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 .
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement(s) (IDS) submitted on 2/15/2024, 7/18/2024, and 5/20/25 was/were in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement(s) is/are being considered by the examiner.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(B) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claim(s) 4-5, 17-18, and 21-22 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor, or for pre-AIA the applicant regards as the invention.
Claims 4 and 11-12 recites “wherein the blower has two or more of the discharge ports, the outlet placement surface is a front surface of the housing, and the suction ports of the blower are located facing directions toward the top surface and a bottom surface of the housing”. It is unclear if these are the same “plurality of the discharge ports” recited in claim 1. For purposes of examination “wherein the blower has two or more of the discharge ports, the outlet placement surface is a front surface of the housing, and the suction ports of the blower are located facing directions toward the top surface and a bottom surface of the housing” will be considered - - wherein the outlet placement surface is a front surface of the housing, and the suction ports of the blower are located facing directions toward the top surface and a bottom surface of the housing - - .
Claims 5 and 13-14 recites “wherein the blower has two or more of the discharge ports, the outlet placement surface is the front surface of the housing, and the suction ports of the blower are located facing directions toward opposite left and right lateral surfaces of the housing”. It is unclear if these are the same “plurality of the discharge ports” recited in claim 1. For purposes of examination “wherein the blower has two or more of the discharge ports, the outlet placement surface is the front surface of the housing, and the suction ports of the blower are located facing directions toward opposite left and right lateral surfaces of the housing” will be considered - - wherein the outlet placement surface is the front surface of the housing, and the suction ports of the blower are located facing directions toward opposite left and right lateral surfaces of the housing - - .
Claim(s) 17-18 and 21-22 are rejected to as being dependent from a rejected claim.
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 of this title, 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 set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 148 USPQ 459 (1966), that are applied for establishing a background for determining obviousness under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) 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.
Claim(s) 1 and 4-5 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Koo (CN1734193).
Per claim 1, Koo teaches an outdoor unit of refrigeration cycle apparatus comprising,
a housing (10) in which a machine chamber (185) and a blower chamber (17) are formed,
the blower chamber being partitioned from the machine chamber (via 16),
the machine chamber housing a compressor (26) inside,
the blower chamber housing a heat exchanger (25) and a blower (20,21) inside,
the blower being located on a secondary side of the heat exchanger (see figure 2),
wherein the blower is a double inlet centrifugal blower including:
an impeller having a plurality of blades arranged in a circumferential direction around a rotation axis (see figure 1), and
a scroll casing (23, 24) having a discharge port and two bellmouths which serve as suction ports (see annotated figure below of figure 5),
the scroll casing housing the impeller inside (see figure 5),
a plurality of the discharge ports (3 and 4) are provided,
the plurality of the discharge ports (3, 4) are located on an outlet placement surface (11b),
the outlet placement surface being a front surface of the housing (see figure 3),
a total width of the plurality of the discharge ports in a direction horizontal (width of 3, 4, as shown in figure 3) with the housing placed and parallel to the outlet placement surface, a width of the blower chamber in said direction (width of 17), the rotation axis of the impeller (axis of 20,21) is positioned parallel to the outlet placement surface (see annotated figure below of figure 5), and the impeller has a fan diameter (inherent), a width of the blower chamber (inherent) in a direction perpendicular to the outlet placement surface but fails to explicitly teach the total width of the plurality of discharge ports in the direction horizontal with the housing placed and parallel to the outlet placement surface is more that the width of the blower chamber in said direction, and the impeller having the fan diameter larger than a half of the width of the blower chamber in the direction perpendicular to the outlet placement surface.
However, it has been held that “[t]he combination of familiar elements according to known methods is likely to be obvious when it does not more than yield predictable results.” KSR., 127 S. Ct. at 1739, 82 USPQ2d at 1395 (2007) (Citing Graham, 383 U.S. at 12). Koo teaches the familiar elements, i.e. the total width of the plurality of the discharge ports in the direction horizontal with the housing placed and parallel to the outlet placement surface, the width of the blower chamber in said direction, the impeller having the fan diameter, and the width of the blower chamber in the direction perpendicular to the outlet placement surface. Therefore it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art using known methods to yield predicable results to have the total width of the plurality of discharge ports in the direction horizontal with the housing placed and parallel to the outlet placement surface be more than the width of the blower chamber in said direction, and to have the fan diameter be larger than a half of the width of the blower chamber in the direction perpendicular to the outlet placement surface in order to advantageously optimize air flow out of the blowing chamber thereby providing optimal heat transfer with ambient air and the outdoor heat exchanger.
Per claim 4, Koo, as modified, meets the claim limitations as disclosed in the above rejection of claim 1. Further, Koo, as modified, teaches wherein the outlet placement surface (11b) is a front surface of the housing (see figure 5), and the suction ports of the blower are located facing directions toward the top surface and a bottom surface of the housing (see figure 5).
Per claim 5, Koo, as modified, meets the claim limitations as disclosed in the above rejection of claim 1. Further, Koo, as modified, teaches wherein the outlet placement surface (11b) is the front surface of the housing (see figure 5), and the suction ports of the blower are located facing directions toward opposite left and right lateral surfaces of the housing (see figure 5).
Claim(s) 2-3 and 11-14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Koo (CN1734193) in view of Yamazaki (JP 2000240590).
Per claim 2-3, Koo, as modified, meets the claim limitations as disclosed in the above rejection of claim 1. Further, Koo, as modified, teaches wherein the impeller has a blade (see figure 2 and 4) but fails to explicitly teach wherein each of the plurality of blades of the impeller has a turbo blade portion constituting a backward curved blade formed at an outlet angle equal to or smaller than 90 degrees, and when the blower is viewed from a direction parallel to the rotation axis, the turbo blade portion is exposed from the suction port (claim 2), wherein each of the plurality of blades of the impeller further has a sirocco blade portion provided on an outer circumferential side relative to the turbo blade portion in a radial direction from the rotation axis as a center, and constituting a forward curved blade formed at an outlet angle larger than 90 degrees (claim 3).
However, Yamazaki teaches a blower including wherein each of a plurality of blades of an impeller has a turbo blade portion (R1) constituting a backward curved blade formed at an outlet angle equal to or smaller than 90 degrees (see figure 1), and when the blower is viewed from a direction parallel to a rotation axis, the turbo blade portion is exposed from the suction port (see figure 2) (claim 2), wherein each of the plurality of blades of the impeller further has a sirocco blade portion (R2) provided on an outer circumferential side relative to the turbo blade portion in a radial direction from the rotation axis as a center (see figure 1), and constituting a forward curved blade formed at an outlet angle larger than 90 degrees (see figure 1) (claim 3) for reduced fan noise (Abstract). Therefore it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to provide a centrifugal blower wherein each of a plurality of blades of an impeller has a turbo blade portion constituting a backward curved blade formed at an outlet angle equal to or smaller than 90 degrees, and when the blower is viewed from a direction parallel to a rotation axis, the turbo blade portion is exposed from the suction port (claim 2), wherein each of the plurality of blades of the impeller further has a sirocco blade portion provided on an outer circumferential side relative to the turbo blade portion in a radial direction from the rotation axis as a center, and constituting a forward curved blade formed at an outlet angle larger than 90 degrees, as taught by Yamazaki in the invention of Koo, as modified, in order to advantageously reduce fan noise (Abstract).
Per claim 11, Koo, as modified, meets the claim limitations as disclosed in the above rejection of claim 2. Further, Koo, as modified, teaches wherein the outlet placement surface (11b) is a front surface of the housing (see figure 5), and the suction ports of the blower are located facing directions toward the top surface and a bottom surface of the housing (see figure 5).
Per claim 12, Koo, as modified, meets the claim limitations as disclosed in the above rejection of claim 3. Further, Koo, as modified, teaches wherein the outlet placement surface (11b) is a front surface of the housing (see figure 5), and the suction ports of the blower are located facing directions toward the top surface and a bottom surface of the housing (see figure 5).
Per claim 13, Koo, as modified, meets the claim limitations as disclosed in the above rejection of claim 2. Further, Koo, as modified, teaches wherein the outlet placement surface (11b) is the front surface of the housing (see figure 5), and the suction ports of the blower are located facing directions toward opposite left and right lateral surfaces of the housing (see figure 5).
Per claim 14, Koo, as modified, meets the claim limitations as disclosed in the above rejection of claim 3. Further, Koo, as modified, teaches wherein the outlet placement surface (11b) is the front surface of the housing (see figure 5), and the suction ports of the blower are located facing directions toward opposite left and right lateral surfaces of the housing (see figure 5).
Claim(s) 9-10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Koo (CN1734193) in view Chen (CN 113323914).
Per claim 9-10, Koo, as modified, meets the claim limitations as disclosed in the above rejection of claim 1. Further, Koo, as modified, teaches a distance between the heat exchanger and a location in the scroll casing near a main plate portion of the impeller (distance between center of 23 and 25; see figure 2) and a distance between the heat exchanger (25) and a location in the scroll casing near a side plate portion of the impeller (distance between upper end (or lower end) or 25 and 25) but fails to explicitly teach wherein the distance between the heat exchanger and the location in the scroll casing near a main plate portion of the impeller is shorter than the distance between the heat exchanger and the location in the scroll casing near a side plate portion of the impeller (claim 9), wherein the location in the scroll casing near the main plate portion of the impeller has a protruding portion protruding toward the heat exchanger, and a tip end of the protruding portion is formed into an arc shape (claim 10).
However, Chen teaches a dual inlet centrifugal blower having a peak at a center of a scroll casing (regarding claim 9), wherein a location in the scroll casing near the main plate portion of the impeller has a protruding portion protruding (see figure 1), and a tip end of the protruding portion is formed into an arc shape (see figure 1) (regarding claim 10) for ensuring fan efficiency (pg. 3, last paragraph of translation). Therefore it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to provide a scroll casing having a peak at a center of the scroll casing (regarding claim 9), wherein a location in the scroll casing near the main plate portion of the impeller has a protruding portion protruding, and a tip end of the protruding portion is formed into an arc shape (regarding claim 10), as taught by Chen in the invention of Koo, as modified, in order to advantageously ensure fan efficiency (pg. 3, last paragraph of translation).
When the Chen scroll casing is combined with the system of Koo, as modified, the result is wherein a distance between the heat exchanger and a location in the scroll casing near a main plate portion of the impeller is shorter than a distance between the heat exchanger and a location in the scroll casing near a side plate portion of the impeller (claim 9), wherein the location in the scroll casing near the main plate portion of the impeller has a protruding portion protruding toward the heat exchanger, and a tip end of the protruding portion is formed into an arc shape (claim 10), as clamed.
Claim(s) 15-21 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Koo (CN1734193) in view of Yamazaki (JP 2000240590) as applied to the claims above and further in view of Chen (CN 113323914).
Per claim 15 and 19, Koo, as modified, meets the claim limitations as disclosed in the above rejection of claim 2. Further, Koo, as modified, teaches a distance between the heat exchanger and a location in the scroll casing near a main plate portion of the impeller (distance between center of 23 and 25; see figure 2) and a distance between the heat exchanger (25) and a location in the scroll casing near a side plate portion of the impeller (distance between upper end (or lower end) or 25 and 25) but fails to explicitly teach wherein the distance between the heat exchanger and the location in the scroll casing near a main plate portion of the impeller is shorter than the distance between the heat exchanger and the location in the scroll casing near a side plate portion of the impeller (claim 15), wherein the location in the scroll casing near the main plate portion of the impeller has a protruding portion protruding toward the heat exchanger, and a tip end of the protruding portion is formed into an arc shape (claim 19).
However, Chen teaches a dual inlet centrifugal blower having a peak at a center of a scroll casing (regarding claim 15), wherein a location in the scroll casing near the main plate portion of the impeller has a protruding portion protruding (see figure 1), and a tip end of the protruding portion is formed into an arc shape (see figure 1) (regarding claim 19) for ensuring fan efficiency (pg. 3, last paragraph of translation). Therefore it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to provide a scroll casing having a peak at a center of the scroll casing (regarding claim 15), wherein a location in the scroll casing near the main plate portion of the impeller has a protruding portion protruding, and a tip end of the protruding portion is formed into an arc shape (regarding claim 19), as taught by Chen in the invention of Koo, as modified, in order to advantageously ensure fan efficiency (pg. 3, last paragraph of translation).
When the Chen scroll casing is combined with the system of Koo, as modified, the result is wherein a distance between the heat exchanger and a location in the scroll casing near a main plate portion of the impeller is shorter than a distance between the heat exchanger and a location in the scroll casing near a side plate portion of the impeller (claim 15), wherein the location in the scroll casing near the main plate portion of the impeller has a protruding portion protruding toward the heat exchanger, and a tip end of the protruding portion is formed into an arc shape (claim 19), as clamed.
Per claim 16 and 20, Koo, as modified, meets the claim limitations as disclosed in the above rejection of claim 3. Further, Koo, as modified, teaches a distance between the heat exchanger and a location in the scroll casing near a main plate portion of the impeller (distance between center of 23 and 25; see figure 2) and a distance between the heat exchanger (25) and a location in the scroll casing near a side plate portion of the impeller (distance between upper end (or lower end) or 25 and 25) but fails to explicitly teach wherein the distance between the heat exchanger and the location in the scroll casing near a main plate portion of the impeller is shorter than the distance between the heat exchanger and the location in the scroll casing near a side plate portion of the impeller (claim 16), wherein the location in the scroll casing near the main plate portion of the impeller has a protruding portion protruding toward the heat exchanger, and a tip end of the protruding portion is formed into an arc shape (claim 20).
However, Chen teaches a dual inlet centrifugal blower having a peak at a center of a scroll casing (regarding claim 16), wherein a location in the scroll casing near the main plate portion of the impeller has a protruding portion protruding (see figure 1), and a tip end of the protruding portion is formed into an arc shape (see figure 1) (regarding claim 20) for ensuring fan efficiency (pg. 3, last paragraph of translation). Therefore it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to provide a scroll casing having a peak at a center of the scroll casing (regarding claim 16), wherein a location in the scroll casing near the main plate portion of the impeller has a protruding portion protruding, and a tip end of the protruding portion is formed into an arc shape (regarding claim 20), as taught by Chen in the invention of Koo, as modified, in order to advantageously ensure fan efficiency (pg. 3, last paragraph of translation).
When the Chen scroll casing is combined with the system of Koo, as modified, the result is wherein a distance between the heat exchanger and a location in the scroll casing near a main plate portion of the impeller is shorter than a distance between the heat exchanger and a location in the scroll casing near a side plate portion of the impeller (claim 16), wherein the location in the scroll casing near the main plate portion of the impeller has a protruding portion protruding toward the heat exchanger, and a tip end of the protruding portion is formed into an arc shape (claim 20), as clamed.
Per claim 17 and 21, Koo, as modified, meets the claim limitations as disclosed in the above rejection of claim 4. Further, Koo, as modified, teaches a distance between the heat exchanger and a location in the scroll casing near a main plate portion of the impeller (distance between center of 23 and 25; see figure 2) and a distance between the heat exchanger (25) and a location in the scroll casing near a side plate portion of the impeller (distance between upper end (or lower end) or 25 and 25) but fails to explicitly teach wherein the distance between the heat exchanger and the location in the scroll casing near a main plate portion of the impeller is shorter than the distance between the heat exchanger and the location in the scroll casing near a side plate portion of the impeller (claim 17), wherein the location in the scroll casing near the main plate portion of the impeller has a protruding portion protruding toward the heat exchanger, and a tip end of the protruding portion is formed into an arc shape (claim 21).
However, Chen teaches a dual inlet centrifugal blower having a peak at a center of a scroll casing (regarding claim 17), wherein a location in the scroll casing near the main plate portion of the impeller has a protruding portion protruding (see figure 1), and a tip end of the protruding portion is formed into an arc shape (see figure 1) (regarding claim 21) for ensuring fan efficiency (pg. 3, last paragraph of translation). Therefore it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to provide a scroll casing having a peak at a center of the scroll casing (regarding claim 17), wherein a location in the scroll casing near the main plate portion of the impeller has a protruding portion protruding, and a tip end of the protruding portion is formed into an arc shape (regarding claim 21), as taught by Chen in the invention of Koo, as modified, in order to advantageously ensure fan efficiency (pg. 3, last paragraph of translation).
When the Chen scroll casing is combined with the system of Koo, as modified, the result is wherein a distance between the heat exchanger and a location in the scroll casing near a main plate portion of the impeller is shorter than a distance between the heat exchanger and a location in the scroll casing near a side plate portion of the impeller (claim 17), wherein the location in the scroll casing near the main plate portion of the impeller has a protruding portion protruding toward the heat exchanger, and a tip end of the protruding portion is formed into an arc shape (claim 21), as clamed.
Per claim 18 and 22, Koo, as modified, meets the claim limitations as disclosed in the above rejection of claim 5. Further, Koo, as modified, teaches a distance between the heat exchanger and a location in the scroll casing near a main plate portion of the impeller (distance between center of 23 and 25; see figure 2) and a distance between the heat exchanger (25) and a location in the scroll casing near a side plate portion of the impeller (distance between upper end (or lower end) or 25 and 25) but fails to explicitly teach wherein the distance between the heat exchanger and the location in the scroll casing near a main plate portion of the impeller is shorter than the distance between the heat exchanger and the location in the scroll casing near a side plate portion of the impeller (claim 18), wherein the location in the scroll casing near the main plate portion of the impeller has a protruding portion protruding toward the heat exchanger, and a tip end of the protruding portion is formed into an arc shape (claim 22).
However, Chen teaches a dual inlet centrifugal blower having a peak at a center of a scroll casing (regarding claim 18), wherein a location in the scroll casing near the main plate portion of the impeller has a protruding portion protruding (see figure 1), and a tip end of the protruding portion is formed into an arc shape (see figure 1) (regarding claim 22) for ensuring fan efficiency (pg. 3, last paragraph of translation). Therefore it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to provide a scroll casing having a peak at a center of the scroll casing (regarding claim 18), wherein a location in the scroll casing near the main plate portion of the impeller has a protruding portion protruding, and a tip end of the protruding portion is formed into an arc shape (regarding claim 22), as taught by Chen in the invention of Koo, as modified, in order to advantageously ensure fan efficiency (pg. 3, last paragraph of translation).
When the Chen scroll casing is combined with the system of Koo, as modified, the result is wherein a distance between the heat exchanger and a location in the scroll casing near a main plate portion of the impeller is shorter than a distance between the heat exchanger and a location in the scroll casing near a side plate portion of the impeller (claim 18), wherein the location in the scroll casing near the main plate portion of the impeller has a protruding portion protruding toward the heat exchanger, and a tip end of the protruding portion is formed into an arc shape (claim 22), as clamed.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure:
Kosaka et al. (US 2021/0262485) teaches an air conditioner system including double inlet centrifugal blower.
King (US 5,005,372) teaches an air conditioner system including double inlet centrifugal blower.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to DAVID J TEITELBAUM whose telephone number is (571)270-5142. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday-Friday 8:00 am-4:30 pm EST.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, FRANTZ JULES can be reached on (571) 272-66816681. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/DAVID J TEITELBAUM/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3763