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 .
Status of the Claims
This is a final rejection in response to the amendments and arguments filed 09/26/2025. Claims 1-4 are currently pending with claim 1.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 09/26/2025, with respect to the art rejections, have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
In response to arguments to the prior Zhang, on page 6-8 of the response, examiner contends that the prior art clearly teaches, in figure 2, each of the fans having individual framing. Thus Zhang teaches the limitations of wherein each air inlet and each air outlet are fluidly isolated from the air inlets and air outlets of all other fans. Additionally, applicant is reminded that the claims are comprising claims and does not restrict other structures, such as the frame 1 as taught in Zhang, from being a part of the system. Applicants’ originally filed specification also lacks any support of wherein each air inlet and each air outlet are fluidly isolated from the air inlets and air outlets of all other fans but does show each fan having individual frames, as seen in the instant Fig. 4B for instance. The fans in the instant figure 4b, for instance, having individual air inlets and each air outlets and seemingly each air inlet and each air outlet are fluidly isolated from the air inlets and air outlets of all other fans.
In response to further arguments to the prior art Zhang, Applicant did not cite any references in support of arguments that having “same common inlet (element 1) and common outlet (element 7), meaning that airflow from individual fans is unavoidably merged, rather than fluidly isolated,” and has provided no factually supported evidence, merely conclusory statements by counsel. It has been held “The arguments of counsel cannot take the place of evidence in the record. In re Schulze, 346 F.2d 600, 602, 145 USPQ 716, 718 (CCPA 1965); In re Geisler, 116 F.3d 1465, 43 USPQ2d 1362 (Fed. Cir. 1997) (“An assertion of what seems to follow from common experience is just attorney argument and not the kind of factual evidence that is required to rebut a prima facie case of obviousness. MPEP 2145(I).
Thus, in summary of examiner’s contention to the arguments regarding Zhang, the prior art teaches all the claimed limitations of the comprising claim 1.
In response to arguments to the prior art Huang, examiner contends that the prior art is related to a fan bank (combination of fans for instance, see abstract and figure 1 for instance), as the claimed invention. Examiner notes that, it has been held that a prior art reference must either be in the field of the inventor’s endeavor or, if not, then be reasonably pertinent to the particular problem with which the inventor was concerned, in order to be relied upon as a basis for rejection of the claimed invention. See In re Oetiker, 977 F.2d 1443, 24 USPQ2d 1443 (Fed. Cir. 1992). In this case, the prior art Huang is at least in the field of the inventor’s endeavor of fan arrays or fan banks and those being useable in electronic devices. Similarly, the prior art Zhang is in the field of the inventor’s endeavor of fan banks or arrays and relating to noise mitigation.
In response to applicant’s argument that there is no teaching, suggestion, or motivation to combine the references, the examiner recognizes that obviousness may be established by combining or modifying the teachings of the prior art to produce the claimed invention where there is some teaching, suggestion, or motivation to do so found either in the references themselves or in the knowledge generally available to one of ordinary skill in the art. See In re Fine, 837 F.2d 1071, 5 USPQ2d 1596 (Fed. Cir. 1988), In re Jones, 958 F.2d 347, 21 USPQ2d 1941 (Fed. Cir. 1992), and KSR International Co. v. Teleflex, Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 82 USPQ2d 1385 (2007). In this case, the prior art Zhang teaches fan bank configuration and noise mitigation and Huang teaches where fan banks may be used in electronic devices. Thus it is obvious to one having ordinary skills in the art that the fan bank systems including configurations of noise mitigation are applicable to fan bank systems used in electronic devices.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
Claim 1 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention. The claim recites “wherein each air inlet and each air outlet are fluidly isolated from the air inlets and air outlets of all other fans” which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
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) 1-3 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over CN116658442 to Zhang et al. (Zhang, and based on English machine translation) in view of CN102022361 to Huang (Huang, and based on English Machine Translation).
In Reference to Claim 1
Zhang discloses a fan bank (system as seen in figure 2 for instance), comprising:
a plurality of fans (nine fan units as seen in figure 2 for instance),
each of which includes an independent fan frame (see outline of fan units in figure 2 for instance) having an air inlet (aft side of fan units in figure 2 for instance, not shown or labeled) and air outlet (front side of fan units as seen in figure 2 for instance, not labeled) respectively arranged on two opposite sides of the fan frame (front and aft side of each fan unit frame for instance), wherein each air inlet and each air outlet are fluidly isolated from the air inlets and air outlets of all other fans (structurally as being associated to each individual fan for instance, and thus functionally fluidly isolated) and wherein each fan (Annotated Fig. 2, N1M1, N2M1, N3M1, N1M2, N2M2, N3M2, N1M3, N2M3, N3M3) rotates in a direction different (Fig. 2 and [0006]: see clockwise and counterclockwise arrows of fan N1M1 for instance) from that of other fans located horizontally (fan N2M1 for instance) and vertically (fan N1M2 for instance) adjoining thereto, and
fans in the fan bank rotating in the same direction being located diagonally to each other (fans N1M1, N2M2 and N3M3 for instance);
all fans in the fan bank being arrayed to form a matrix including vertical columns (M for instance) and horizontal rows (N for instance); and the fans located adjoining to each other in the same column (M) or in the same row (N) rotating in different directions (as seen in figure 2) to prevent the fans from producing the same frequency resonance and noise (as having the same structure, see note below) due to rotating in the same direction (abstract and [0003]: the reduction of noise by structural configuration) and due to airflow interference (as having the same structure, see note below), wherein the air outlets of the fans are separated from one another (Fig. 2, each fan unit having separate frames for instance), such that airflow fields generated therefrom are mutually non-interfering (as having the same claimed structure for instance and thus does the same functionally, see note below).
Zhang does not teach “... wherein the fan bank is mounted in an electronic product or device ....”
Regarding the limitation “... to prevent the fans from producing the same frequency resonance and noise due to rotating in the same direction and due to airflow interference ... such that airflow fields generated therefrom are mutually non-interfering ...”: in short, the claimed invention does not differ from Zhang in any physical structural manner, as outlined above, or is substantially identical to Zhang, as outlined above. It has also been held that, “Where the claimed and prior art products are identical or substantially identical in structure or composition (in this case, the structure and configuration of the fan units including the rotating direction), or are produced by identical or substantially identical processes, a prima facie case of either anticipation or obviousness has been established”. MPEP 2112.01. As Zhang teaches substantially identical structure as the claimed invention, as outlined above, Claim 1 is rejected as obvious.
PNG
media_image1.png
898
1147
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Regarding the limitation “... wherein the fan bank is mounted in an electronic product or device ....”: Huang is related to a fan bank (combination of fans for instance, see abstract and figure 1 for instance), as the claimed invention, and teaches wherein the fan bank is mounted in an electronic product or device (¶ [0004], [0019], the use of a fan assembly in a server for instance).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide in the system of Zhang wherein the fan bank (of Zhang) is mounted in an electronic product or device, as taught by Huang, so as to use an art known technique (of using fan banks or fan assemblies in electronic devices as taught by Huang) as using the fan bank of Zhang and predictably provide heat dissipation to the electronic device.
In Reference to Claim 2
Zhang, as modified by Huang, discloses the fan bank as claimed in claim 1, wherein every fan in the fan bank includes a plurality of blades extended from an impeller (Zhang Fig. 1: 3 and 5 for instance); and the blades on the impellers of any two fans located vertically and horizontally adjoining to each other in the fan bank being extended in two opposite inclination directions (Zhang Fig. 2: blades of fan N1M1 extending counterclockwise for instance and blades of N2M1 extending clockwise for instance).
In Reference to Claim 3
Zhang, as modified by Huang, discloses the fan bank as claimed in claim 1, wherein every fan in the fan bank has a blade rotation direction different (Zhang Fig. 2 and [0006]: see clockwise and counterclockwise arrows of fan N1M1 for instance) from the blade rotation direction of other fans that are located either vertically adjoining thereto (Zhang, fan N1M2 for instance) or horizontally adjoining thereto (Zhang, fan N2M1 for instance).
Claim(s) 4 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over CN116658442 to Zhang et al. (Zhang, and based on English machine translation) in view of CN102022361 to Huang (Huang, and based on English Machine Translation) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of US 2015/0337860 to Ho (Ho).
In Reference to Claim 4
Zhang, as modified by Huang, discloses the fan bank as claimed in claim 1, wherein the fans in the fan bank respectively each include an impeller having a plurality of blades (Zhang Fig. 1, 3 and 5 for instance) extended therefrom; and an air passage (Zhang, space within each fan unit frame and around impeller for instance, not labeled) defined between the air inlet (Zhang, aft side of each fan unit for instance) and the air outlet (Zhang, front side of each fan unit for instance).
While it is taught, and known in the art, that fan impellers are rotatably fixed to the fan frame it is not explicitly taught by Zhang “... the frame further including a shaft base located at a central area of the air outlet, and the impeller being located in the air passage and rotatably connected to the shaft base ....”
Ho is related to fans, used for cooling, having a frame (Fig. 1: 1 for instance) and an impeller (20) having a plurality of blades (21) extended therefrom; the frame having two opposite sides being an air inlet (Fig. 3: 100 for instance) and an air outlet (101 for instance), and an air passage (Figs. 1 and 3: 10) defined between the air inlet and the air outlet (see also abstract and [0002]), as the claimed invention, and teaches the frame (1) further including a shaft base (11) located at a central area of the air outlet (101), and the impeller (20) being located in the air passage (10) and rotatably connected to the shaft base (11).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide in the system of Zhang wherein the frame (of each fan unit of Zhang) further includes a shaft base located at a central area (as taught by Ho) of the air outlet (of Zhang), and the impeller (of Zhang) being located in the air passage and rotatably connected to the shaft base (as taught by Ho), so as to use an art known technique (of the mounting and operation of a fan unit as taught by Ho) to the system of Zhang and predictably provide suitable mounting and operation of the impeller and motor of the fan unit as is known in the art.
Prior Art
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure, as cited in the Notice of References Cited, are cited to show fan array systems.
Conclusion
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 WAYNE A LAMBERT whose telephone number is (571)270-3516. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Thursday 9 am - 7 pm.
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 E 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.
/WAYNE A LAMBERT/Examiner, Art Unit 3745
/NATHANIEL E WIEHE/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3745