view Muramatsu, as evidenced by Ludwig et al. (Pub. No. US 2020/0119616 A1).
Regarding claim 8, Findeisen and Muramatsu substantially disclose the radiator fan module, as claimed and detailed above.
Additionally, as best seen in annotated Figure 1, Findeisen evidently illustrates that said hub-side housing part HSH6 is of shell-shaped form and/or said support-side housing part SSH3 is of annular-shell-shaped form.
As an evidentiary reference, please see Ludwig et al. (Pub. No. US 20200119616 A1) which particularly demonstrates a sleeve-type or sleeve-shaped cover part 72. Ludwig explicitly teaches that: The cover part 72, which is also referred to below as a rotor sleeve, has a (sleeve, rotor) shell 74, which is mounted on the outer circumference of the rotor 40 or of the return pot 36 in the assembled condition (FIG. 5). The shell 74 is formed from a rolled or bent strip-shaped sheet-metal part, and the opposite ends of the sheet-metal part are joined together at a seam 76 to form the annular shell 74. On an upper collar 84, that is to say the end facing the drive part 12 in the assembled condition, the shell 74 of the rotor sleeve 72 has three circumferentially distributed retaining tabs 86, which are bent radially inward. Each retaining tab 86 is provided with a fastening opening 88. (see Paragraph [0058] &[0060]).
10. Claims 7 and 12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Findeisen in view of Muramatsu, and further in view of Froh et al. (hereinafter “Froh”) (CN109424581 (A)).
Regarding claims 7 and 12, Findeisen and Muramatsu substantially disclose the radiator fan module, as claimed and detailed above.
However, although the combination of Findeisen and Muramatsu discloses the vast majority of the Applicant’s claimed invention, it is still silent as to the specifics regarding fan blades.
Nonetheless, the use of backwardly sickle-shaped blades in a radiator fan module is well-known in the art, as taught by Froh.
Froh in the same field of endeavor teaches another fan module, wherein, as stated in Abstract, a fan wheel has a hub cup and a plurality of blades extending radially outward from an outer wall of the hub cup, which is in particular at least substantially cylindrical. Froh, in Paragraph [0029], successfully performs as how “the fan impeller has one or more sickle-shaped blades that face backward when viewed in the direction of rotation. This is particularly important because there are completely different aerodynamic behaviors for fan impellers with forward and backward sickle shapes, which have a significant impact on the volumetric flow of delivered air.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the teaching of using backward sickle shapes, as taught by Froh, to the impeller blades of Findeisen/ Muramatsu in order to further improve air performance and further achieve the significant power savings, as motivated by Froh in Paragraph [0027].
Thus modified, one skilled in the art would have been reasonably appraised that said radially outwardly directed radiator fan blades would be further being sickle-shaped and/or said radially outwardly directed radiator fan blades each would be further having a leading edge and/or a trailing edge being of undulating form, as instantly claimed.
11. Claims 5 and 11 are rejected 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Findeisen in view of Muramatsu, and further in view of Alaoui Benzakroum et al. (hereinafter “Alaoui Benzakroum”) (WO 2021181024 A1, Pub. No.: US US 2023/0104481 A1 is used for convenience purposes).
Regarding claims 5 and 11, Findeisen and Muramatsu substantially disclose the radiator fan module, as claimed and detailed above. Additionally, in Paragraph [0031], Findeisen specifically teaches: the ring-shaped structural element has a gap cross section reduction portion which may be for example, formed as a single piece with the ring-shaped structural element and which extends, in a radial cross section, in the direction of the fan wheel, for example, in the direction of an outer ring of the fan wheel, and which is inclined at an angle α relative to the adjoining portion of the ring-shaped structural element, wherein the angle α is spanned in a radial plane in which the axis of rotation also extends, and amounts to between 30° and 150°, for example, between 60° and 120°, for example, between 75° and 105°, or for example, at least substantially 90°. This may be advantageous in particular because, in this way, a further means is provided for adapting the gap geometry, in particular the gap cross section, to the specific conditions of the usage situation, in order, in particular by means of the angle α, to provide an additional air-guiding function. By means of the design of the structural element in accordance with this embodiment, it is possible to omit a cross-sectional thickening over the entire limb of the U-shaped profile, which in turn leads to a simplified production method and reduced material costs owing to the reduced risk of cavities.
However, although the combination of Findeisen and Muramatsu discloses the vast majority of Applicant’s claimed elements, it is still silent as to the specifics regarding an incident-flow surface.
Alaoui Benzakroum in the same field of endeavor teaches another cooling fan module, very similar to that seen in annotated Figure 1 and 4 of Findeisen, and performs as how “by using different angles between the first and second holding arms, on the one hand, and the axis of rotation of the propeller, on the other hand, to provide mechanical compensation limiting the aforementioned pumping effect, any movement of the first arms being at least partly compensated by a voltage generated by the second arms, and vice versa. In certain particular cases, the first holding arms form a first angle with a plane defined by the opening, the second holding arms forming a second angle with the plane defined by the opening, the first and the second angle being of the same sign. Such an arrangement may make it possible to limit the pumping phenomenon while facilitating an unmoulding process without any draft due to the use of angles extending in the same direction. In certain particular cases, the first holding arms form a first angle with a plane defined by the opening, the second holding arms forming a second angle with the plane defined by the opening, the first and the second angle having opposite signs. This arrangement may allow interlacing between the first and second holding arms, allowing an improvement in torque transfer between the central support and the opening perimeter.” (see Paragraph [0007].
Alaoui Benzakroum, in Paragraph [0043], successfully states that: the first angle and the second angle differ by at least 5 degrees. In some cases, the first angle and the second angle differ by at least 10 degrees. In some cases, the first angle and the second angle differ by at least 15 degrees. In some cases, the first angle and the second angle differ by at least 20 degrees. In some cases, the first angle and the second angle differ by at least 30 degrees. In some cases, the first angle and the second angle differ by at least 45 degrees. In some cases, the first angle and the second angle differ by less than 90 degrees. In some cases, the first angle and the second angle differ by less than 60 degrees. A greater difference between said first and second angles can contribute to mechanical stability. An excessive difference may make the frame excessively bulky. The first or second angle may be between −5 and +5 degrees. The first or second angle may be between −15 and +15 degrees. The first or second angle may be between −20 and +20 degrees. The first or second angle may be between −30 and +30 degrees.
As such, in view of prior art teachings, the variations of angles, as taught by Froh, is found to be a result-effective variables which effects the operating condition of the fan module. It has been held that a particular parameter must be recognized as a result-effective variable, i.e., a variable which achieves a recognized result, before the determination of the optimum or workable ranges of said variable might be characterized as routine experimentation. In re Antoine, 559 F.2d 618, 195 USPQ 6 (CCPA 1977). See MPEP 2144.05 II(B). Furthermore, it has been held that “[W]here the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation.” In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955).
Hence, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to take the invention of Findeisen and apply the teachings of Alaoui Benzakroum to optimize the angle of incident surface through routine experimentation in order to further improve the cooling capacity.
Thus modified, one skilled in the art would have been reasonably apprised that said hub-side housing part which overlaps said support-side housing part would be further having an incident-flow surface which would be further inclined relative to a main flow direction and/or said support-side housing part which overlaps said hub-side housing part would be further having an incident-flow surface which would be further running at an angle of between 0° and 20°with respect to an axial direction and/or the axis of rotation and/or said angle would be further running between 5° and 15°, as instantly claimed.
Response to Arguments
12. Applicant's arguments filed 03/23/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. The prior art rejection of 01/15/2026 has been withdrawn after upon further consideration.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to LILYA PEKARSKAYA whose telephone number is (571)272-1158. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday to Friday, 9:00-5:00 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, Essama Omgba can be reached on 469-295-9278. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/CHARLES G FREAY/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3746
/L. P./
Examiner, Art Unit 3746
