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 .
Status of Application
Claims 1-10 are pending and have been examined in this application. This communication is the first action on the merits. As of the date of this communication, no Information Disclosure Statement (IDS) has been filed with this application.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 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.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by US Patent Number 4,884,946 to Belanger.
A) As per Claim 10, Belanger teaches a ventilation fan (Belanger: Figure 4) comprising
a scroll (Belanger: Figure 4, Item 13) formed to define an interior space, an inlet opening into the interior space, and an outlet spaced apart from the inlet,
a fan wheel (Belanger: Figure 4, Item 25) coupled to the scroll and arranged to lie within the interior space, the fan wheel including a plurality of fan blades configured to withdraw air into the interior space to ventilate a room positioned adjacent to the ventilation fan, and
an inlet collar (Belanger: Figure 4, Item 24) coupled to an exterior surface of a bottom wall of the scroll and extending through the inlet, the inlet collar having a upper, distal end located above a lower end of each of the plurality of fan blades (Belanger: Figure 4, Item 24 & specifically 45 extends further into inlet opening than close side of Item 25).
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.
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.
Claim(s) 1 & 7-8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US Patent Publication Number 2010/0009621 A1 to Hsieh in view of US Patent Number 10,060,617 B2 to Horng and further in view of Belanger.
A) As per Claim 1, Hsieh teaches a ventilation fan (Hsieh: Figure 1) comprising
a scroll formed to define an interior space (Hsieh: Figure 1, Item 11), an inlet opening (Hsieh: Figure 1, Item 12) into the interior space, and an outlet (Hsieh: Figure 1, Item 13) spaced apart from the inlet,
a fan wheel (Hsieh: Figure 1, Item 30) coupled to the scroll and arranged to lie within the interior space, the fan wheel including a plurality of fan blades configured to rotate about a vertical rotation axis to withdraw air into the interior space to ventilate a room positioned adjacent to the ventilation fan, and
a fan grille (Hsieh: Figure 1, Item 40) arranged to overlie the inlet of the scroll, the fan grille including a perimeter rim (Hsieh: Figure 1, top portion of Item 40) adapted to engage a wall of the room when the fan grille is fully installed, a grille plate (Hsieh: Figure 1, Item 41 with 53) arranged to extend substantially parallel to and in spaced apart relation to the inlet, and a flow director (Hsieh: Figure 1, Item 51; Figure 3, Item 511) coupled to an interior surface of the grille plate facing toward the scroll and arranged to extend toward the inlet collar and the inlet to the scroll and to cooperate with the inlet collar to guide air being withdrawn through the plurality of grille intake openings into the inlet of the scroll.
Hsieh does not explicitly teach a plurality of louvers interconnecting the perimeter rim and an outer edge of the grille plate and spaced apart from one another to define a plurality of grille intake openings.
However, Horng teaches a plurality of louvers interconnecting the perimeter rim and an outer edge of the grille plate and spaced apart from one another to define a plurality of grille intake openings (Horng: Figure 11, Items 241).
At the time the invention was effectively filed, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art to have modified the teachings of Hsieh by having a plurality of louvers, as taught by Horng, with a reasonable expectation of success of arriving at the claimed invention. At the time the invention was effectively filed, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have modified Hsieh with these aforementioned teachings of Horng since each individual element and its function are shown in the prior art, albeit shown in separate references, the difference between the claimed subject matter and the prior art rests not on any individual element or function but in the very combination itself- that is in the substitution of the opening pattern of Horng for the opening pattern of Hsieh.
Thus, the simple substitution of one known element for another producing a predictable result renders the claim obvious.
Hsieh in view of Horng does not teach an inlet collar coupled to an exterior surface of a bottom wall of the scroll and extending through the inlet, the inlet collar having a upper, distal end located above a lower end of each of the plurality of fan blades.
However, Belanger teaches an inlet collar coupled to an exterior surface of a bottom wall of the scroll and extending through the inlet, the inlet collar having a upper, distal end located above a lower end of each of the plurality of fan blades (Belanger: Figure 4, Item 24 & specifically 45 extends further into inlet opening than close side of Item 25).
At the time the invention was effectively filed, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art to have modified the teachings of Hsieh in view of Horng by adding an inlet collar, as taught by Belanger, with a reasonable expectation of success of arriving at the claimed invention. At the time the invention was effectively filed, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have modified Hsieh in view of Horng with these aforementioned teachings of Belanger with the motivation of reducing turbulence at the fan inlet and therefore decreasing fan noise.
B) As per Claim 7, Hsieh in view of Horng and Belanger teaches that the inlet collar includes a collar mount (Belanger: Figure 4, Item 35) fixed to a bottom wall of the scroll, a collar elbow (Belanger: bend in Item 24 between Items 35 & 27) coupled to the collar mount, and a collar extension (Belanger: Figure 4, Item 27 with Item 45) extending into the interior space and having the upper, distal end located above the lower end of each of the plurality of fan blades.
C) As per Claim 8, Hsieh in view of Horng and Belanger teaches that the collar mount extends radially outward away from the collar elbow and the vertical rotation axis (Belanger: Figure 4, Item 35) and the collar elbow has a convexly-shaped curvature relative to the fan grill (Belanger: bend in Item 24 between Items 35 & 27).
Claim(s) 2-6 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hsieh in view of Horng and Belanger as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of US Patent Number 3,815,487 to Teodorescu.
A) As per Claim 2, Hsieh in view of Horng and Belanger teaches the flow director includes a proximal end fixed to the grille plate, a distal end arranged to lie at the inlet or within the interior space of the scroll, and a flow-director body extending between the proximal end and the distal end and having a cross-section that decreases from the proximal end to the distal end (Hsieh: Figure 1, Item 51; Figure 3, Item 511).
Hsieh in view of Horng and Belanger does not teach the flow-director body has a diameter that decreases.
However, Teodorescu teaches the flow-director body has a diameter that decreases (Teodorescu: Figure 1, Item 6).
At the time the invention was effectively filed, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art to have modified the teachings of Hsieh in view of Horng and Belanger by making the flow-director body shaped as taught by Teodorescu, with a reasonable expectation of success of arriving at the claimed invention. At the time the invention was effectively filed, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have modified Hsieh in view of Horng and Belanger with these aforementioned teachings of Teodorescu since each individual element and its function are shown in the prior art, albeit shown in separate references, the difference between the claimed subject matter and the prior art rests not on any individual element or function but in the very combination itself- that is in the substitution of the shape of Teodorescu for the shape of Hsieh in view of Horng and Belanger.
Thus, the simple substitution of one known element for another producing a predictable result renders the claim obvious.
B) As per Claim 3, Hsieh in view of Horng, Belanger and Teodorescu teaches that the flow-director body decreases exponentially from the proximal end to the distal end such that an outer surface of the flow-director body has a first slope at a first distance from the proximal end and a second slope at a second distance from the proximal end, the first slope being less than the second slope and the first distance being less than the second distance (Teodorescu: Figure 1, Item 6).
C) As per Claim 4, Hsieh in view of Horng, Belanger and Teodorescu teaches that the outer surface of the flow-director body cooperates with the inlet collar to provide a curved flow path between the flow-director body and the inlet collar (Teodorescu: Figure 1, Item 6).
D) As per Claim 5, Hsieh in view of Horng, Belanger and Teodorescu teaches that a diameter of the proximal end of the flow director is greater than a maximum diameter of the inlet collar (Hsieh: Figure 3, Item 511 extends further outward than Item 30).
E) As per Claim 6, Hsieh in view of Horng, Belanger and Teodorescu teaches that the flow-director body is hollow and the flow director further includes a noise-reducing filler within the flow-director body (Teodorescu: Figure 1, Item 6 with insulation “n”).
Claim(s) 9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hsieh in view of Horng.
A) As per Claim 9, Hsieh teaches a ventilation fan (Hsieh: Figure 1) comprising
a scroll formed to define an interior space (Hsieh: Figure 1, Item 11), an inlet opening into the interior space (Hsieh: Figure 1, Item 12), and an outlet spaced apart from the inlet (Hsieh: Figure 1, Item 13),
a fan wheel (Hsieh: Figure 1, Item 30) coupled to the scroll and arranged to lie within the interior space, the fan wheel including a plurality of fan blades configured to withdraw air into the interior space to ventilate a room positioned adjacent to the ventilation fan, and
a fan grille (Hsieh: Figure 1, Item 40) arranged to overlie the inlet of the scroll, the fan grille including a perimeter rim (Hsieh: Figure 1, top portion of Item 40) adapted to engage a wall of the room when the fan grille is fully installed, a grille plate (Hsieh: Figure 1, Item 41 with 53) arranged to extend substantially parallel to and in spaced apart relation to the inlet, and a flow director (Hsieh: Figure 1, Item 51; Figure 3, Item 511 & 521 extend through bottom of Item 10 at Item 12 shown in Figure 1) coupled to an interior surface of the grille plate facing toward the scroll and arranged to extend through the inlet to the scroll to guide air being withdrawn through the plurality of grille intake openings and into the inlet of the scroll.
Hsieh does not explicitly teach a plurality of louvers interconnecting the perimeter rim and an outer edge of the grille plate and spaced apart from one another to define a plurality of grille intake openings.
However, Horng teaches a plurality of louvers interconnecting the perimeter rim and an outer edge of the grille plate and spaced apart from one another to define a plurality of grille intake openings (Horng: Figure 11, Items 241).
At the time the invention was effectively filed, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art to have modified the teachings of Hsieh by having a plurality of louvers, as taught by Horng, with a reasonable expectation of success of arriving at the claimed invention. At the time the invention was effectively filed, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have modified Hsieh with these aforementioned teachings of Horng since each individual element and its function are shown in the prior art, albeit shown in separate references, the difference between the claimed subject matter and the prior art rests not on any individual element or function but in the very combination itself- that is in the substitution of the opening pattern of Horng for the opening pattern of Hsieh.
Thus, the simple substitution of one known element for another producing a predictable result renders the claim obvious.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ALLEN SCHULT whose telephone number is (571)272-8511. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9AM-5PM.
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.
/Allen R. B. Schult/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3762
Prosecution Insights