Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Response to Arguments
Applicant's remarks filed 1/19/2026 have been fully considered.
Regarding the prior art rejection of claim 1, in paragraph 3 of page 5 through paragraph 3 of page 7 of Applicant’s Remarks, Applicant’s arguments are directed to that the prior art fails to disclose, teach, or suggest the amended limitations of amended claim 1.
The arguments are not persuasive because each limitation is mapped to the same prior art of the previous office action. Please see mapping of amended limitations to prior art below for details.
Regarding the new claim 17, please see the action below for any relevant details.
Claim Objections
The following claims are objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 17 recites the limitation “the outer ends of the several wings extend that to the radially outer end of the cover disk extend radially outward beyond a radial outer edge of the base disk.” which is grammatically incorrect.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112(b)
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION. - The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claim(s) 17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claim 17 recites the limitation “the outer ends of the several wings extend that to the radially outer end of the cover disk extend radially outward beyond a radial outer edge of the base disk” which renders the claim indefinite because it is unclear what the underlined term refers to, and also because it is unclear what element exactly is required to extend radially outward beyond a radial outer edge of the base disk.
For examination purposes, it is assumed that the limitation recites: “the outer ends of the several wings that extend to the radially outer end of the cover disk extend radially outward beyond a radial outer edge of the base disk”. In which case, the term “the outer ends of the several wings that extend to the radially outer end of the cover disk” lacks proper antecedent basis and thus renders the claim indefinite; it is suggested the term be rewritten as “the outer ends of the several wings”
In view of the 112(b) rejections set forth above, the claims are rejected below as best understood.
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) 1-2, 8, 13, 17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 20150275922 A1 (Son) in view of US 4357914 A (Hauser).
Examiner’s note: All mapping below (references made to reference characters, figures, paragraphs, etc.) is with regard to the base reference (the first reference identified above) unless otherwise noted.
Regarding claim 1, Son discloses:
A fan, comprising:
a motor (2; Fig 1),
an impeller (100; Fig 2) driven in rotation by the motor,
an inlet nozzle (the hole of panel 5 shown in Fig 1, which must inherently have an inlet and an outlet, see for example para 0120: “front panel 5 coupled to a front surface of the support frame 3 has an opening through which air can be introduced into the centrifugal fan 4”) and a nozzle plate (5 combined with the folded edge shown in Annotated Fig 1a) extending around the inlet nozzle (Fig 1 shows this),
wherein the impeller includes a base disk (110; Fig 4; aka hub), a cover disk (120; Fig 4; aka shroud) and several wings (130; Fig 4; aka blades) extending between them,
wherein the cover disk includes an inner opening end (this is describing an inlet of the impeller/shroud; upper most portion of 120 shown in Fig 3)
and a nozzle outlet (this is describing an outlet of the nozzle of the plate; the hole of panel 5 shown in Fig 1, which must inherently have an inlet and an outlet) of the inlet nozzle
wherein the cover disk includes a radially outer curvature (curvature generally at SR2 combined with SR3 in Fig 4) ending at a radially outer end of the cover disk (Fig 4 shows this),
and wherein outer ends of the several wings extend toward the radially outer end of the cover disk (Son’s Fig 4 clearly shows that the radially outer ends of the blades 130 extend along the shroud 120 towards the radially outer end of the shroud) and over at least a portion of the radially outer curvature (Fig 4 also clearly shows that the radially outer ends of the blades extend over the portion of the shroud which comprises the (radially outer) “curvature”),
and wherein the nozzle plate has a folded edge (annotated Fig 1a) folded toward a pressure side of the fan (Fig 1 shows this),
Son may not explicitly disclose:
the nozzle outlet protrudes into the inner opening end of the cover disk
wherein a gap is formed in an overlap area between the nozzle outlet of the inlet nozzle and the inner opening end of the cover disk,
However, Hauser, in the same field of endeavor, centrifugal fans, teaches:
the nozzle outlet protrudes into the inner opening end of the cover disk (Fig 1 clearly shows this)
wherein a gap (12; Fig 1) is formed in an overlap area between the nozzle outlet of the inlet nozzle and the inner opening end of the cover disk (Fig 1 clearly shows this),
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify Son to include Hauser’s teachings as described above, having the nozzle outlet protrude into the inner opening end of the cover disk; wherein a gap is formed in an overlap area between the nozzle outlet of the inlet nozzle and the inner opening end of the cover disk, in order to control the short-circuit current 15 (see for example Fig 1) such that it passes through gap 12 as a return current 16 (see for example Fig 1; see for example col 4 lines 3-13) in order to provide a substantial improvement of the air flow through the structure (col 2 lines 17-19). If necessary, this modification could also include Hauser’s baffle ring 10.
This modification would inherently result in the following limitation:
The radially outer curvature points toward a surface of the nozzle plate.
Son’s Fig 1, although not identified as to scale, may be relied upon to fairly teach one of ordinary skill in the art that there is a relatively large amount of surface between the outer edge of the plate 5 and the cover disk, i.e. that the plate 5 extends far from the cover disk. Houser’s Fig 1 shows that the plate/nozzle extends right up to the cover disk’s inlet. Annotated Fig 4a clearly shows that the radially outer curvature points, via a tangential extension, toward a location where the surface of the plate would exist (shown by the combination of Son’s Fig 1 and Houser’s Fig 1), relatively near the cover disk. In other words, annotated Fig 4a together with Fig 1 make clear that the tangential extension intersects the nozzle plate at a region which is away from the footprint of the impeller on the nozzle plate.
Son as modified above may not explicitly disclose:
and wherein an outflow from the impeller at the radially outer end of the cover disk is directed in an air exit direction along a tangential extension of the radially outer end of the cover disk that intersects with at least one of the nozzle plate and the folded edge.
However, courts have established that apparatus claims cover what a device is, not what a device does. See MPEP 2114(II).
It has also been held that where the claimed and prior art products are identical or substantially identical in structure or composition, or are produced by identical or substantially identical processes, a prima facie case of either anticipation or obviousness has been established. See MPEP 2112.01(I).
In this case Son’s device as modified above has all the necessary structure and therefore performs the claimed function in the same manner as Applicant’s device. Son’s configuration of the cover disk, particularly the radially outer end, and the nozzle plate, is analogous to Applicant’s, as can be seen by comparing Son’s Figures 1-4 and Applicant’s Figures 1-4, such that Son’s structure would be expected to function similarly as Applicant’s. Thus, Son also discloses a structure wherein an outflow from the impeller at the radially outer end of the cover disk is directed in an air exit direction along a tangential extension of the radially outer end of the cover disk that intersects with at least one of the nozzle plate and the folded edge.
A claim containing a recitation with respect to the manner in which a claimed apparatus is intended to be employed does not differentiate the claimed apparatus from a prior art apparatus if the prior art apparatus teaches all the structural limitations of the claim. See MPEP 2114(II).
A recitation of the intended use, or intended result, of the claimed invention must result in a structural difference between the claimed invention and the prior art in order to patentably distinguish the claimed invention from the prior art. If the prior art structure is capable of performing the intended use, then it meets the claim.
PNG
media_image1.png
595
635
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Annotated Fig 1a
PNG
media_image2.png
627
746
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Annotated Fig 4a
Regarding claim 2, Son, as modified above, discloses:
the outflow from the impellor intersects at least one of the nozzle plate and the folded edge over at least 90% of circumferential positions about an axis of the fan (Son Figures 1-4 combined with Hauser Fig 1 clearly shows this).
Regarding claim 8, Son, as modified above, discloses:
The air exit direction defined by the tangential extension (annotated Fig 4a) of the cover disk, of more than 95% of circumferential positions about an axis of the fan, intersects with the nozzle plate or the folded edge (Son Figures 1-4 combined with Hauser Fig 1 clearly shows this).
Regarding claim 13, Son, as modified above, discloses:
the nozzle plate has a rectangular outer contour (Son Fig 1 clearly shows this).
Regarding claim 17, Son, as modified above, discloses:
the outer ends of the several wings extend that to the radially outer end of the cover disk extend radially outward beyond a radial outer edge of the base disk (see the related 112(b) rejection above) (Son Fig 4 shows this, wherein “a radial outer edge of the base disk” is shown at the arrow head of the leader line of reference character “HR2” in Son Fig 4).
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any extension fee pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the date of this final action.
Contact Information
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Art Golik whose telephone number is (571)272-6211. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri 8:30-5:00.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Nathaniel Wiehe can be reached at 571-272-8648. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/Art Golik/Examiner, Art Unit 3745
/NATHANIEL E WIEHE/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3745