DETAILED ACTION
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 1 July 2025 has been entered.
Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
This Non-Final Office Action is in response to the request for continued examination after final rejection (hereinafter “Reply”) dated 1 July 2025.
Claim(s) 1-9 is/are presently pending.
Response to Amendment
The objection(s) to claim(s) 1 is/are withdrawn after consideration of the submitted amendment(s).
Response to Arguments
Regarding the rejection of claim(s) 1, 3, and 5-9 under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hoshino in view of Dreesen and Hauser, the applicant(s) submit the following remark(s)/argument(s):
(A) At pages 5-6 of the submitted Reply:
The cited art fails to teach or suggest the following feature(s) of claim 1: the protection grid is disposed in a radially inner side of the ring. The modification to Hoshino to include the ring of Dreesen results in the protection grid extending both radially outward and radially inward of the ring.
In reply, the Office respectfully considers this argument persuasive. Therefore, the rejection(s) is/are withdrawn. However, upon further consideration a new ground(s) of rejection is made under 35 U.S.C. 103.
Regarding the rejection of claim(s) 2 and 4 under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable:
(A) Regarding Claim 2:
Hauser fails to obviate the deficiencies of modified Hoshino set forth above concerning amended claim 1. Therefore, the rejection(s) is/are withdrawn.
(B) Regarding Claim 4:
The engineering expedient fails to obviate the deficiencies of modified Hoshino set forth above concerning amended claim 1. Therefore, the rejection(s) is/are withdrawn.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
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.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
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 of carrying out his invention.
Claim(s) 1-9 is/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.
(A) Regarding Claim(s) 1:
Claim(s) 1 recite(s): the protection grid is disposed in a radially inner side of the ring. Thus, claim(s) 1 contain(s) new subject matter that is not sufficiently supported by the originally filed specification. The most relevant portion of the specification, found by the Office, at paragraph 0027 discloses, with respect to the Fig. 3 embodiment, that the protection grid is integrated into a section of the frame upstream of the ring. Furthermore, with respect to the Fig. 1 embodiment, paragraph 0024 discloses the ring is integrated into the protection grid, wherein Fig. 1 shows the protection grid and inner ring are separate elements mated together. Thus, the protection grid is disclosed as disposed on the radially inner side of either the radially inward facing surface of the frame upstream of the ring (as in the Fig. 3 embodiment) or the radially inward facing surface of the ring (as in the Fig. 1 embodiment). However, note that claim 1 recites limitations concerning the embodiment of Fig. 3. Therefore, the protection grid disposed in a radially inner side of the ring is not described in the originally filed specification with sufficient detail. Therefore, the specification does not convey with reasonable clarity to one of ordinary skill in the art that applicant was in possession of the claimed invention at the time of filing the application.
(B) Claim(s) 2-9 is/are rejected due to inheriting the deficiency(ies) raised with regard to claim 1.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 1, 3-6 and 9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by U.S. Patent No. 5,423,660 to Sortor (hereinafter “SORTOR”).
(A) Regarding Claim 1:
SORTOR discloses:
a fan for a heat exchanger of a vehicle comprising:
a ventilator (22, Fig. 2),
a frame surrounding the ventilator (comprises two portions, a first one (i.e. axially extending portions of the radial supports 14) upstream of a ring (18) and a second one (42) downstream of the ring, see annotated Fig. 2 below),
PNG
media_image1.png
430
698
media_image1.png
Greyscale
a protection grid upstream of the ventilator (72), and
a ring (44) which is suitable for deflecting a backflow (at trailing edge 46) and which is integral with the frame and the protection grid (see Fig. 2), wherein the frame further comprises two portions extending in an axial direction in cross-section, a first one (see annotated Fig. 2 above) of the two portions upstream of the ring (44), into which the protection grid (72) is integrated, and a second one (42) of the two portions downstream of the ring which surrounds the ventilator, and wherein the protection grid is disposed in a radially inner side of the ring (i.e. the concentric ribs 72 are located radially inward of the ring (44)).
(B) Regarding Claim 3:
SORTOR further discloses:
the ring (44, Fig. 2) is arranged downstream of the protection grid (72) with respect to a direction of flow (“D”).
(C) Regarding Claim 4:
SORTOR further discloses:
the mounting struts (14, Figs. 1-2) for a ventilator motor (12) are arranged upstream of the ventilator (22) with respect to a direction of flow (“D”).
(D) Regarding Claim 5:
SORTOR further discloses:
the protection grid has a plurality of concentric ribs (72, Figs. 1-2).
(E) Regarding Claim 6:
SORTOR further discloses:
the protection grid has the concentric ribs (72, Fig. 1) and the protection grid has an opening (i.e. a circular opening through which the motor 12 axially extends, see Fig. 2) which extends over the concentric ribs (i.e. the circular opening extends circumferentially over the concentric ribs, as shown in Fig. 1, and also extends over the concentric ribs in the axial direction, as shown in Fig. 2).
(F) Regarding Claim 8:
SORTOR further discloses:
the ring (44, Fig. 2) has a portion extending radially in cross-section (e.g. the trailing edge 46) and a portion extending axially at least at one angle (e.g. 50 which has a zero degree angle).
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.
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) 2 and 9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over SORTOR, as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of U.S. Patent No. 9,850,914 to Dreesen (hereinafter “DREESEN”) as evidenced by U.S. Patent No. 5,701,854 to Hauser (hereinafter “HAUSER”).
(A) Regarding Claim 2:
SORTOR teaches:
The ring (44, Fig. 2) is suitable for deflecting backflow by, at most, 270 degrees.
However, the difference between SORTOR and the claimed invention is that SORTOR does not explicitly teach deflecting the backflow by at least 300 degrees.
DREESEN teaches:
A fan for a heat exchanger of a vehicle (Fig. 6 and col. 1, ll. 25-36) comprising:
a ventilator (5, Fig. 6), and a frame (40’’, Fig. 15) surrounding the ventilator, the ventilator is radially offset from the frame and has a shroud (39’’, Fig. 15) with a ring (43),
wherein the radial offset is variable about the circumference of the frame,
the shroud ring (43) is axially offset from a ring (47, Fig. 15) which is suitable for deflecting a backflow by at least 270 degrees and which is integral with the frame,
wherein the axial offset is variable about the circumference of the frame, and
wherein the frame further comprises two portions extending in an axial direction in cross-section (e.g. with respect to the ring 47 of Fig. 15), a first one of the two portions upstream of the ring (i.e. to the left of Fig. 15 with respect to the ring 47), and a second one of the two portions downstream of the ring which surrounds the ventilator (i.e. to the right of Fig. 15 with respect to the ring 47).
Therefore, 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 fan of SORTOR by including a radially offset ventilator shroud with ring that is axially offset form a radially inwardly extending frame ring, as taught by DREESEN, in order to have varying radial and axial distances between the ventilator and frame along the circumferential direction (DREESEN col. 3, ll. 56-64 and col. 4, ll. 14-19) and thereby achieve the predictable result of having the gap between the ventilator and frame as small as possible while also allowing for tilting of the fan during vehicle maneuvers (DREESEN col. 4, ll. 7-9, 27-33). Furthermore, the radially inwardly extending frame ring predictably forms a ring that is suitable for deflecting backflow as evidenced by HAUSER which teaches that a backflow occurs in the gap between frame and fan shroud, wherein the backflow is deflected back to the main flow channel by a radially inwardly extending ring (HAUSER, Fig. 1).
Modified SORTOR teaches the degree of deflection is at least 270 degrees.
However, the difference between modified SORTOR and the claimed invention is that modified SORTOR does not explicitly teach deflecting the backflow by at least 300 degrees.
Though modified SORTOR does not explicitly state the claimed degree of deflection, modified SORTOR identifies the ring is arranged to deflect the backflow into the main flow (e.g. see SORTOR Fig. 2) and in a downstream direction (e.g. DREESEN Fig. 15). Furthermore, as evidenced by HAUSER, the angle, or direction, of the backflow, or bypass flow, when introduced at the intake of the fan blades has an effect on the formation of a back flow vortex in the vicinity of the outer edges of the fan blades, wherein the back flow vortex diminishes as the bypass flow nears alignment with the main flow direction (HAUSER, col. 1. ll. 46-57). Therefore, the degree of deflection of the backflow is considered a result-effective variable and it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to angle the ring in the downstream direction and deflect the backflow by at least 300 degrees, since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art (MPEP 2144.05 (II-A)).
(B) Regarding Claim 9:
SORTOR teaches:
A transition from an axially extending portion of the fame (e.g. 42, Fig. 2) to a radially extending portion of the ring (44) and from the radially extending portion of the ring to a portion of the ring (50), which extends at one angle to an axial direction (i.e. a zero degree angle), has a sharp shape.
However, the difference between SORTOR and the claimed invention is that SORTOR does not explicitly teach the transitions have a round shape.
DREESEN teaches:
A fan for a heat exchanger of a vehicle (Fig. 6 and col. 1, ll. 25-36) comprising:
a ventilator (5, Fig. 6), and a frame (40’’, Fig. 15) surrounding the ventilator, the ventilator is radially offset from the frame and has a shroud (39’’, Fig. 15) with a shroud ring (43),
wherein the radial offset is variable about the circumference of the frame,
the shroud ring (43) is axially offset from a ring (47, Fig. 15) which is suitable for deflecting a backflow by at least 270 degrees and which is integral with the frame,
wherein a transition from an axially extending portion of the frame (DREESEN Fig. 15, 40’’) to a radially extending portion of the ring (see annotated DREESEN Fig. 15 above), which extends at least at one angle to an axial direction (i.e. 90 degrees, or perpendicular, to the axial direction, DREESEN Fig. 15), has a rounded shape (i.e. has a radiused, or curved, surface),
wherein the axial offset is variable about the circumference of the frame, and
wherein the frame further comprises two portions extending in an axial direction in cross-section (e.g. with respect to the ring 47 of Fig. 15), a first one of the two portions upstream of the ring (i.e. to the left of Fig. 15 with respect to the ring 47), and a second one of the two portions downstream of the ring which surrounds the ventilator (i.e. to the right of Fig. 15 with respect to the ring 47).
Therefore, 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 fan of SORTOR by including a radially offset ventilator shroud with ring that is axially offset form a radially inwardly extending frame ring, as taught by DREESEN, in order to have varying radial and axial distances between the ventilator and frame along the circumferential direction (DREESEN col. 3, ll. 56-64 and col. 4, ll. 14-19) and thereby achieve the predictable result of having the gap between the ventilator and frame as small as possible while also allowing for tilting of the fan during vehicle maneuvers (DREESEN col. 4, ll. 7-9, 27-33). Furthermore, the radially inwardly extending frame ring predictably forms a ring that is suitable for deflecting backflow as evidenced by HAUSER which teaches that a backflow occurs in the gap between frame and fan shroud, wherein the backflow is deflected back to the main flow channel by a radially inwardly extending ring (HAUSER, Fig. 1).
Claim(s) 7 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over SORTOR, as applied to claim 5 above, and further in view of U.S. Patent No. 5,131,352 to Hoshino et al. (hereinafter “HOSHINO”).
(A) Regarding Claim 7:
SORTOR teaches:
the protection grid (72, Fig. 1) has concentric ribs.
However, the difference between SORTOR and the claimed invention is that SORTOR does not explicitly teach the protection grid has radial ribs and the radial ribs are inclined, curved or crescent-shaped in a different direction than the blades of the ventilator.
HOSHINO teaches:
The protection grid (Figs. 5-6) has concentric ribs (10) and radial ribs ( 12) and the radial ribs are inclined, curved, or crescent-shaped in a different direction than blades of the ventilator (see annotated HOSHINO Fig. 4 below).
PNG
media_image2.png
526
731
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Thus, both SORTOR and HOSHINO teach protection grids for ventilation fans. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to substitute the protection grid with combination concentric ribs and radial, inclined ribs, for the protection grid of only concentric ribs to achieve the predictable result of protecting the fan from foreign objects (HOSHINO col. 3, ll. 26-27). See MPEP 2141(III)).
Cited Art
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. US 9,890,791 to Innocenti teaches a ventilation assembly with an anti-recirculation ring with a concave, preferably parabolic inner surface that deflects backflow.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to KAYLA M MCCAFFREY whose telephone number is (571)272-3438. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday (excluding Wednesday) 10AM - 2 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 Nathaniel Wiehe can be reached on 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.
KAYLA M. MCCAFFREY
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 3745
/Kayla McCaffrey/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3745