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 .
Election/Restrictions
Applicant's election without traverse of Group I, Species A-I, and Species B-I (Claims 1-7, 9, 12-27, 29, and 30) in the reply filed on 12/29/2025 is acknowledged. The restriction requirement is now made FINAL with Claims 8, 10-11, 28, and 31-59 now withdrawn from further examination.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to under 37 CFR 1.83(a). The drawings must show every feature of the invention specified in the claims. Therefore, the following must be shown or the feature(s) canceled from the claim(s). No new matter should be entered.
Claims 2, 4-5, and 15: “serrations” and their respective structural configurations in the claims.
Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
Claim Objections
Claim 2 is objected to because of the following informalities: In Line 1, the recitation of, “the bristles” should recite, “the plurality of noise-reducing bristles” to provide formal antecedent basis.
Claim 3 is objected to because of the following informalities: In Line 1, the recitation of, “said noise-reducing bristles” should recite, “said plurality of noise-reducing bristles” to provide formal antecedent basis.
Claim 7 is objected to because of the following informalities: In Lines 1-2, the recitation of, “the plurality of bristles” should recite, “the plurality of noise-reducing bristles” to provide formal antecedent basis.
Claim 13 is objected to because of the following informalities: In Line 1, the recitation of, “the plurality of bristles” should recite, “the plurality of noise-reducing bristles” to provide formal antecedent basis.
Claim 15 is objected to because of the following informalities: In Line 1, the recitation of, “the plurality of bristles” should recite, “the plurality of noise-reducing bristles” to provide formal antecedent basis.
Claim 17 is objected to because of the following informalities: In Line 3, the recitation of, “the bristles” should recite, “the plurality of noise-reducing bristles” to provide formal antecedent basis.
Claim 18 is objected to because of the following informalities: In Line 3, the recitation of, “the bristles” should recite, “the plurality of noise-reducing bristles” to provide formal antecedent basis.
Claim 22 is objected to because of the following informalities: In Line 3, the recitation of, “the bristles” should recite, “the plurality of noise-reducing bristles” to provide formal antecedent basis.
Claim Interpretation
Throughout the respective claims, the term “velvet” is interpreted in light of the specification which states, “a velvet structure may be distinguished from a serration structure based on the characteristic or average distance between adjacent bristles, average length of the bristles, average flexibility or hardness of the bristles, or average thickness of the bristles.” in Para 68.
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.
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.
Claims 4, 12, and 22 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 pre-AIA the applicant regards as the invention.
Regarding Claim 4, the recitation of, “the damping patches” in Line 1 lacks antecedent basis. For the purposes of prior art examination, the recitation is considered to mean, “the one or more damping patches” and Applicant is suggested to amend the limitation accordingly.
Regarding Claim 12, the recitation of, “the propeller” in Line 1 lacks antecedent basis. For the purposes of prior art examination, the recitation is considered to mean, “the at least one propeller” and Applicant is suggested to amend the limitation accordingly.
Regarding Claim 22, the recitation of, “first plurality of branches” in Line 2 is unclear if this is the same one previously recited in Claim 18. For the purposes of prior art examination, the recitation is considered to mean the same one. Applicant is suggested to amend the limitation to say, “the first plurality of branches”.
**Any and all claims rejected above under 112(b), if rejected with art below under sections 102 and/or 103, is/are rejected as best understood.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1-3, 6-7, 9, and 12-14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Callas (US 2007/0231128 A1).
PNG
media_image1.png
450
262
media_image1.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image2.png
302
434
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Regarding Claim 1, Callas discloses a fan (18, figure 2 also
reproduced above) comprising:
a body section including a casing (30, figure 4 also reproduced above) and at least one propeller (22, figure 3), and
a damping element (see 40, figure 4) coupled to the body section (see figure 4),
wherein the damping element includes a plurality of noise-reducing bristles (fibers 40, figure 4).
Regarding Claim 2, Callas discloses that the bristles are structured as any of serrations and velvet bristles (see velvet structure fibers 40, figure 4).
Regarding Claim 3, Callas discloses that said noise-reducing bristles are distributed in one or more damping patches (see fibers 40 attached via an adhesive on blade tip, Para 24 and figure 4 i.e. forming a patch).
Regarding Claim 6, Callas discloses that the one or more damping patches include only bristles structured as velvet bristles (see figure 4).
Regarding Claim 7, Callas discloses that said at least one propeller includes a propeller edge (24, figure 4) and the plurality of bristles are coupled to the propeller edge (see figure 4).
Regarding Claim 9, Callas discloses that the one or more damping patches are integral to the body section (see Para 24, Line 1, and figure 4).
Regarding Claim 12, Callas discloses that the damping element is attached to the propeller (see figure 4).
Regarding Claim 13, Callas discloses that the plurality of bristles includes any of silicone, a metal, a plastic, a carbon fiber, a bioorganic fiber, a monomer or polymer, and any combinations thereof (see fibers made of carbon fiber 40, Para 22 Lines 3-4).
Regarding Claim 14, Callas discloses that the plurality of bristles have a flexible structure (see flexible bristles, abstract).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claims 15, 18-20, and 29-30 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Callas in view of SUN (CN106246478 A).
Regarding Claim 15, Callas discloses all of the limitations of Claim 1 as discussed above but is silent on the plurality of bristles including a plurality of curved serrations.
SUN relates to a denoising device for a fan blade which is in the same field of endeavor as the claimed invention and teaches of a blade having a plurality of bristles that include a plurality of curved serrations (see 2, figure 1b also reproduced/annotated below).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to substitute the bristle configuration of Callas with that of SUN, and have the plurality of bristles include a plurality of curved serrations in order to obtain predictable results of noise reduction.
PNG
media_image3.png
368
318
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Regarding Claim 18, Callas discloses all of the limitations of Claim 1 as discussed above but is silent on at least one of the bristles including a stem and a first plurality of branches extending from the stem.
SUN relates to a denoising device for a fan blade which is in the same field of endeavor as the claimed invention and teaches of a blade having at least one of the bristles including a stem (3, figure 5 also reproduced below) and a first plurality of branches (see 4, figure 5) extending from the stem (see figure 5).
PNG
media_image4.png
282
576
media_image4.png
Greyscale
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to substitute the bristle configuration of Callas with that of SUN, and have at least one of the bristles including a stem and a first plurality of branches extending from the stem in order to obtain predictable results of noise reduction.
Regarding Claim 19, Callas as modified by SUN teaches each of said first plurality of branches forms a first non-zero angle with a longitudinal axis of the stem (see SUN, figure 5).
Regarding Claim 20, Callas as modified by SUN teaches said first non-zero angle is in a range of about 5 degrees to about 175 degrees (see SUN, figure 5).
Regarding Claim 29, Callas as modified by SUN teaches said first plurality of branches is disposed on at least two sides of the stem (see SUN, figure 5).
Regarding Claim 30, Callas as modified by SUN discloses and teaches all of the limitations of Claim 18 as discussed above but is silent on the stem having a tapered profile extending from a base to a tip.
Since applicant has not disclosed that having the stem having a tapered profile extending from a base to a tip solves any stated problem or is for any particular purpose above the fact that, for noise reduction, and it appears the stem of SUN would perform equally well to that of Applicant, it would have been an obvious matter of design choice to modify the stem of SUN to have a tapered profile extending from a base to a tip for the purposes of noise reduction.
Claim 16 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Callas in view of SUN, and in further view of Herr et al (US 2008/0166241 A1) hereinafter referred to as Herr.
Regarding Claim 16, Callas as modified by SUN discloses all of the limitations of Claim 15 as discussed above but is silent on the plurality of curved serrations having a length in a range of about 1 millimeter to about 25 millimeters.
Herr relates to a noise-reducing blade bristles (300, figure 6) which is in the same field of endeavor as the claimed invention and teaches main parameters influencing the noise reduction properties of the bristles include the length (Para 33), therefore the length of the bristles is a result effective variable.
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 length of the bristles, and thereby modify the resulting length of the curved serrations of SUN to be a length in a range of about 1 millimeter to about 25 millimeters, since the length of bristles and thereby the length of the curved serrations is a result effective variable which could be optimized through routine experimentation to improve noise reduction of the blade.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 4 and 22-27 would be allowable if rewritten or amended to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 2nd paragraph, set forth in this Office action.
Claims 17 and 21 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.
Internet/E-mail Communication
In order to permit communication regarding the instant application via email, Applicant is invited to file form PTO/SB/439 (Authorization for Internet Communications) or include the following statement in a filed document or remarks of a filed response (see MPEP 502.03 Il): Recognizing that Internet communications are not secure, I hereby authorize the USPTO to communicate with the undersigned and practitioners in accordance with 37 CFR 1.33 and 37 CFR 1.34 concerning any subject matter of this application by video conferencing, instant messaging, or electronic mail. I understand that a copy of these communications will be made of record in the application file. If such authorization is provided, please include an email address in the remarks of a filed response. The examiner’s e-mail address is sabbir.hasan@uspto.gov.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
US 2017/0276117A1 discloses noise reducing structures on blades (see figures 4-6).
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Sabbir Hasan whose telephone number is (571)270-7651. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday - Friday 11am-7pm.
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 an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/Sabbir Hasan/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3745
Prosecution Insights