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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 05/13/2026 has been entered.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 04/08/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Page 7 ¶4: Applicant traverses the rejection of claim 1 based on CN ‘265 in view of CN ‘007 and Wang ‘939, by arguing that the prior art of Wang discloses a centrifugal fan, and since the claimed invention is directed to an axial fan, a PHOSITA would not look to Wang, because the fan of Wang operates on a different working principle.
--Applicants’ arguments are unpersuasive. With respect to Applicants' assertion that “Wang discloses a lampblack presser, which is a centrifugal fan” (i.e. arguing that the fan of Wang is a centrifugal fan, and thus it does not apply to the axial fan claimed) at Page 7 ¶4, Applicant has provided no evidence to support this assertion. Because this assertion lacks support in the record, the examiner gives the assertion little weight. See, e.g., In re Pearson, 494 F.2d 1399, 1405 (CCPA 1974) (“Attorney’s argument in a brief cannot take the place of evidence.”).
Furthermore, it is noted that Fig 1, Fig 11, and Fig 13 each show the fan of Wang moving the air axially in the system taught by Wang, thus the figures suggest that the fan is an axial fan. Accordingly, the disclosure of Wang teaches away from using a centrifugal fan (i.e. a fan that discharges air at a 90 degree angle relative to the rotational axis of the fan) – because if it were a centrifugal fan as argued, the radial exiting airflow would be forced into the wall of the duct, and would not be suitable for its intended use of axially moving the air through the duct.
Accordingly, for the reasons articulated above, Applicants arguments are not persuasive.--.
Page 8 ¶1: Applicant traverses the rejection by asserting: 1) that when both L1 and L2 are present as claimed the amount of air flowing from sides of the rear shield is caused to be limited, and make sure that the amount/percentage of air flowing into the fan is optimized; and 2) has the unexpected result of positively influencing the output airflow volume, and thus the claimed features of L1 and L2 are not simply the results of design constraints based on the overall size of the fan.
Applicants’ arguments are unpersuasive. With respect to Applicants assertions listed above, Applicant has provided no evidence to support these assertions. Because this assertion lacks support in the record, the examiner gives the assertion little weight. See, e.g., In re Pearson, 494 F.2d 1399, 1405 (CCPA 1974) (“Attorney’s argument in a brief cannot take the place of evidence.”). Furthermore, the examiner reviewed the SPEC and language such as “percent, percentage, optimize, or optimized”, which would be used to articulate the significance being argued is NOT FOUND in the SPEC as filed.
Furthermore, there is no description of different fan constructions in the SPEC, which each have different first widths L1 in the range of 60 mm-90 mm and different second widths L2 in the range of 130 mm-170 mm, which provide a positive influence to the output airflow volume, compared to a conventional fan without the particular claimed combination of L1 and L2. Accordingly, there is no evidence in the instant application, which supports Applicants assertions, that the combination of L1 and L2 as claimed provides an optimization and/or unexpected result with regards to the output airflow volume of the fan.
Accordingly, for the reasons articulated above, Applicants arguments are not persuasive.--.
Additionally, it is noted that Applicant makes no other arguments.
Claim Objections
Claim 19 are objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 19 Line 1-3 currently states:
“wherein the first diameter which is greater than or equal to 190 mm and less than or equal to 230 mm.”.
Should be changed to state:
--wherein the first diameter .--.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
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.
Claims 1-4, 6, 8, 10-20 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.
Regarding Claim 1: Line 11 states: “in a front and rear direction is a second width L2 which is greater than or equal to 130 mm and”. It is unclear the exact limitations the applicant is introducing here, specifically it is unclear if the front and rear direction recited in Line 11 of claim 1, is the same as the “front and rear direction” recited in Line 9 or if it is different? For the purpose of examination, the claim language in question will be read as: --in [[a]] the front and rear direction is a second width L2 which is greater than or equal to 130 mm and--.
Regarding Claim 14: Line 13 states: “in a front and rear direction is a second width L2 which is greater than or equal to 130 mm and”. It is unclear the exact limitations the applicant is introducing here, specifically it is unclear if the front and rear direction recited in Line 13 of claim 14, is the same as the “front and rear direction” recited in Line 11 or if it is different? For the purpose of examination, the claim language in question will be read as: --in [[a]] the front and rear direction is a second width L2 which is greater than or equal to 130 mm and--.
Regarding Claim 15: Line 1-2 states: “wherein an angle between every two adjacent rear air guide ribs 234 is a first angle α between 5° and 7°.”. It is unclear the exact limitations the applicant is introducing here, specifically it is unclear what applicant is claiming with the language rear air guide ribs 234, accordingly the meaning of the claim is unclear. For the purpose of examination, the language in question will be read as: --wherein an angle between every two adjacent rear air guide ribs [[234]] is a first angle α between 5° and 7°.--.
Regarding Claim 18: Line 11 states: “in a front and rear direction is a second width L2 which is greater than or equal to 130 mm and”. It is unclear the exact limitations the applicant is introducing here, specifically it is unclear if the front and rear direction recited in Line 11 of claim 18, is the same as the “front and rear direction” recited in Line 9 or if it is different? For the purpose of examination, the claim language in question will be read as: --in [[a]] the front and rear direction is a second width L2 which is greater than or equal to 130 mm and--.
Regarding Claim 18: Line 20-22 states in part: “each of the air inlet channels is linear, and an angle between every two adjacent rear air guide ribs 234 is a first angle α between 5° and 7°.”. It is unclear the exact limitations the applicant is introducing here, specifically it is unclear what applicant is claiming with the language rear air guide ribs 234, accordingly the meaning of the claim is unclear. For the purpose of examination, the language in question will be read as --each of the air inlet channels is linear, and an angle between every two adjacent rear air guide ribs [[234]] is a first angle α between 5° and 7°--.
Finally; depending claim(s) inherit deficiencies from the parent claim(s). Appropriate correction is required.
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.
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) 14-17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over CN 107339265 in view of CN 212657007. Examiners Note: For the purposes of examining the instant application, the examiners submitted English translation of CN 107339265 (50 Page FOR – 01/13/2026 – in the file wrapper), submitted with this office action, is referenced hereinafter. Also the examiners submitted English translation of CN 212657007 (59 Page FOR – 05/23/2025 – in the file wrapper), is referenced hereinafter.
PNG
media_image1.png
717
739
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Annotated Figure 5 of CN 107339265 (Attached Figure C)
PNG
media_image2.png
734
921
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Annotated Figure 7 of CN 107339265 (Attached Figure A)
PNG
media_image3.png
767
1098
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Annotated Figure 1 of CN 107339265 (Attached Figure B)
Regarding Claim 14: CN 107339265 discloses the limitations: A fan (the fan is defined by the sum of its parts), comprising:
fan blades (i.e. blades 108 of the impeller 106 shown in the figures) capable of being driven by an electric motor (i.e. driven by motor 116, Line 596-614) to rotate about a central axis (e.g. rotate about central longitudinal axis of motor 116 in Fig 1);
a front shield (102, Fig 1, Line 373-384) at a front end of the fan blades (as seen in Fig 1), wherein the front shield comprises front air guide ribs (1026, Figs 1-3, Line 373-393) and a shield edge (1022, Figs 1-3, Line 373-393), the front air guide ribs and the shield edge form a plurality of air outlet channels (air outlet channels = circumferential channels formed between adjacent ribs 1026), and, when the fan blades rotate, an airflow flows in an axial direction relative to the central axis (i.e. in the axial/right left direction of Fig 1 & Fig 3) out through the plurality of air outlet channels (Figs 1-3, Line 373-399 – since the airflow is guided by outlet vanes 1026 it inherently flows axially as claimed);
a rear shield (104, Figs 7-8, Line 414-429) at a rear end of the fan blades (as seen in Fig 1), wherein, when the fan blades rotate, the airflow flows in through the rear shield (Line 438-462); and
a side baffle (see Annotated Figure 1 of CN 107339265 (Attached Figure B) above) disposed on a side edge of the rear shield (Attached Figure B);
wherein a width of the side baffle in a front and rear direction is a first width L1 (Attached Figure B; front and rear direction = axial direction along the axis of motor 116), a maximum distance of the fan in the front and rear direction is a second width L2 (Attached Figure B, it is noted that the prior art of CN ‘265 addresses the language of the claim within the same confines as Fig 7 in the instant application), an area formed by an inner edge of the shield edge of the front shield is defined as an effective air outlet area of the front shield (an inner edge of the shield edge of the front shield = inner edge indicated by 1022 in Fig 6; the articulated edge is an inner surface of shield edge 1022, accordingly the area formed by the articulated inner edge of the prior art would define the claimed effective outlet area of the front shield within the same confines that the instant application addresses this same limitation), when the electric motor of the fan runs at a maximum rotational speed at which the electric motor is operable (the motor inherently has a maximum rotational speed at which it is operable, and the motor is inherently able to operate at its maximum rotational speed), a total air volume (m3/min) is moved by the fan (when the fan operates at its maximum rotational speed as claimed, the fan is inherently able to move a total volume of air measured in m3/min), a diameter of the fan blades is a first diameter (first diameter = diameter of impeller, in the prior art Lines 234-237, 244-246, suggest that the first diameter is greater than or equal to 150 mm), the plurality of air outlet channels diffuse outward from a center of the front shield (see Attached Figure C; center of the front shield = 1024 in Figs 2-6, Line 356-368, Line 2-21; as understood from the figures the articulated outlet channels diffuse outward for the center 1024 in the same manner that this feature is addressed in Fig 5 of the instant application), each of the plurality of air outlet channels is arc-shaped (Line 635-638, Also see Annotated Figure 5 of CN 107339265 (Attached Figure C) above), the rear shield comprises air inlet channels (see Annotated Figure 7 of CN 107339265 (Attached Figure A) above), the air inlet channels diffuse outward from a center of the rear shield (Attached Figure A), and each of the air inlet channels is linear (Attached Figure A). CN 107339265 is silent regarding the limitations: a battery pack coupling portion configured for mounting a battery pack. The prior art of CN 212657007 which is directed to a motor driven fan (Line 14-33) like CN 107339265, is noted.
However, CN 212657007 does disclose the limitations: A fan (the fan is defined by the sum of its parts), comprising:
a battery pack coupling portion 111 configured for mounting a battery pack (battery pack 101/102 – Fig 4, Line 215-228); and
fan blades 131 capable of being driven by an electric motor 132 to rotate about a central axis (central axis 100a, Line 195-197).
Hence it would have been obvious, to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to combine the motor driven fan 10 of CN 107339265 with the battery pack coupling portion 111 and the battery pack 101/102 of CN 212657007 in order to be able to use the fan outdoors in a park (e.g. where a device like the motor driven fan would need its own source of power) (CN ‘007 Line 178-184).
Additionally Regarding Claim 14: CN 107339265 as modified by CN 212657007 discloses the claimed limitations except for: “first width L1 which is greater than or equal to 60 mm and less than or equal to 90 mm”. However this claimed dimension is directly related to the axial length of the motor and the impeller blades. One of ordinary skill in the art would understand that design constraints will require the axial length of the side baffle to be greater than the axial length of the motor and the impeller blades with enough clearance so as to allow the motor to freely rotate the impeller within the front fan shield. Finding the optimal axial clearance between the fan blades and the front fan shield will only require routine experimentation and the exact relative dimension between the fan blades and the front fan shield will depend upon the overall size of the fan.
Additionally Regarding Claim 14: CN 107339265 as modified by CN 212657007 discloses the claimed limitations except for: “second width L2 which is greater than or equal to 130 mm and less than or equal to 170 mm”. However, this claimed dimension is directly related to the overall size of the fan. One of ordinary skill in the art would understand that design constraints will require that the exact relative dimensions will depend on the overall size of the fan. The examiner submits that it is within the general skill level of a worker in the art to appropriately size the different components of a fan through routine experimentation.
Additionally Regarding Claim 14: CN 212657007 as modified by CN 212657007 discloses the claimed limitations except for: “a ratio of a total air volume (m3/min) moved by the fan to the effective air outlet area (m2) of the front shield is greater than or equal to 500 m/min and less than or equal to 2000 m/min”.
It is within the general skill level of a worker in the art to understand: how to design a fan, with a particular ratio between the total air volume moved by the fan (m3/min) and the effective air outlet area (m2) of the front shield, so as to meet a desired cooling effect. Furthermore, the general worker would understand that both the total air volume moved by the fan and the effective air outlet area of the front shield are interrelated. Therefore the claimed ratio of a ratio of a total air volume (m3/min) moved by the fan to the effective air outlet area (m2) of the front shield can be found through routine experimentation.
It would have been an obvious optimization of the prior art through routine experimentation (MPEP §2144.05 IIA) to --design the fan such that a ratio of a total air volume (m3/min) moved by the fan to the effective air outlet area (m2) of the front shield is greater than or equal to 500 m/min and less than or equal to 2000 m/min-- as it is obvious that the ratio between the total air volume moved by the fan (m3/min) and the effective air outlet area (m2) of the front shield is related to achieving the desired cooling effect with the fan – and such a ratio could be found through routine experimentation.
Additionally Regarding Claim 14: CN 107339265 discloses that the impeller diameter/first diameter is larger than 150 mm at Line 244-246, but is silent regarding how much larger than 150 mm the impeller diameter/first diameter is. Thus CN 107339265 as modified by CN 212657007 discloses the claimed limitations except for: “the impeller diameter is greater than or equal to 190 mm and less than or equal to 250 mm”. It would have been an obvious matter of design choice to --design the fan such that the impeller diameter is greater than or equal to 190 mm and less than or equal to 250 mm--, since no stated problem is solved or unexpected results obtained in having the impeller diameter being greater than or equal to 190 mm and less than or equal to 250 mm versus the design taught by CN 107339265 as modified by CN 212657007. Applicant has not disclosed why it is important/critical that the impeller diameter is greater than or equal to 190 mm and less than or equal to 250 mm and has not demonstrated that this feature solves any stated problem or is for any particular purpose. Specifically, ¶0022 of the SPEC indicates that 190 mm, 212 mm, 230 mm, and 250 mm are examples of an impeller diameter that the fan could have (e.g. like the impeller 106 that is larger than 150 mm taught by CN ‘265 in the combination of CN 107339265 as modified by CN 212657007). Thus, when the fan is designed such that the impeller diameter is greater than or equal to 190 mm and less than or equal to 250 mm the impeller 106 that is larger than 150 mm taught by CN ‘265 in the combination of CN 107339265 as modified by CN 212657007 will also meet Applicant’s disclosed functional limitation of having a size of one of 190 mm, 212 mm, 230 mm, and 250 mm.
Regarding Claim 15: CN 107339265 discloses the limitations: wherein an angle between every two adjacent rear air guide ribs is a first angle between 5° and 7° (as seen in Annotated Figure A above, the ribs 1046 are evenly spaced about the circumference of the center of the rear shield; specifically Fig 7 shows 50 linear shaped air inlet channels and an sector shaped solid structure having a screw extending there through defining the circular shape of the rear shield; additionally, as pointed out in Attached Figure A the solid structure prevents rib 1046 located above the solid structure and rib 1046 located below the solid structure from being directly adjacent to one another; furthermore since the solid structure appears to span the same angle as three consecutive ribs 1046; with this information in hand it can be determined that the angle (e.g. the claimed first angle) between each pair of directly adjacent rear air guide ribs 1046 is equal to
360
°
52
which equals 6.92° which is within the claimed range for the first angle).
Regarding Claim 16: CN 212657007 does disclose the limitations: wherein a rated voltage of the battery pack of the fan is greater than or equal to 18V and less than or equal to 40V (a voltage of the battery pack 101/102 is greater than or equal to 20V which is within the range of 18V ≤ rated voltage ≤ 40V – Line 259-272).
Regarding Claim 17: CN 212657007 does disclose the limitations: a prolonged working time of the fan is desired (Line 239-272) and a capacity of the battery pack is 5 Ah (Line 363-387).
Additionally Regarding Claim 17: CN 212657007 as modified by CN 212657007 discloses the claimed limitations except for: “wherein a ratio of a maximum time of endurance of the fan to the capacity of the battery pack is greater than or equal to 8 (h/Ah)”.
One of ordinary skill in the art would understand: how to design a fan, with a particular ratio between a maximum time of endurance of the fan and the capacity of the battery pack, as claimed, so as to meet a desired cooling effect. Furthermore, those in the art recognize that the particular ratio claimed allows a desired amount of cooling to be performed by the fan per charge of the battery. Therefore the claimed ratio can be the result of optimization through routine experimentation.
It would have been an obvious optimization of the prior art through routine experimentation (MPEP §2144.05 IIA) to –design the battery pack such that a ratio of a maximum time of endurance of the fan to the capacity of the battery pack is greater than or equal to 8 (h/Ah)-- as it is obvious that the ratio between a maximum time of endurance of the fan and the capacity of the battery pack is related to achieving a desired amount of cooling to be performed by the fan per charge of the battery – and such a ratio could be found through routine experimentation.
Claim(s) 1-4, 6, 8, 10, 12-13, and 18-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over CN 107339265 in view of CN 212657007 and Wang USPN 10539939.
Regarding Claim 1: CN 107339265 discloses the limitations: A fan (the fan is defined by the sum of its parts), comprising:
fan blades (i.e. blades 108 of the impeller 106 shown in the figures) capable of being driven by an electric motor (i.e. driven by motor 116, Line 596-614) to rotate about a central axis (e.g. rotate about central longitudinal axis of motor 116 in Fig 1);
a front shield (102, Fig 1, Line 373-384) at a front end of the fan blades (as seen in Fig 1), wherein, when the fan blades rotate, an air flow flows in an axial direction relative to the central axis (i.e. in the axial/right left direction of Fig 1 & Fig 3) out through the front shield (since elements 1026 in the front shield 10 are disclosed as being outlet guide vanes (Line 356-399), when the fan operates the generated airflow would inherently flow out through the front shield as claimed since elements 1026 would guide the generated airflow out of the fan);
a rear shield (104, Figs 7-8, Line 414-429) at a rear end of the fan blades (as seen in Fig 1), wherein, when the fan blades rotate, an airflow flows in through the rear shield (Line 438-462);
a side baffle (see Annotated Figure 1 of CN 107339265 (Attached Figure B) above) disposed on a side edge of the rear shield (Attached Figure B);
wherein a width of the side baffle in a front and rear direction is a first width L1 (Attached Figure B; front and rear direction = axial direction along the axis of motor 116), a maximum distance of the fan in the front and rear direction is a second width L2 (Attached Figure B, it is noted that the prior art of CN ‘265 addresses the language of the claim within the same confines as Fig 7 in the instant application), the electric motor of the fan has at least a first rotational speed at which the electric motor is operable (first rotational speed = speed of high speed rotation that the impeller 106 rotates at – Line 373-391), when the electric motor moves at the first rotational speed (the motor is inherently able to operate at the articulated first rotation speed), a total air volume is moved by the fan (when the fan operates at the articulated first rotational speed the fan is inherently able to move a total volume of air measured in CFM), a diameter of the fan blades is a first diameter which is greater than or equal to 150 mm and less than or equal to 270 mm (first diameter = diameter of impeller, in the prior art Lines 234-237, 244-246, suggest that the first diameter is greater than or equal to 150 mm which is within the claimed range), the front shield comprises air outlet channels (Figs 1-3, Line 373-399 also see Annotated Figure C above), the air outlet channels diffuse outward from a center of the front shield (see Attached Figure C; center of the front shield = 1024 in Figs 2-6, Line 356-368, Line 2-21; as understood from the figures the articulated outlet channels diffuse outward for the center 1024 in the same manner that this feature is addressed in Fig 5 of the instant application), and each of the air outlet channels is arc-shaped (Line 635-638, Also see Annotated Figure 5 of CN 107339265 (Attached Figure C) above). CN 107339265 is silent regarding the limitations: a battery pack coupling portion configured for mounting a battery pack. The prior art of CN 212657007 which is directed to a motor driven fan (Line 14-33) like CN 107339265, is noted.
However, CN 212657007 does disclose the limitations: A fan (the fan is defined by the sum of its parts), comprising: a battery pack coupling portion 111 for mounting a battery pack (battery pack 101/102 – Fig 4, Line 215-228); and fan blades 131 capable of being driven by an electric motor 132 to rotate about a central axis (central axis 100a, Line 195-197)
Hence it would have been obvious, to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to combine the motor driven fan 10 of CN 107339265 with the battery pack coupling portion 111 and the battery pack 101/102 of CN 212657007 in order to be able to use the fan outdoors in a park (e.g. where a device like the motor driven fan would need its own source of power) (CN ‘007 Line 178-184).
CN 107339265 is silent regarding the limitations: a total air volume moved by the fan is greater than or equal to 800 CFM and less than or equal to 1800 CFM. The prior art of Wang USPN 10539939 which is directed to an electric device for exhausting a volume of air (title, abstract) like CN 107339265, is noted.
However, Wang USPN 10539939 does disclose the limitations: a fan (the fan is defined by the sum of its parts), comprising fan blades (fan blades of the wind wheel in Fig 11) capable of being driven by an electric motor to rotate about a central axis (as seen in Fig 11 the fan blades are able to be driven by an electric motor – such that the fan blades rotate about a central axis defined by the output shaft of the motor), wherein the electric motor of the fan has at least a first rotational speed (first rotational speed = any one of the actual rotational speed (RPM) parameters listed in Table 3 in Column 12) at which the electric motor is operable (the motor is inherently operable at the listed rotational speeds listed in Table 3), and, when the electric motor moves at the first rotational speed, a total air volume moved by the fan is greater than or equal to 800 CFM and less than or equal to 1800 CFM (as illustrated in Table 3 the actual air volume moved ranges between 800 CFM and 1400 CFM).
Hence 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 blades and electric motor of CN 107339265 with the fan blades and electric motor of Wang USPN 10539939 in order to move a desired constant air volume (e.g. 800/1080/1400) CFM with the fan (Column 12 Line 1-25).
Additionally Regarding Claim 1: CN 107339265 as modified by CN 212657007 and Wang USPN 10539939 discloses the claimed limitations except for: “first width L1 which is greater than or equal to 60 mm and less than or equal to 90 mm”. However this claimed dimension is directly related to the axial length of the motor and the impeller blades. One of ordinary skill in the art would understand that design constraints will require the axial length of the side baffle to be greater than the axial length of the motor and the impeller blades with enough clearance so as to allow the motor to freely rotate the impeller within the front fan shield. Finding the optimal axial clearance between the fan blades and the front fan shield will only require routine experimentation and the exact relative dimension between the fan blades and the front fan shield will depend upon the overall size of the fan.
Additionally Regarding Claim 1: CN 107339265 as modified by CN 212657007 and Wang USPN 10539939 discloses the claimed limitations except for: “second width L2 which is greater than or equal to 130 mm and less than or equal to 170 mm”. However, this claimed dimension is directly related to the overall size of the fan. One of ordinary skill in the art would understand that design constraints will require that the exact relative dimensions will depend on the overall size of the fan. The examiner submits that it is within the general skill level of a worker in the art to appropriately size the different components of a fan through routine experimentation.
Regarding Claim 2: CN 107339265 discloses that the impeller diameter/first diameter is larger than 150 mm at Line 244-246, but is silent regarding how much larger than 150 mm the impeller diameter/first diameter is. Thus CN 107339265 as modified by CN 212657007 and Wang USPN 10539939 discloses the claimed limitations except for: “the first diameter is greater than or equal to 190 mm and less than or equal to 250 mm”. It would have been an obvious matter of design choice to --design the fan such that the impeller diameter is greater than or equal to 190 mm and less than or equal to 250 mm--, since no stated problem is solved or unexpected results obtained in having the impeller diameter being greater than or equal to 190 mm and less than or equal to 250 mm versus the design taught by CN 107339265 as modified by CN 212657007 and Wang USPN 10539939. Applicant has not disclosed why it is important/critical that the impeller diameter is greater than or equal to 190 mm and less than or equal to 250 mm and has not demonstrated that this feature solves any stated problem or is for any particular purpose. Specifically, ¶0022 of the SPEC indicates that 190 mm, 212 mm, 230 mm, and 250 mm are examples of an impeller diameter that the fan could have (e.g. like the impeller 106 that is larger than 150 mm taught by CN ‘265 in the combination of CN 107339265 as modified by CN 212657007). Thus, when the fan is designed such that the impeller diameter is greater than or equal to 190 mm and less than or equal to 250 mm the impeller 106 that is larger than 150 mm taught by CN ‘265 in the combination of CN 107339265 as modified by CN 212657007 will also meet Applicant’s disclosed functional limitation of having a size of one of 190 mm, 212 mm, 230 mm, and 250 mm.
Regarding Claim 3: CN 107339265 as modified by CN 212657007 and Wang USPN 10539939 discloses: wherein the first rotational speed is a maximum rotational speed that is reachable during operation of the fan in a working state (in the combination of prior art, since the fan outputs a constant air volume at one particular actual rotational speed – i.e. the first rotational speed – it follows that the first rotational speed would also be a maximum rotational speed, as it is the only speed the fan rotates at when it is being rotated by the motor (i.e. during operation of the fan)).
Regarding Claim 4: CN 212657007 does disclose the limitations: wherein a rated voltage of the battery pack of the fan is greater than or equal to 12V and less than or equal to 80V (a voltage of the battery pack 101/102 is disclosed as being greater than or equal to 20V which is within both the ranges of 12V ≤ rated voltage ≤ 80V and also 18V ≤ rated voltage ≤ 40V – Line 259-272).
Regarding Claim 6: CN 107339265 discloses: wherein the rear shield comprises air inlet channels (see Annotated Figure 7 of CN 107339265 (Attached Figure A) above), the air inlet channels diffuse outward from a center of the rear shield (Attached Figure A), and each of the air inlet channels is linear (Attached Figure A).
Regarding Claim 8: CN 107339265 discloses: wherein a diameter of a shield edge of the front shield (Attached Figure B) of the fan is a second diameter D2 (Attached Figure B).
Additionally Regarding Claim 8: CN 107339265 as modified by CN 212657007 and Wang USPN 10539939 discloses the claimed limitations except for: “second diameter D2 which is greater than or equal to 180 mm and less than or equal to 290 mm” However, these claimed dimensions are directly related to the diameter of the fan blades. One of ordinary skill in the art would understand that design constraints will require that the diameter of the fan shield be greater that than the diameter of the fan blades with enough clearance so as to allow the fan blades to freely rotate within the fan shield. Finding the optimal clearance between the fan blades and the fan shield will only require routine experimentation and the exact relative dimension between the fan blades and the fan shield will depend on the overall size of the fan.
Regarding Claim 10: CN 107339265 as modified by CN 212657007 and Wang USPN 10539939 discloses the claimed limitations except for: “wherein the first rotational speed of the electric motor is greater than or equal to 2000 rpm and less than or equal to 2400 rpm”.
One of ordinary skill in the art would understand: that the claimed rotational speed of the motor is used to displace a particular amount of air with the impeller blades of the fan per unit time, and allow the fan to function as desired. Therefore the claimed rotational speed can be the result of optimization through routine experimentation.
It would have been an obvious optimization of the prior art through routine experimentation (MPEP §2144.05 IIA) to --design the fan such that the first rotational speed of the electric motor is greater than or equal to 2000 rpm and less than or equal to 2400 rpm-- as it is obvious that the maximum speed of the motor is a parameter that allows a desired amount of air to be displaced by the impeller per unit time – and such a speed could be found through routine experimentation.
Regarding Claim 12: CN 212657007 does disclose the limitations: a prolonged working time of the fan is desired (Line 239-272) and a capacity of the battery pack is 5 Ah (Line 363-387).
Additionally Regarding Claim 12: CN 107339265 as modified by CN 212657007 and Wang USPN 10539939 discloses the claimed limitations except for: “wherein a ratio of a maximum time of endurance of the fan to the capacity of the battery pack is greater than or equal to 8 (h/Ah)”. It would have been an obvious matter of design choice to –design the battery pack such that a ratio of a maximum time of endurance of the fan to the capacity of the battery pack is greater than or equal to 8 (h/Ah)--, since no stated problem is solved or unexpected results obtained in having ratio of a maximum time of endurance of the fan to the capacity of the battery pack being greater than or equal to 8 (h/Ah) versus the design taught by CN 107339265 as modified by CN 212657007 and Wang USPN 10539939. Applicant has not disclosed why it is important/critical that a ratio of a maximum time of endurance of the fan to the capacity of the battery pack is greater than or equal to 8 (h/Ah) and has not demonstrated that this feature solves any stated problem or is for any particular purpose. Specifically, ¶0040 of the SPEC indicates that the size of the battery pack determines how long the fan can run (e.g. like the battery pack 101/102 of CN ‘007 taught by CN 107339265 as modified by CN 212657007 and Wang USPN 10539939). Thus, when the battery pack is designed such that a ratio of a maximum time of endurance of the fan to the capacity of the battery pack is greater than or equal to 8 (h/Ah) the battery pack 101/102 of CN ‘007 taught by CN 107339265 as modified by CN 212657007 and Wang USPN 10539939 will also meet Applicant’s disclosed functional limitation of determining how long the fan can run.
Regarding Claim 13: CN 107339265 as modified by CN 212657007 and Wang USPN 10539939 discloses the claimed limitations except for: “wherein, when the fan operates at the first rotational speed, a maximum wind speed output by the fan is greater than or equal to 7.5 m/s and less than or equal to 15 m/s”.
It is within the general skill level of a worker in the art to understand: how to design a fan, with a particular wind speed, so as to meet a desired cooling effect. Furthermore, one of ordinary skill in the art would understand that a maximum wind speed & the first rotational speed of the fan are interrelated as claimed. Therefore the claimed maximum wind speed can be the result of optimization through routine experimentation.
It would have been an obvious optimization of the prior art through routine experimentation (MPEP §2144.05 IIA) to --design the fan so when the fan operates at the first rotational speed, a maximum wind speed output by the fan is greater than or equal to 7.5 m/s and less than or equal to 15 m/s-- as it is obvious that the maximum wind speed output by the fan is related to achieving the desired cooling effect with the fan – and such a maximum wind speed output by the fan could be found through routine experimentation.
Regarding Claim 18: CN 107339265 discloses the limitations: A fan, comprising:
fan blades (i.e. blades 108 of the impeller 106 shown in the figures) capable of being driven by an electric motor (i.e. driven by motor 116, Line 596-614) to rotate about a central axis (e.g. rotate about central longitudinal axis of motor 116 in Fig 1);
a front shield (102, Fig 1, Line 373-384) at a front end of the fan blades (as seen in Fig 1), wherein, when the fan blades rotate, an air flow flows in an axial direction relative to the central axis (i.e. in the axial/right left direction of Fig 1 & Fig 3) out through the front shield (since elements 1026 in the front shield 10 are disclosed as being outlet guide vanes (Line 356-399), when the fan operates the generated airflow would inherently flow out through the front shield as claimed since elements 1026 would guide the generated airflow out of the fan);
a rear shield (104, Figs 7-8, Line 414-429) at a rear end of the fan blades (as seen in Fig 1), wherein, when the fan blades rotate, an airflow flows in through the rear shield (Line 438-462); and
a side baffle (see Annotated Figure 1 of CN 107339265 (Attached Figure B) above) disposed on a side edge of the rear shield (Attached Figure B);
wherein a width of the side baffle in a front and rear direction is a first width L1 (Attached Figure B; front and rear direction = axial direction along the axis of motor 116), a maximum distance of the fan in the front and rear direction is a second width L2 (Attached Figure B, it is noted that the prior art of CN ‘265 addresses the language of the claim within the same confines as Fig 7 in the instant application), the electric motor of the fan has at least a first rotational speed at which the electric motor is operable (first rotational speed = speed of high speed rotation that the impeller 106 rotates at – Line 373-391), when the electric motor moves at the first rotational speed (the motor is inherently able to operate at the articulated first rotation speed), a total air volume is moved by the fan (when the fan operates at the articulated first rotational speed the fan is inherently able to move a total volume of air measured in CFM), wherein a diameter of the fan blades is a first diameter (first diameter = diameter of impeller, in the prior art Lines 234-237, 244-246, suggest that the first diameter is greater than or equal to 150 mm), the front shield comprises air outlet channels (Figs 1-3, Line 373-399 also see Annotated Figure C above), the air outlet channels diffuse outward from a center of the front shield (see Attached Figure C; center of the front shield = 1024 in Figs 2-6, Line 356-368, Line 2-21; as understood from the figures the articulated outlet channels diffuse outward for the center 1024 in the same manner that this feature is addressed in Fig 5 of the instant application), each of the air outlet channels is arc-shaped (Line 635-638, Also see Annotated Figure 5 of CN 107339265 (Attached Figure C) above), the rear shield comprises air inlet channels (see Annotated Figure 7 of CN 107339265 (Attached Figure A) above), the air inlet channels diffuse outward from a center of the rear shield (Attached Figure A), each of the air inlet channels is linear (Attached Figure A), an angle between every two adjacent rear air guide ribs is a first angle a between 5° and 7° (as seen in Annotated Figure A above, the ribs 1046 are evenly spaced about the circumference of the center of the rear shield; specifically Fig 7 shows 50 linear shaped air inlet channels and an sector shaped solid structure having a screw extending there through defining the circular shape of the rear shield; additionally, as pointed out in Attached Figure A the solid structure prevents rib 1046 located above the soldi structure and rib 1046 located below the solid structure from being directly adjacent to one another; furthermore since the solid structure appears to span the same angle as three consecutive ribs 1046; with this information in hand it can be determined that the angle (e.g. the claimed first angle) between each pair of directly adjacent rear air guide ribs 1046 is equal to
360
°
52
which equals 6.92° which is within the claimed range for the first angle). CN 107339265 is silent regarding the limitations: a battery pack coupling portion configured for mounting a battery pack, wherein a rated voltage of the battery pack of the fan is greater than or equal to 18 V and less than or equal to 40 V. The prior art of CN 212657007 which is directed to a motor driven fan (Line 14-33) like CN 107339265, is noted.
However, CN 212657007 does disclose the limitations: A fan (the fan is defined by the sum of its parts), comprising: a battery pack coupling portion 111 for mounting a battery pack (battery pack 101/102 – Fig 4, Line 215-228); and fan blades 131 capable of being driven by an electric motor 132 to rotate about a central axis (central axis 100a, Line 195-197),
wherein a rated voltage of the battery pack of the fan is greater than or equal to 12V and less than or equal to 80V (a voltage of the battery pack 101/102 is disclosed as being greater than or equal to 20V which is within both the ranges of 12V ≤ rated voltage ≤ 80V and also 18V ≤ rated voltage ≤ 40V – Line 259-272).
Hence it would have been obvious, to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to combine the motor driven fan 10 of CN 107339265 with the battery pack coupling portion 111 and the battery pack 101/102 of CN 212657007 in order to be able to use the fan outdoors in a park (e.g. where a device like the motor driven fan would need its own source of power) (CN ‘007 Line 178-184).
CN 107339265 is silent regarding the limitations: a total air volume moved by the fan is greater than or equal to 800 CFM. The prior art of Wang USPN 10539939 which is directed to an electric device for exhausting a volume of air (title, abstract) like CN 107339265, is noted.
However, Wang USPN 10539939 does disclose the limitations: a fan (the fan is defined by the sum of its parts), comprising fan blades (fan blades of the wind wheel in Fig 11) capable of being driven by an electric motor to rotate about a central axis (as seen in Fig 11 the fan blades are able to be driven by an electric motor – such that the fan blades rotate about a central axis defined by the output shaft of the motor),
wherein the electric motor of the fan has at least a first rotational speed (first rotational speed = any one of the actual rotational speed (RPM) parameters listed in Table 3 in Column 12) at which the electric motor is operable (the motor is inherently operable at the listed rotational speeds listed in Table 3), and, when the electric motor moves a the first rotational speed, a total air volume moved by the fan is greater than or equal to 800 CFM (as illustrated in Table 3 the actual air volume moved ranges between 800 CFM and 1400 CFM).
Hence 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 blades and electric motor of CN 107339265 with the fan blades and electric motor of Wang USPN 10539939 in order to move a desired constant air volume (e.g. 800/1080/1400) CFM with the fan (Column 12 Line 1-25).
Additionally Regarding Claim 18: CN 107339265 as modified by CN 212657007 and Wang USPN 10539939 discloses the claimed limitations except for: “first width L1 which is greater than or equal to 60 mm and less than or equal to 90 mm”. However this claimed dimension is directly related to the axial length of the motor and the impeller blades. One of ordinary skill in the art would understand that design constraints will require the axial length of the side baffle to be greater than the axial length of the motor and the impeller blades with enough clearance so as to allow the motor to freely rotate the impeller within the front fan shield. Finding the optimal axial clearance between the fan blades and the front fan shield will only require routine experimentation and the exact relative dimension between the fan blades and the front fan shield will depend upon the overall size of the fan.
Additionally Regarding Claim 18: CN 107339265 as modified by CN 212657007 and Wang USPN 10539939 discloses the claimed limitations except for: “second width L2 which is greater than or equal to 130 mm and less than or equal to 170 mm”. However, this claimed dimension is directly related to the overall size of the fan. One of ordinary skill in the art would understand that design constraints will require that the exact relative dimensions will depend on the overall size of the fan. The examiner submits that it is within the general skill level of a worker in the art to appropriately size the different components of a fan through routine experimentation.
Additionally Regarding Claim 18: CN 107339265 discloses that the impeller diameter/first diameter is larger than 150 mm at Line 244-246, but is silent regarding how much larger than 150 mm the impeller diameter/first diameter is. Thus CN 107339265 as modified by CN 212657007 and Wang USPN 10539939 discloses the claimed limitations except for: “the impeller diameter is greater than or equal to 190 mm and less than or equal to 250 mm”. It would have been an obvious matter of design choice to --design the fan such that the impeller diameter is greater than or equal to 190 mm and less than or equal to 250 mm--, since no stated problem is solved or unexpected results obtained in having the impeller diameter being greater than or equal to 190 mm and less than or equal to 250 mm versus the design taught by CN 107339265 as modified by CN 212657007. Applicant has not disclosed why it is important/critical that the impeller diameter is greater than or equal to 190 mm and less than or equal to 250 mm and has not demonstrated that this feature solves any stated problem or is for any particular purpose. Specifically, ¶0022 of the SPEC indicates that 190 mm, 212 mm, 230 mm, and 250 mm are examples of an impeller diameter that the fan could have (e.g. like the impeller 106 that is larger than 150 mm taught by CN ‘265 in the combination of CN 107339265 as modified by CN 212657007 and Wang USPN 10539939). Thus, when the fan is designed such that the impeller diameter is greater than or equal to 190 mm and less than or equal to 250 mm the impeller 106 that is larger than 150 mm taught by CN ‘265 in the combination of CN 107339265 as modified by CN 212657007 and Wang USPN 10539939 will also meet Applicant’s disclosed functional limitation of having a size of one of 190 mm, 212 mm, 230 mm, and 250 mm.
Regarding Claim 19: CN 107339265 discloses that the impeller diameter/first diameter is larger than 150 mm at Line 244-246, but is silent regarding how much larger than 150 mm the impeller diameter/first diameter is. Thus CN 107339265 as modified by CN 212657007 and Wang USPN 10539939 discloses the claimed limitations except for: “the first diameter is greater than or equal to 190 mm and less than or equal to 230 mm”. It would have been an obvious matter of design choice to --design the fan such that the impeller diameter is greater than or equal to 190 mm and less than or equal to 230 mm--, since no stated problem is solved or unexpected results obtained in having the impeller diameter being greater than or equal to 190 mm and less than or equal to 230 mm versus the design taught by CN 107339265 as modified by CN 212657007 and Wang USPN 10539939. Applicant has not disclosed why it is important/critical that the impeller diameter is greater than or equal to 190 mm and less than or equal to 230 mm and has not demonstrated that this feature solves any stated problem or is for any particular purpose. Specifically, ¶0022 of the SPEC indicates that 190 mm, 212 mm, and 230 mm, are examples of an impeller diameter that the fan could have (e.g. like the impeller 106 that is larger than 150 mm taught by CN ‘265 in the combination of CN 107339265 as modified by CN 212657007). Thus, when the fan is designed such that the impeller diameter is greater than or equal to 190 mm and less than or equal to 230 mm the impeller 106 that is larger than 150 mm taught by CN ‘265 in the combination of CN 107339265 as modified by CN 212657007 will also meet Applicant’s disclosed functional limitation of having a size of one of 190 mm, 212 mm, and 230 mm.
Regarding Claim 20: CN 212657007 does disclose the limitations: a prolonged working time of the fan is desired (Line 239-272) and a capacity of the battery pack is 5 Ah (Line 363-387).
Additionally Regarding Claim 20: CN 107339265 as modified by CN 212657007 and Wang USPN 10539939 discloses the claimed limitations except for: “wherein a ratio of a maximum time of endurance of the fan to the capacity of the battery pack is greater than or equal to 8 (h/Ah)”. It would have been an obvious matter of design choice to –design the battery pack such that a ratio of a maximum time of endurance of the fan to the capacity of the battery pack is greater than or equal to 8 (h/Ah)--, since no stated problem is solved or unexpected results obtained in having ratio of a maximum time of endurance of the fan to the capacity of the battery pack being greater than or equal to 8 (h/Ah) versus the design taught by CN 107339265 as modified by CN 212657007 and Wang USPN 10539939. Applicant has not disclosed why it is important/critical that a ratio of a maximum time of endurance of the fan to the capacity of the battery pack is greater than or equal to 8 (h/Ah) and has not demonstrated that this feature solves any stated problem or is for any particular purpose. Specifically, ¶0040 of the SPEC indicates that the size of the battery pack determines how long the fan can run (e.g. like the battery pack 101/102 of CN ‘007 taught by CN 107339265 as modified by CN 212657007 and Wang USPN 10539939). Thus, when the battery pack is designed such that a ratio of a maximum time of endurance of the fan to the capacity of the battery pack is greater than or equal to 8 (h/Ah) the battery pack 101/102 of CN ‘007 taught by CN 107339265 as modified by CN 212657007 and Wang USPN 10539939 will also meet Applicant’s disclosed functional limitation of determining how long the fan can run.
Claim(s) 11 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over CN 107339265 in view of CN 212657007 and Wang USPN 10539939 as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Kamiya US 2012/0269663.
Regarding Claim 11: CN 107339265 as modified by CN 212657007 and Wang USPN 10539939 discloses the limitations recited in claim 1. Additionally, CN 212657007 discloses the limitations: the battery powered fan is portable (Line 178-184). CN 212657007 is silent regarding the limitations: wherein the battery pack of the fan is also adaptable to other types of power tools that are different than the fan. The prior art of Kamiya US 2012/0269663 which is directed to a battery powered fan using a battery pack (title, abstract) like CN 212657007, is noted.
However, Kamiya US 2012/0269663 does disclose the limitations: a fan powered by a battery pack (as seen in Figs 1-9 the fan 1 in the figures is powered by battery pack 10, ¶0058-¶0060),wherein the battery pack of the fan is also adaptable to other types of power tools that are different than the fan (¶0060).
Hence it would have been obvious, to one of ordinary skill in the art to replace the battery pack 101/102 of CN 212657007 with the battery pack 10 of Kamiya US 2012/0269663 in order to be able to efficiently use the battery pack both for the fan and electric tools ¶0007.
Examiner's Note: The Examiner respectfully requests of the Applicant in preparing responses, to fully consider the entirety of the references as potentially teaching all or part of the claimed invention.
It is noted, REFERENCES ARE RELEVANT AS PRIOR ART FOR ALL THEY CONTAIN. “The use of patents as references is not limited to what the patentees describe as their own inventions or to the problems with which they are concerned. They are part of the literature of the art, relevant for all they contain.” In re Heck, 699 F.2d 1331, 1332-33, 216 USPQ 1038, 1039 (Fed. Cir. 1983) (quoting In re Lemelson, 397 F.2d 1006, 1009, 158 USPQ 275, 277 (CCPA 1968)). A reference may be relied upon for all that it would have reasonably suggested to one having ordinary skill the art, including nonpreferred embodiments (see MPEP § 2123).
Additionally the origin of the drawing is immaterial. For instance, drawings in a design patent can anticipate or make obvious the claimed invention, as can drawings in utility patents. When the reference is a utility patent, it does not matter that the feature shown is unintended or unexplained in the specification. The drawings must be evaluated for what they reasonably disclose and suggest to one of ordinary skill in the art. In re Aslanian, 590 F.2d 911, 200 USPQ 500 (CCPA 1979). (See MPEP § 2125).
The Examiner has cited particular locations in the reference(s) as applied to the claims above for the convenience of the Applicant. Although the specified citations are representative of the teachings of the art and are applied to the specific limitations within the individual claims, typically other passages and figures will apply as well.
Furthermore: with respect to the prior art and the determination of obviousness, it has been held that Prior art is not limited just to the references being applied, but includes the understanding of one of ordinary skill in the art. The "mere existence of differences (i.e. a gap) between the prior art and an invention DOES NOT ESTABLISH the inventions nonobviousness." Dann v. Johnston, 425 U.S. 219, 230, 189 USPQ 257, 261 (1976). Rather, in determining obviousness the proper analysis is whether the claimed invention would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art after consideration of all the facts. And factors other than the disclosures of the cited prior art may provide a basis for concluding that it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to bridge the gap. (See MPEP § 2141).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JOSEPH S HERRMANN whose telephone number is (571)270-3291. The examiner can normally be reached 8:00 AM - 5:00 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, ESSAMA OMGBA can be reached at 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 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.
/CHARLES G FREAY/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3746
/JOSEPH S. HERRMANN/ Examiner, Art Unit 3746
Prosecution Insights