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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 January 16th, 2026 has been entered.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claims 1 and 10 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
Specifically, Applicant argues that Inouchi (US 11022128) fails to disclose or teach the newly amended limitations to Claims 1 and 10. While Examiner agrees that Inouchi does not teach these amended limitations, Examiner notes that Inouchi is not being relied on to teach said limitations. Rather, Ishihara et al. (US 20070059155) is being used in the rejection to teach the newly amended limitations. Therefore, Applicant’s arguments are considered moot.
The rejection of Claims 1 and 10 has been updated 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);
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.
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 (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 and 34 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.
Regarding Claim 34, Inouchi as modified by Ishihara teaches all the limitations of Claim 23 above. However, Inouchi as modified by Ishihara 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).
Claims 10, 28-29, 31-33, and 26 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);
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.
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 (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 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 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.
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