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 .
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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 16 June 2025 has been entered.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, see Remarks, filed 22 May 2025, with respect to the rejection(s) of the claim(s) under 35 USC 102 and/or 35 USC 103 have been fully considered and are persuasive. Therefore, the rejection has been withdrawn. However, upon further consideration, a new ground(s) of rejection is made in view of Higo et al (US 20100086405 A1; also US 8,317,478 B2) and Williams et al (US 6,302,650 B1).
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) 1-8, 10, 12-13, 16-19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Higo et al – hereafter Higo – (US 20100086405 A1; also US 8,317,478 B2) in view of Williams et al – hereafter Williams – (US 6,302,650 B1).
Regarding claim 1, Higo teaches an axial fan assembly (Fig.1/3/5), the axial fan assembly comprising:
an axial fan (1) comprising a hub (21) and one or more blades (22) extending radially from a center point of the hub (coinciding with 17) about which the axial fan rotates relative to an axis of rotation (17), each of the one or more blades extending a blade length out to a free edge (22c) defining an outermost edge of the one or more blades (Fig.1); and
an intermediate shroud (23) arranged radially outwards of the hub and radially inwards of the free edge of the one or more blades (Fig.1/3/5), the intermediate shroud including:
a first shroud end (Fig.5, 23b),
a second shroud end (Fig.5, 23a) laterally opposite the first shroud end, and
wherein the intermediate shroud is positioned radially between the free edge and the hub of the one or more blades to increase stability of the one or more blades (Fig.1/3/5).
PNG
media_image1.png
255
476
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Higo does not teach one or more bosses formed in the second shroud end.
Williams teaches an axial fan assembly (Fig.1-4) including fan blades (16) and a circumferential ring (18). Williams further teaches one or more bosses (30) formed in a second end of the circumferential ring (Fig.3); said one or more bosses allow balancing the axial fan assembly (column 5 line 1-19).
It would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to modify the axial fan assembly of Higo by having one or more bosses formed in the second shroud end based on the teachings of Williams because this would allow balancing the axial fan assembly.
Regarding claim 2, Higo and Williams further teach a plurality of vanes (Higo Fig.3, 12) downstream of the one or more blades of the axial fan, each of the plurality of vanes comprising a leading edge (Higo, edge of 12 opposite to where numeral 12 points to), wherein the second end of the intermediate shroud extends laterally toward and separated from the leading edge of the plurality of vanes (Higo Fig.3).
Regarding claims 3-4, Higo and Williams teach all the limitations of claim 2, see above, and further teach the second end of the intermediate shroud is separated from the leading edge of the plurality of vanes by a gap (Higo Fig.3), however, does not explicitly teach the gap being substantially equal to or more than 0.05 inches and equal to or less than 1 inch.
In 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), the Federal Circuit held that, where 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. In the current instance the only difference between claims 3-4 and the disclosed axial fan of Higo and Williams is the relative dimensions of the gap being substantially equal to or more than 0.05 inches and equal to or less than 1 inch. Since Higo and Williams have disclosed an axial fan with the claimed components and, if having said claimed relative dimensions between the intermediate shroud and the plurality of vanes would not perform differently than the prior art device, the claims are not patentably distinct and said relative dimensions modification would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art.
Regarding claim 5, Higo and Williams further teach the free edge of the one or more blades comprises a blade tip (Higo Annotated Fig.5) defining an outermost end of the one or more blades (Higo Annotated Fig.5).
Regarding claim 6, Higo and Williams further teach the second shroud end of the intermediate shroud extends laterally beyond the blade tip of the one or more blades (Higo Annotated Fig.5).
Regarding claim 7, Higo and Williams teach all the limitations of claim 6, see above, however, do not explicitly teach a distance between the intermediate shroud and the blade tip of the one or more blades of the axial fan is between 10% and 40% of a distance between the blade tip of the one or more blades of the axial fan and the hub of the axial fan.
In 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), the Federal Circuit held that, where 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. In the current instance the only difference between claim 7 and the disclosed axial fan of Higo and Williams is the relative dimensions of a distance between the intermediate shroud and the blade tip of the one or more blades of the axial fan is between 10% and 40% of a distance between the blade tip of the one or more blades of the axial fan and the hub of the axial fan. Since Higo and Williams have disclosed an axial fan with the claimed components and, if having said claimed relative dimensions between the intermediate shroud, the blade tip and the hub would not perform differently than the prior art device, the claims are not patentably distinct and said relative dimensions modification would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art.
Regarding claim 8, Higo and Williams teach all the limitations of claim 6, see above, however, do not explicitly teach a distance between the intermediate shroud and the hub of the axial fan is between 60% and 90% of a distance between the blade tip of the one or more blades of the axial fan and the hub of the axial fan.
In 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), the Federal Circuit held that, where 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. In the current instance the only difference between claim 8 and the disclosed axial fan of Higo and Williams is the relative dimensions of a distance between the intermediate shroud and the hub of the axial fan is between 60% and 90% of a distance between the blade tip of the one or more blades of the axial fan and the hub of the axial fan. Since Higo and Williams have disclosed an axial fan with the claimed components and, if having said claimed relative dimensions between the intermediate shroud, the blade tip and the hub would not perform differently than the prior art device, the claims are not patentably distinct and said relative dimensions modification would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art.
Regarding claim 10, Higo and Williams further teach the hub comprises a sidewall (Higo 21a) extending substantially parallel to the axis of rotation, and wherein the intermediate shroud extends substantially parallel to the sidewall of the hub (Higo Fig.1/3).
Regarding claim 12, Higo and Williams teach all the limitations of clam 1, see above, however the embodiment of Fig.1 (Higo) does not explicitly teach the intermediate shroud extends through a leading edge of the one or more blades of the axial fan by a lateral distance of up to 0.5 inches past the leading edge.
Higo further teaches an embodiment (Fig.5) where the intermediate shroud extends through a leading edge (22e) of the one or more blades of the axial fan by a lateral distance (D2) and this construction allows an inlet-side end portion of the [intermediate shroud] 23 to effectively prevent airflows that are to be drawn from the inlet side of the rotor blade 22 into the region radially inward of the [intermediate shroud] 23 from escaping radially outward over the [intermediate shroud] 23 (¶63).
It would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to further modify the axial fan of Higo Fig.1 as modified by Williams by having the intermediate shroud extends through a leading edge of the one or more blades of the axial fan by a lateral distance based on the embodiment of Higo Fig.5 because this would allow an inlet-side end portion of the intermediate shroud to effectively prevent airflows that are to be drawn from the inlet side of the rotor blade into the region radially inward of the intermediate shroud from escaping radially outward over the intermediate shroud.
Furthermore, In 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), the Federal Circuit held that, where 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. In the current instance the only difference between claim 12 and the disclosed modified axial fan of Higo and Williams is the relative dimensions of the lateral distance being up to 0.5 inches past the leading edge. Since Higo and Williams have disclosed an axial fan with the claimed components and, if having said claimed relative dimensions between the intermediate shroud and the blade leading edge would not perform differently than the prior art device, the claims are not patentably distinct and said relative dimensions modification would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art.
Regarding claim 13, Higo and Williams teach all the limitations of claim 1, see above, and further teaches the intermediate shroud extends through a trailing edge of the one or more blades of the axial fan by a lateral distance (Higo Fig.3, see distance between 22d and 23a), however, do not explicitly teach the distance being up to 1.5 inches past the trailing edge.
In 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), the Federal Circuit held that, where 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. In the current instance the only difference between claim 13 and the disclosed modified axial fan of Higo and Williams is the relative dimensions of the lateral distance being up to 1.5 inches past the trailing edge. Since Higo and Williams have disclosed an axial fan with the claimed components and, if having said claimed relative dimensions between the intermediate shroud and the blade trailing edge would not perform differently than the prior art device, the claims are not patentably distinct and said relative dimensions modification would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art.
Regarding claim 16, Higo teaches a method of using an axial fan assembly (Fig.1/3/5), the method comprising:
providing an axial fan (1) comprising a hub (21) and one or more blades (22) extending radially from a center point of the hub (coinciding with 17) about which the axial fan rotates relative to an axis of rotation (17), each of the one or more blades extending a blade length out to a free edge (22c) defining an outermost edge of the one or more blades (Fig.1);
arranging an intermediate shroud (23) radially outwards of the hub and radially inwards of the free edge of the one or more blades (Fig.1/3/5), the intermediate shroud including:
a first shroud end (Fig.5, 23b),
a second shroud end (Fig.5, 23a) laterally opposite the first shroud end, and
wherein the intermediate shroud is positioned radially between the free edge of the one or more blades and the hub to increase stability of the one or more blades (Fig.1/3/5); and
rotating the axial fan, wherein the intermediate shroud increases stability of the one or more blades (Fig.1/3).
Higo does not teach one or more bosses formed in the second shroud end.
Williams teaches an axial fan assembly (Fig.1-4) including fan blades (16) and a circumferential ring (18). Williams further teaches one or more bosses (30) formed in a second end of the circumferential ring (Fig.3); said one or more bosses allow balancing the axial fan assembly (column 5 line 1-19).
It would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to modify the axial fan assembly of Higo by having one or more bosses formed in the second shroud end based on the teachings of Williams because this would allow balancing the axial fan assembly.
Regarding claim 17, Higo and Williams further teach providing a plurality of vanes (Higo Fig.3, 12), each of the plurality of vanes comprising a leading edge (Higo, edge of 12 opposite to where numeral 12 points to), wherein arranging the intermediate shroud comprises positioning the second end (Higo 23a) of the intermediate shroud to extend laterally toward and separated from the leading edge of the plurality of vanes (Higo Annotated Fig.5).
Regarding claim 18, Higo and Williams teach all the limitations of claim 17, see above, and further teach arranging the intermediate shroud comprises positioning the second end of the intermediate shroud a gap from the leading edge of the plurality of vanes (Higo Fig.3), however, do not explicitly teach the gap being at least one of substantially equal to 0.05 inches, between 0.05 inches and 1 inch, or substantially equal to 1 inch.
In 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), the Federal Circuit held that, where 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. In the current instance the only difference between claim 18 and the disclosed axial fan of Higo and Williams is the relative dimensions of the gap being at least one of substantially equal to 0.05 inches, between 0.05 inches and 1 inch, or substantially equal to 1 inch. Since Higo and Williams have disclosed an axial fan with the claimed components and, if having said claimed relative dimensions between the intermediate shroud and the plurality of vanes would not perform differently than the prior art device, the claims are not patentably distinct and said relative dimensions modification would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art.
Regarding claim 19, Higo and Williams further teach the free edge of the one or more blades comprises a blade tip (Higo Annotated Fig.5) defining an outermost end of the one or more blades (Higo Annotated Fig.5), and wherein arranging the intermediate shroud comprises positioning the intermediate shroud where the second shroud end extends laterally beyond the blade tip of the one or more blades (Higo Annotated Fig.5).
Regarding claim 22, Higo and Williams teach all the limitations of claim 1, see above, and further teach the one or more bosses include a number of bosses (Williams Fig.2/4), however, do not explicitly teach the number of bosses one of (i) equal to or (ii) a multiple of a number of the one or more blades of the axial fan.
In 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), the Federal Circuit held that, where 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. In the current instance the only difference between claim 22 and the disclosed axial fan of Higo and Williams is the relative dimensions of the number of bosses one of (i) equal to or (ii) a multiple of a number of the one or more blades of the axial fan. Since Higo and Williams have disclosed an axial fan with the claimed components and, if having said claimed relative dimensions between the number of bosses one of (i) equal to or (ii) a multiple of a number of the one or more blades of the axial fan would not perform differently than the prior art device, the claims are not patentably distinct and said relative dimensions modification would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 15 and 23 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter.
The prior art does not disclose the following claim limitations.
the intermediate shroud further includes one or more slots formed in the second shroud end, adjacent to the one or more bosses, the one or more slots configured to receive a material to facilitate improved balance of the axial fan assembly (as in the context of claim 15).
None of the cited prior art above disclose the claimed features as in claim 15.
Previously cited prior art (Jiang et al – US 20080056899 A1) discloses an axial fan (Fig.3) including a hub (21), a plurality of blades (22), and an intermediate shroud (26); the plurality of blades are disposed around the hub and intermediate shroud is connected to the plurality of blades (Fig.3); intermediate shroud includes a plurality of apertures (slots) that could be filled with material (Fig.4C, aperture 23C + material 24) to facilitate improved balance of the axial fan assembly and improving the reliability and lifespan of the axial fan (¶9).
No other prior art reference was found that would anticipate or allow establishing a prima facie case of obviousness in view of the cited prior art above.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JUAN G FLORES whose telephone number is (571)272-3486. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday, 8:30am - 5:30pm Pacific Time.
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, Nathan E 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.
/JUAN G FLORES/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3745