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 .
DETAILED ACTION
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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 9/22/2026 has been entered.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments filed 4/22/2026 have been fully considered. They are not persuasive.
Applicant’s arguments filed 9/22/2026, have been fully considered and are persuasive in part. Applicant submits that the combination does not teach continuously curved radial elements. Therefore, the rejection has been withdrawn. However, upon further consideration, a new ground(s) of rejection is made in view of Schone, Loercher and Somahara.
Applicant further submits that there is no motivation to combine Schone and Loercher because reversing the part so that the connection elements extends inward rather outward would obstruct airflow and increase turbulence. It has been held that the mere reversal of parts is an obvious modification. See In re Gazda, 219 F.2d 449, 104 USPQ 400 (CCPA 1955) and MPEP 2144.04(VI)(A).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claim(s) 1-2 and 5-6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Schone US 9932990 in view of Loercher US 20210164495 and Somahara US 20030138321.
Regarding claim 1, Schone discloses a guiding grid (Figs. 5-8) in contact with an inlet of a fan, wherein the guiding grid comprises:
a plurality of circumferential elements (115) disposed concentrically relative to a central axis, spaced apart from each other in a radial direction, and forming different heights relative to a bottom surface in a side direction perpendicular to the central axis, wherein the heights relative to the bottom surface are reduced along the radial direction, and a closest one of the circumferential elements adjacent to the central axis forms a top height relative to the bottom surface, wherein the radial direction points outward from the central axis (Fig. 5);
a plurality of radial elements (114) connected between each of two adjacent circumferential elements, wherein the plurality of radial elements are disconnected with the central axis in the radial direction; and
from the farthest one of the circumferential elements a plurality of connection elements (119, Fig. 7) connected with each other through a farthest one of the circumferential elements, wherein the plurality of connection elements are directly connected with the farthest one of the circumferential elements and extend from the farthest one of the circumferential elements away the central axis (Figs. 7-8); and
the plurality of radial elements are successively connected with the plurality of circumferential elements from inside to outside (Fig. 5).
However, it does not teach that the connection elements toward the central axis; and that the plurality of radial elements form a continuous curve.
Loercher teaches a fan grid comprising connection elements (18) that extend away from (Figs 3-4) and towards (Figs. 6-7) the central axis.
Because both Schone and Loercher teach that fan grid connection elements can extend toward or away from the central axis, it would have been obvious to one skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the direction the connection elements extend as taught by Schone by reversing the direction as taught by Loercher in order to achieve the predictable result of providing a connection means for the fan guard.
Somahara teaches a fan guard wherein the plurality of radial elements (27) form a continuous curve (Fig. 2) in order to suppress pressure drop and noise ([0037]). Thus, 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 radial elements as taught by Schone by making them continuously curved as taught by Somahara in order to suppress pressure drop and noise.
Regarding claim 2, Schone further discloses that the plurality of connection elements are disposed on the bottom surface and equally spaced apart around the central axis (Fig. 8).
Regarding claim 5, Schone further discloses that each of the plurality of circumferential elements has an inclination angle relative to the central axis, and the inclination angles of the plurality of circumferential elements are increased along the radial direction outwardly, wherein the inclination angles are ranged from 0 to 90 (Fig. 5).
Regarding claim 6, Schone further discloses that the inclination angle of the farthest one of the plurality of circumferential elements relative to the central axis is 90 (Fig. 5).
Conclusion
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 BRIAN O PETERS whose telephone number is (571)272-2662. The examiner can normally be reached Tue-Sat, 12:00pm-10pm 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, Eugene Kim can be reached at (571) 272-4463. 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.
/BRIAN O PETERS/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3745
