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 Claims
The status of the claims as filed in the submission dated 1/14/2026 are as follows:
Claims 16-17 are newly added;
Claims 1-17 are pending and are being examined.
Claim Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked. As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
Currently, no claim limitations invoke 112(f).
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 (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 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.
Claims 1, 6-11, and 16-17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Bertels (US2018/0106266A1, as cited in the IDS).
Re Claim 1. Bertels teaches a draw-through fan assembly (18) and heat exchanger system comprising (Figures 33-43; Paragraphs 243, 305-327):
a fan deck (top plate of heat exchanger assembly for mounting fan assembly) adapted to mount a fan assembly (18) (Figures 33-43; Paragraphs 243, 305-327);
the fan assembly comprising an axial fan (18, with hub 64 and blades 65) with a rotating shroud (67 connects outer edge of blades 65, and thus 67 forms a rotating shroud) (Figures 33-43; Paragraphs 243, 305-327);
a heat exchanger section (35) comprising at least two heat exchangers (left 35 and right 35), the heat exchanger section being located upstream of the fan assembly (Figures 33-43; Paragraphs 243, 305-327); and
a J-shaped inlet bell mouth (62; Outer edge of 62 to the inner dividing join 80 forms a J shape) configured upstream of the fan deck (lower portion of bell mouth extends past the fan and thus is upstream), the bell mouth being located within a space between the at least two heat exchangers (Figures 33 and 42 illustrates the fan in between the two heat exchangers) (Figures 33-43; Paragraphs 243, 305-327);
wherein a motor (41) associated with the fan assembly and at least one motor strut (73, 95) is positioned upstream of the fan assembly (Figure 38; Paragraphs 243, 305-327).
Re Claim 6. Bertels teaches a discharge grille (21) is positioned downstream of the fan assembly (Figure 6; Paragraph 197).
Re Claim 7. Bertels teaches the discharge grille comprises a step diffuser having a diameter greater than diameter of the rotating shroud (Figure 6; Paragraph 197; The grill extends past the axial fan, thus the grill has a step and greater diameter).
Re Claim 8. Bertels teaches the discharge grille comprises air guide vanes (Figure 6; Paragraph 197; The grid of the discharge grill is considered air guide vanes).
Re Claim 9. Bertels teaches the fan assembly is configured to discharge air vertically upward (Figures 33-43; Paragraphs 243, 305-327).
Re Claim 10. Bertels teaches the at least two heat exchangers are configured in a V or W coil arrangement (Figures 15-19, 33-43; Paragraphs 243, 305-327; The figures illustrate a V configuration).
Re Claim 11. Bertels teaches a bottom curved periphery of the J-shaped bell-mouth comprises depressions concurrent to the profile of the at least two heat exchangers (Figure 33 illustrates the bottom of the bell mouth is curved so as to make space for the heat exchangers, wherein the curvature is considered a depression of the cylinder shape).
Re Claim 16. Bertels teaches in the V coil arrangement of the at least two heat exchangers, the bell mouth is positioned between a space defined by the V coil arrangement of the at least two heat exchangers (Figures 15-20, 33-43; Paragraphs 243, 305-327).
Re Claim 17. Bertels teaches wherein dimension of the fan deck corresponds to dimension of an outlet of the V coil arrangement of the at least two heat exchangers (Figures 15-20, 33-43; Paragraphs 243, 305-327).
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.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claims 2-3 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bertels (US2018/0106266A1, as cited in the IDS) in view of Nonaka (US2022/0243640A1, as previously cited).
Re Claims 2-3. Bertels teaches the bell mouth (Figures 33-43) but fails to specifically teach the bell mouth comprises one or more holes at a bottom of the bell mouth to drain water collected in the bell mouth, wherein the one or more holes of the bell mouth are louvered to facilitate leakage air flow turning.
However, Nonaka teaches it is known to form louvered holes in a bell mouth shroud for a fan assembly (Figures 2-8). Thus, when Bertels is combined with Nonaka, the resulting combination would be the bell mouth of Bertels comprises one or more holes at a bottom of the bell mouth to drain water collected in the bell mouth, wherein the one or more holes of the bell mouth are louvered to facilitate leakage air flow turning.
Therefore, in view of Nonaka's teaching, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to add louvered holes to the bottom of the bell mouth of Bertels in order to provide improved airflow performance through the fan (Nonaka Paragraph 8).
Claims 4 and 12-14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bertels (US2018/0106266A1, as cited in the IDS) in view of Acre (US2008/0075585A1, as cited in the IDS).
Re Claim 4. Bertels teaches the bell mount (Figures 33-43) but fails to specifically teach the bell mouth comprises turbulence control fences.
However, Acre teaches the bell mouth comprises turbulence control fences (43) (Figures 5-7; Paragraph 20).
Therefore, in view of Acre's teaching, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to add turbulence control fences to Bertels in order to better control turbulent airflow through the fan assembly and thereby suppress noise generation from turbulent airflow.
Re Claim 12. Bertels teaches the motor strut (Figure 38) but fails to specifically teach the at least one motor strut is U-shaped, wherein, a bottom of the U-shaped strut is adapted to mount the motor; a top of the U-shaped strut attaches to the fan deck; and sides of the U-shaped strut remain in frictional contact with the bell mouth.
However, Acre teaches the one or more motor struts are U-shaped, wherein, a bottom of the U-shaped strut is adapted to mount the motor; a top of the U-shaped strut attaches to the fan deck; and sides of the U-shaped strut remain in frictional contact with the bell mouth (Figure 1-2, 5-7; Figure 7 specifically illustrates the struts extent into an interior groove at 38 and attach to the deck 24, thus engaging and forming frictional contact).
Therefore, in view of Acre's teaching, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to form the struts of Bertels as U-shaped in frictional contact with the bell mouth in order to better support the motor by providing increased rigidity. The U-shaped strut is a common reinforced structural design that is known to provide improved rigidity. Thus, one of ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to implement the design into Bertels.
Re Claim 13. Bertels teaches the bell mouth (Figures 33-43) but fails to specifically teach the outer surface of the bell mouth comprises at least one groove that is adapted to engage with and remain in frictional contact with the at least one motor strut.
However, Acre teaches the outer surface of the bell mouth comprises one or more grooves that are adapted to engage with and remain in frictional contact with the motor struts (Figure 1-2, 5-7; Figure 7 specifically illustrates the struts extent into an interior groove at 38 and attach to the deck 24, thus engaging and forming frictional contact).
Therefore, in view of Acre's teaching, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to form grooves in the bell mouth of Bertels in order to better support the motor by providing increased rigidity.
Re Claim 14. Bertels teaches the struts (Figures 33-43) but fails to specifically teach each of the at least one motor strut comprises an engaging portion on the inner side of the strut, which is adapted to engage with and remain in frictional contact with the corresponding grooves of the bell mouth.
Acre teaches each of the motor struts comprises an engaging portion on the inner side of the struts, which is adapted to engage with and remain in frictional contact with the corresponding grooves of the bell mouth (Figure 1-2, 5-7; Figure 7 specifically illustrates the struts extent into an interior groove at 38 and attach to the deck 24, thus engaging and forming frictional contact of the bell mouth).
Therefore, in view of Acre's teaching, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to form the strut of Bertels with an engaging portion and grooesin the bell mouth of Bertels in order to better support the motor by providing increased rigidity.
Claims 5 and 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bertels (US2018/0106266A1, as cited in the IDS) in view of Applicants Admitted Prior Art (AAPA).
Re Claim 5. Bertels teaches the bell mouth (Figures 5-7) but fails to specifically teach the bell mouth is made of polymeric material. However, the examiner takes Official Notice of the well-known and ubiquitous nature of using polymeric materials to form fan shrouds having a bell mouth. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to form the bell mouth from a polymeric material, since it has been held to be within the general skill of a worker in the art to select a known material on the basis of its suitability for the intended use as matter of obvious design choice. See MPEP 2144.07. The examiner’s assertion of Official Notice of common knowledge or well-known in the art statement is taken to be admitted prior art because the applicant has failed to traverse the examiner’s previous assertion of official notice (See MPEP 2144.03(c)).
Re Claim 15. Bertels teaches the motor struts (Figures 5-7) but fails to specifically teach the motor struts are made of steel. However, the examiner takes Official Notice of the well-known and ubiquitous nature of using steel materials to form mounting struts. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to form the motor struts from steel, since it has been held to be within the general skill of a worker in the art to select a known material on the basis of its suitability for the intended use as matter of obvious design choice. See MPEP 2144.07. The examiner’s assertion of Official Notice of common knowledge or well-known in the art statement is taken to be admitted prior art because the applicant has failed to traverse the examiner’s previous assertion of official notice (See MPEP 2144.03(c)).
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) above 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.
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 TRAVIS C RUBY whose telephone number is (571)270-5760. The examiner can normally be reached M-F: 9AM-5PM.
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, Jianying Atkisson can be reached at 571-270-7740. 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.
/TRAVIS RUBY/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3763