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 arguments filed May 27th, 2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Examiner appreciates Applicant’s response, but respectfully disagrees that Inouchi in view of Ishihara fails to teach all the limitations of amended Claim 1.
Specifically, Applicant argues, see page 10, “First, Inouchi provides no disclosure, either express or inherent, of the specific groove and clamping member structure recited in the claims. The circled area in FIG. 1 of Inouchi pointed by the Office is not described in the disclosure of Inouchi… A mere, unexplained annotation in a figure cannot constitute a teaching of the claimed structural limitations”.
Examiner respectfully disagrees. 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 (See MPEP 2125). Examiner asserts that the circled area in Fig. 1 of Inouchi as indicated in the Office Action dated March 25th, 2026, reasonably discloses a groove and clamping member securing the inlet and output frames together. Therefore, Applicant’s argument is not found persuasive.
Applicant further argues, see pages 10-11, “Second, and more critically, the engagement structure in Inouchi, as best understood, is not located on cylindrical frame portions as now explicitly recited in amended claim 1. The alleged "groove and clamping member" resides at the corner portions of these square flanges, not on a hollow, cylindrical outer side surface”. Examiner respectfully disagrees. Examiner notes that the claim does not require the groove and clamping member to be on a hollow, cylindrical outer side surface. Rather, the input and outlet frames are hollow and cylindrical shaped, and the grove and clamping member is also on an outer side surface. Examiner asserts that the corner of the flange is still considered an outer side surface. Examiner also notes that the frame itself is still considered to be hollow and cylindrical, even with the flange. Therefore, Applicant’s argument is not found persuasive.
Applicant further argues, see page 11, “Third, Inouchi does not teach or suggest that the upper and the lower housings are assembled by relative rotation…The connection of Inouchi would likely be axial press-fitting or screwing”. Examiner notes that this argument is moot. Even if Inouchi does not specifically call out the assembly method of the upper and lower housing, Examiner points out that Ishihara is the reference being used to teach this limitation. Therefore, Applicant’s argument is rendered moot.
Applicant further argues, see page 12, “A hook 53 and protrusion 55 are not "staggered" in the same sense; they are separate structures on the same corner portion… Ishihara’s structure is a through-hole hook-and-slot system located at square flange corners, whereas currently amended claim 1 requires recessed grooves on the cylindrical outer side surface of each frame, with a staggered clamping post and positioning portion that engage via relative rotation. Currently amended claim 1, reciting "each of the inlet frame and the output frame is hollow and cylindrical shaped," clearly differentiates the counter-rotating fan of currently amended claim 1 from the square-flange structure of Ishihara”. Examiner respectfully disagrees. First, one of ordinary skill would understand that the hook and protrusion of Ishihara are staggered. Examiner also notes that “separate structures on the same corner portion” also describes the claimed clamping post and positioning portion, see Fig. 5 for example. Second, Examiner again asserts that the claim does not require the grooves on the cylindrical outer side surface. Instead, the frame is cylindrical, and the grooves are on an outer side surface. Examiner considers the flanges to form an outer side surface as claimed, while still allowing the frame to be cylindrical. Therefore, Applicant’s argument is not found persuasive.
Applicant further argues, see page 12, “moreover, Ishihara's device is assembled by first inserting the hooks axially into through-holes, then rotating. The present application, as described in paragraph [0019] and now recited in currently amended claim 1, the inlet frame and the output frame are assembled by relative rotation without an initial axial insertion step”. Examiner respectfully disagrees. Nowhere in the claim is a step of axial insertion not allowed. As pointed out by Applicant, Ishihara’s device assembly includes a rotation, which is the limitation required by the claim. Therefore, Applicant’s argument is not found persuasive.
Applicant further argues, see page 13, “even if Ishihara's structure were superficially similar (which it is not), the Office fails to establish a proper motivation to combine these references... a person of ordinary skill would have no reason to take Ishihara's square-flange corner hook structure and apply it to Inouchi's cylindrical housing side surfaces. Doing so would require completely redesigning Inouchi's housing, such as changing its shape, its flange geometry, and its assembly method. This is not a simple substitution of one known element for another to achieve a predictable result; it is a major structural reengineering”.
Examiner respectfully disagrees. As Examiner stated in the Office Action dated March 25th, 2026, the motivation for a person of ordinary skill to combine the two references is to secure the inlet and output frames to each other to prevent them from being disconnected. As the two references are in the same field of endeavor and one of ordinary skill is motivated to use the modification, Examiner asserts that the combination is proper. Therefore, Applicant’s argument is not found persuasive.
The rejection of Claim 1 has been corrected under 35 U.S.C. 103.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claims 1, 19-20, 24, and 27 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Inouchi (US 11022128) in view of , Ishihara et al., hereafter Ishihara (US 20070059155).
Regarding Claim 1, Inouchi teaches a counter-rotating fan comprising:
a frame (Figs. 1,2 #2 – housing as frame) comprising an inlet frame (Fig. 2 #41 – upper housing as inlet frame) and an output frame (Fig. 2 #51 – lower housing as output frame), wherein each of the inlet frame and the output frame is hollow and cylindrical shaped (Fig. 1 – air passage #3 forms interior of housing and is cylindrical shaped; therefore the inlet frame and output frame are considered hollow and cylindrical);
an inlet fan disposed in the inlet frame, the inlet fan comprising an inlet body and a plurality of inlet blades, the plurality of inlet blades spaced apart from each other and disposed around the inlet body (Col. 3, lines 43-50; Fig. 2 #4 – upper fan as inlet fan with impeller cup #421 as inlet body with output blades #422); and
an output fan disposed in the output frame and opposite to the inlet fan, the output fan comprising an output body and a plurality of output blades, the plurality of output blades spaced apart from each other and disposed around the output body (Col. 5, lines 24-31; Fig. 2 #5 – lower fan as output fan with impeller cup #521 as output body with output blades #522), a rotational direction of the plurality of output blades opposite to a rotational direction of the plurality of inlet blades (Figs. 2,3; Background),
an end of each of the plurality of output blades away from the output body curving towards the plurality of inlet blades (Col. 8, line 62 – Col. 9, line 8; Figs. 3,4 – radially outer end of output blades #522 as curved portion).
However, Inouchi fails to teach wherein the inlet frame defines at least one first groove and at least one second groove each recessed on an end of an outer side surface of the inlet frame adjacent to the output frame; each of the at least one second groove is defined between a corresponding first groove of the at least one first groove and the output frame, and each of the at least one second groove is in communication with the corresponding first groove;
wherein the output frame comprises at least one clamping member on an outer side surface of the output frame; a clamping post and a positioning portion are disposed on a side of each of the at least one clamping member close to a central axis of the output frame; the clamping post and the positioning portion are staggered with each other; the clamping post is configured to be engaged with a corresponding second groove of the at least one second groove, and the positioning portion is configured to be engaged with the corresponding first groove;
wherein the inlet frame and the output frame are assembled by relative rotation to engage the clamping post with the corresponding second groove and the positioning portion with the corresponding first groove.
Inouchi does teach the inlet frame and output frame being engaged to one another via a groove and clamping member (Fig. 1; see below).
PNG
media_image1.png
428
619
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Ishihara teaches a counter rotating fan with an inlet frame and output frame (Fig. 1A #5,33 – first and second case, respectively, as inlet and output frames). The inlet frame includes a first and second groove recessed on an end of an outer side surface of the inlet frame adjacent the output frame (paragraphs 0030,0031; Fig. 3 #31 – second fitting groove as first groove, with #29a – hooking passing hole as second groove). The second groove is defined between the first groove and the output frame (when output frame is attached, second groove is between first groove and hook #53), and the grooves communicate with each other (both are open in the same direction, and communicate via simultaneous interaction with output frame). Ishihara further teaches the output frame includes a clamping member including a clamping post and positioning portion staggered with each other (Fig. 4 #53 – hook as clamping post, with #55 – protrusion as positioning portion), where the clamping post engages with the second groove and the positioning portion engages with the first groove via relative rotation (Fig. 5; paragraphs 0036,0044), in order to secure the inlet and output frames to each other to prevent them from being disconnected, forming a complete fan frame (paragraph 0045). Inouchi and Ishihara are analogous prior art as they each relate to counter rotating fans. Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to use the inlet and output frame connections taught by Ishihara with the counter-rotating fan taught by Inouchi, in order to secure the inlet and output frames to each other to prevent them from being disconnected, forming a complete fan frame (Ishihara paragraph 0045).
Regarding Claim 19, Inouchi as modified by Ishihara teaches all the limitations of Claim 1 above. Inouchi as modified by Ishihara further teaches wherein the inlet frame further defines at least one third groove recessed on the outer side surface of the inlet frame (Ishihara Fig. 3 #29b – hook moving hole as third groove), each of the at least one third groove is in communication with the corresponding first groove of the at least one first groove (both are open in the same direction, and communicate via simultaneous interaction with output frame), a transiting surface is formed between each of the at least one third groove and the corresponding second groove of the at least one second groove, and the transiting surface is a sloped surface or an arcuate surface (Ishihara paragraph 0030 – third groove #29b is shaped like an arc, which includes transition to second groove #29a).
Regarding Claim 20, Inouchi as modified by Ishihara teaches all the limitations of Claim 19 above. Inouchi further teaches wherein each of the plurality of output blades comprises a blade body and a curved portion (Col. 8, line 62 – Col. 9, line 8; Figs. 3,4 – radially outer end of output blades #522 as curved portion, radially inner end of output blades #522 as blade body), two ends of the blade body are respectively connected to the output body and the curved portion (Figs. 3,4), and the curved portion curves towards the plurality of inlet blades relative to the blade body (Col. 8, line 62 – Col. 9, line 8).
Regarding Claim 24, Inouchi as modified by Ishihara teaches all the limitations of Claim 19 above. Inouchi further teaches wherein each of the plurality of output blade comprises an output front edge and an output rear edge opposite to the output front edge, each of the output front edge and the output rear edge is connected to the blade body, the outlet front edge comprises a first end and an end second opposite to the first end, the first end is connected to the output body, along the direction away from the inlet fan, the output front edge extends from the first end to the end second, the output rear edge comprises a third end and a fourth end opposite to the third end, the third end is connected to the output body, along the direction away from the inlet fan, the output rear edge extends from the third end to the fourth end (Figs. 3,4 – see below).
PNG
media_image2.png
476
732
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Regarding Claim 27, Inouchi as modified by Ishihara teaches all the limitations of Claim 1 above. Inouchi further teaches wherein the output body and the plurality of output blades are integrally formed (Fig. 2).
Claim 21-23 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Inouchi in view of Ishihara.
Regarding Claim 21, Inouchi as modified by Ishihara teaches all the limitations of Claim 20 above.
However Inouchi fails to teach wherein a height of the curved portion along a direction away from the inlet fan relative to the blade body is greater than 1 mm and less than 10 mm.
Barring a criticality or unexpected results, changes in size and relative dimensions are obvious. Inouchi teaches that the curved portion has a height along a direction away from the inlet fan relative to the blade body, in order to suppress flow velocity on the radial inner side and reduce air resistance (Col. 8, line 62 – Col. 9, line 8). Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art that the height of the curved portion taught by Inouchi could be between 1mm and 10 mm as such a height would be an obvious matter of design choice for providing a suppression of inner radial flow velocity and reduction of air resistance.
Regarding Claim 22, Inouchi as modified by Ishihara teaches all the limitations of Claim 21 above. Inouchi further teaches wherein an included angle between the curved portion and the blade body is greater than 90 degrees and less than 180 degrees (Col. 8, line 62 – Col. 9, line 8; Figs. 2,3,4 – curve is not at a right angle relative the blade body, i.e. more than 90 degrees, and is not parallel the blade body, i.e. less than 180 degrees).
Regarding Claim 23, Inouchi as modified by Ishihara teaches all the limitations of Claim 21 above. Inouchi further teaches wherein the blade body and the curved portion are connected through an arcuate surface (Col. 8, line 62 – Col. 9, line 8; Figs. 2,3,4 – transition between radially inner and outer side of blade #522, i.e. blade body and curved portion, is arcuate).
Claims 25-26 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Inouchi in view Ishihara, further in view of Hakozaki et al., hereafter Hakozaki (US 20180195525).
Regarding Claim 25, Inouchi as modified by Ishihara teaches all the limitations of Claim 24 above. However, Inouchi fails to teach wherein each of the output front edge and the output rear edge is curved from the output body away from the plurality of inlet blades.
Hakozaki teaches a counter-rotating fan where the output fan has blades that each include an output front edge and output rear edge curved from the output body away from inlet blades of the inlet fan (Figs. 2,10 #3 – second axial flow fan as output fan with curved blades #311), in order to increase pressure and airflow at the outlet (paragraphs 0115,0117). Inouchi as modified by Ishiharai and Hakozaki are analogous prior art as they each relate to counter-rotating fans. Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art that the output front and rear edges taught by Inouchi could be curved from the output body away from the inlet blades as taught by Hakozaki, as Hakozaki teaches that such a blade shape is well known in the art for increasing pressure and airflow at the outlet (Hakozaki paragraphs 0115,0117).
Regarding Claim 26, Inouchi as modified by Ishihara teaches all the limitations of Claim 20 above.
However, Inouchi fails to teach wherein a quantity of the plurality of inlet blades is different from a quantity of the plurality of output blades.
Hakozaki teaches a counter-rotating fan where the inlet fan has 5 blades (Figs. 3,5) and the output fan has 7 blades (Figs. 8,9). Inouchi as modified by Ishihara and Hakozaki are analogous prior art as they each relate to counter-rotating fans. Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art that the counter-rotating fan taught by Inouchi could have a different number of inlet and outlet blades, as Hakozaki teaches that such an arrangement is well known in the art as an obvious matter of design choice for providing airflow through the fan.
Claims 10, 28-29, 31-33, and 36 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Inouchi in view Ishihara, further in view of Liu (US 20060238979).
Regarding Claim 10, Inouchi teaches a heat dissipating device comprising:
a counter-rotating fan comprising
a frame (Figs. 1,2 #2 – housing as frame) comprising an inlet frame (Fig. 2 #41 – upper housing as inlet frame) and an output frame (Fig. 2 #51 – lower housing as output frame), wherein each of the inlet frame and the output frame is hollow and cylindrical shaped (Fig. 1 – air passage #3 forms interior of housing and is cylindrical shaped; therefore the inlet frame and output frame are considered hollow and cylindrical);
an inlet fan disposed in the inlet frame, the inlet fan comprising an inlet body and a plurality of inlet blades, the plurality of inlet blades spaced apart from each other and disposed around the inlet body (Col. 3, lines 43-50; Fig. 2 #4 – upper fan as inlet fan with impeller cup #421 as inlet body with output blades #422);
an output fan disposed in the output frame and opposite to the inlet fan, the output fan comprising an output body and a plurality of output blades, the plurality of output blades spaced apart from each other and disposed around the output body (Col. 5, lines 24-31; Fig. 2 #5 – lower fan as output fan with impeller cup #521 as output body with output blades #522), a rotational direction of the plurality of output blades opposite to a rotational direction of the plurality of inlet blades (Figs. 2,3; Background),
an end of each of the plurality of output blades away from the output body curving towards the plurality of inlet blades (Col. 8, line 62 – Col. 9, line 8; Figs. 3,4 – radially outer end of output blades #522 as curved portion).
However, Inouchi fails to teach wherein the inlet frame defines at least one first groove and at least one second groove each recessed on an end of an outer side surface of the inlet frame adjacent to the output frame; each of the at least one second groove is defined between a corresponding first groove of the at least one first groove and the output frame, and each of the at least one second groove is in communication with the corresponding first groove;
wherein the output frame comprises at least one clamping member on an outer side surface of the output frame; a clamping post and a positioning portion are disposed on a side of each of the at least one clamping member close to a central axis of the output frame; the clamping post and the positioning portion are staggered with each other; the clamping post is configured to be engaged with a corresponding second groove of the at least one second groove, and the positioning portion is configured to be engaged with the corresponding first groove;
wherein the inlet frame and the output frame are assembled by relative rotation to engage the clamping post with the corresponding second groove and the positioning portion with the corresponding first groove.
Inouchi does teach the inlet frame and output frame being engaged to one another via a groove and clamping member (Fig. 1; see below).
PNG
media_image1.png
428
619
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Ishihara teaches a counter rotating fan with an inlet frame and output frame (Fig. 1A #5,33 – first and second case, respectively, as inlet and output frames). The inlet frame includes a first and second groove recessed on an end of an outer side surface of the inlet frame adjacent the output frame (paragraphs 0030,0031; Fig. 3 #31 – second fitting groove as first groove, with #29a – hooking passing hole as second groove). The second groove is defined between the first groove and the output frame (when output frame is attached, second groove is between first groove and hook #53), and the grooves communicate with each other (both are open in the same direction, and communicate via simultaneous interaction with output frame). Ishihara further teaches the output frame includes a clamping member including a clamping post and positioning portion staggered with each other (Fig. 4 #53 – hook as clamping post, with #55 – protrusion as positioning portion), where the clamping post engages with the second groove and the positioning portion engages with the first groove via relative rotation (Fig. 5; paragraphs 0036,0044), in order to secure the inlet and output frames to each other to prevent them from being disconnected, forming a complete fan frame (paragraph 0045). Inouchi and Ishihara are analogous prior art as they each relate to counter rotating fans. Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to use the inlet and output frame connections taught by Ishihara with the counter-rotating fan taught by Inouchi, in order to secure the inlet and output frames to each other to prevent them from being disconnected, forming a complete fan frame (Ishihara paragraph 0045).
However, Inouchi as modified by Ishihara fails to teach a heat dissipating body, the counter-rotating fan disposed in the heat dissipating body, a plurality of heat dissipating holes defined on the heat dissipating body and configured to discharge fluid from the counter-rotating fan.
Liu teaches an axial fan disposed in a heat dissipating body (Figs. 2,6 #30 – heat sink with fan duct together for heat dissipating body), with a plurality of heat dissipating holes on the body configured to discharge fluid from the fan (Figs. 2,4 – air passage #180 together with top plate #52 forms heat dissipating holes), in order to more efficiently cool electronic components (paragraphs 0002,0027). Inouchi as modified by Ishihara and Liu are analogous prior art as they each relate to axial fans. Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to combine the counter rotating fan taught by Inouchi with the heat dissipating body as taught by Liu, in order to more efficiently cool electronic components (Liu paragraphs 0002,0027).
Regarding Claim 28, Inouchi as modified by Ishihara and further modified by Liu teaches all the limitations of Claim 10 above. Inouchi as modified by Ishihara and further modified by Liu further teaches wherein the inlet frame further defines at least one third groove recessed on the outer side surface of the inlet frame (Ishihara Fig. 3 #29b – hook moving hole as third groove), each of the at least one third groove is in communication with the corresponding first groove of the at least one first groove (both are open in the same direction, and communicate via simultaneous interaction with output frame), a transiting surface is formed between each of the at least one third groove and the corresponding second groove of the at least one second groove, and the transiting surface is a sloped surface or an arcuate surface (Ishihara paragraph 0030 – third groove #29b is shaped like an arc, which includes transition to second groove #29a).
Regarding Claim 29, Inouchi as modified by Ishihara and further modified by Liu teaches all the limitations of Claim 28 above. Inouchi further teaches wherein each of the plurality of output blades comprises a blade body and a curved portion (Col. 8, line 62 – Col. 9, line 8; Figs. 3,4 – radially outer end of output blades #522 as curved portion, radially inner end of output blades #522 as blade body), two ends of the blade body are respectively connected to the output body and the curved portion (Figs. 3,4), and the curved portion curves towards the plurality of inlet blades relative to the blade body (Col. 8, line 62 – Col. 9, line 8).
Regarding Claim 31, Inouchi as modified by Ishihara and further modified by Liu teaches all the limitations of Claim 29 above. Inouchi further teaches wherein an included angle between the curved portion and the blade body is greater than 90 degrees and less than 180 degrees (Col. 8, line 62 – Col. 9, line 8; Figs. 2,3,4 – curve is not at a right angle relative the blade body, i.e. more than 90 degrees, and is not parallel the blade body, i.e. less than 180 degrees).
Regarding Claim 32, Inouchi as modified by Ishihara and further modified by Liu teaches all the limitations of Claim 29 above. Inouchi further teaches wherein the blade body and the curved portion are connected through an arcuate surface (Col. 8, line 62 – Col. 9, line 8; Figs. 2,3,4 – transition between radially inner and outer side of blade #522, i.e. blade body and curved portion, is arcuate).
Regarding Claim 33, Inouchi as modified by Ishihara and further modified by Liu teaches all the limitations of Claim 28 above. Inouchi further teaches wherein each of the plurality of output blade comprises an output front edge and an output rear edge opposite to the output front edge, each of the output front edge and the output rear edge is connected to the blade body, the outlet front edge comprises a first end and an end second opposite to the first end, the first end is connected to the output body, along the direction away from the inlet fan, the output front edge extends from the first end to the end second, the output rear edge comprises a third end and a fourth end opposite to the third end, the third end is connected to the output body, along the direction away from the inlet fan, the output rear edge extends from the third end to the fourth end (Figs. 3,4 – see below).
PNG
media_image2.png
476
732
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Regarding Claim 36, Inouchi as modified by Ishihara and further modified by Liu teaches all the limitations of Claim 28 above. Inouchi further teaches wherein the output body and the plurality of output blades are integrally formed (Fig. 2).
Claim 30 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Inouchi in view of Ishihara, further in view of Liu.
Regarding Claim 30, Inouchi as modified by Ishihara and further modified by Liu teaches all the limitations of Claim 29 above.
However Inouchi as modified by Ishihara and Liu fails to teach wherein a height of the curved portion along a direction away from the inlet fan relative to the blade body is greater than 1 mm and less than 10 mm.
Barring a criticality or unexpected results, changes in size and relative dimensions are obvious. Inouchi teaches that the curved portion has a height along a direction away from the inlet fan relative to the blade body, in order to suppress flow velocity on the radial inner side and reduce air resistance (Col. 8, line 62 – Col. 9, line 8). Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art that the height of the curved portion taught by Inouchi could be between 1mm and 10 mm as such a height would be an obvious matter of design choice for providing a suppression of inner radial flow velocity and reduction of air resistance.
Claim 34-35 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Inouchi in view of Ishihara, further in view of Liu, further in view of Hakozaki.
Regarding Claim 34, Inouchi as modified by Ishihara and further modified by Liu teaches all the limitations of Claim 33 above. However, Inouchi as modified by Ishihara and further modified by Liu fails to teach wherein each of the output front edge and the output rear edge is curved from the output body away from the plurality of inlet blades.
Hakozaki teaches a counter-rotating fan where the output fan has blades that each include an output front edge and output rear edge curved from the output body away from inlet blades of the inlet fan (Figs. 2,10 #3 – second axial flow fan as output fan with curved blades #311), in order to increase pressure and airflow at the outlet (paragraphs 0115,0117). Inouchi and Hakozaki are analogous prior art as they each relate to counter-rotating fans. Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art that the output front and rear edges taught by Inouchi could be curved from the output body away from the inlet blades as taught by Hakozaki, as Hakozaki teaches that such a blade shape is well known in the art for increasing pressure and airflow at the outlet (Hakozaki paragraphs 0115,0117).
Regarding Claim 35, Inouchi as modified by Ishihara and further modified by Liu teaches all the limitations of Claim 28 above.
However, Inouchi as modified by Ishihara and further modified by Liu fails to teach wherein a quantity of the plurality of inlet blades is different from a quantity of the plurality of output blades.
Hakozaki teaches a counter-rotating fan where the inlet fan has 5 blades (Figs. 3,5) and the output fan has 7 blades (Figs. 8,9). Inouchi and Hakozaki are analogous prior art as they each relate to counter-rotating fans. Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art that the counter-rotating fan taught by Inouchi could have a different number of inlet and outlet blades, as Hakozaki teaches that such an arrangement is well known in the art as an obvious matter of design choice for providing airflow through the fan.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure:
Yoshida (US 20080095623) and Kato (US 8764375) each teaches a counter rotating fan where the front and rear output blade edges are curved.
Guo (US 20100282443) and Liu (US 8081458) each teaches a heat dissipation device including an axial fan.
Bai (US 20160131160) teaches a counter rotating fan with a different number of inlet and output blades.
Tzeng (US 20130202443), Tokuno (US 20200378403), Eguchi (US 20040136830), Lee (US 10428830) and Tzeng (US 11359641) each teaches an axial fan with radial outer ends of the blades being curved towards the fan inlet.
Masuo (US 11319970) teaches an axial fan with a groove and clamping mechanism between the inlet and output fan frames.
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 nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) 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 mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JACKSON GILLENWATERS whose telephone number is (469)295-9151. The examiner can normally be reached 10:00AM-6:00PM ET, M-F.
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.
/JACKSON N GILLENWATERS/Examiner, Art Unit 3745
/NATHANIEL E WIEHE/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3745
Prosecution Insights