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 filed 02/22/2024 fails to comply with 37 CFR 1.98(a)(3)(i) because it does not include a concise explanation of the relevance, as it is presently understood by the individual designated in 37 CFR 1.56(c) most knowledgeable about the content of the information, of each reference listed that is not in the English language. It has been placed in the application file, but the information referred to therein has not been considered.
The IDS of 02/22/2024 lists an NPL directed to a Written Opinion of the ISA for PCT/CN2021/123603. A copy of this document has been provided by the Applicant, but it is entirely in the Chinese language.
Per MPEP 609.04(a), Section III, (emphasis added) “Where the information listed is not in the English language, but was cited in a search report or other action by a foreign patent office in a counterpart foreign application, the requirement for a concise explanation of relevance can be satisfied by submitting an English-language version of the search report or action which indicates the degree of relevance found by the foreign office.”
An English translation for the above Written Opinion should be provided as a concise explanation of this document’s relevance.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 19-20, 22-24, & 31-32 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Takada et al (US 5,094,586), hereinafter referred to as Takada.
Regarding claim 19, Takada (US 5,094,586) shows a cross-flow fan comprising:
a volute (8a/8b, Fig. 1) internally provided with an air supply duct (8a/8b, Fig. 7 – the enclosure of elements 8a/8b comprises of the air supply duct);
a cross-flow fan wheel (1, Fig. 7) disposed in the air supply duct (Fig. 6) and dividing the air supply duct into an air inlet duct (8a, Fig. 6) located upstream of the cross-flow fan wheel (Fig. 1) and
an air outlet duct (8b, Fig. 6) located downstream of the cross-flow fan wheel (Fig. 6); and
a flow guide member (Fig. 6/7, see Annotated Figure 1 – as the Applicant claims a flow guide member by showing in Fig. 4 the flow guide member to be the structural area or section of the volute, as does Takada show) disposed at a side wall of the air outlet duct close to an end of the cross-flow fan wheel (see Annotated Figure 1 – the flow guide member is disposed at a side wall of the air outlet duct 8b that is close to an end of the cross-flow fan wheel, as the guide member is comprised of the structure of the walls of the air outlet duct 8b, including the side walls of the air outlet duct).
PNG
media_image1.png
434
586
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Annotated Figure 1
Regarding claim 20, Takada shows wherein: the volute includes an air outlet (see Annotated Figure 1) disposed at an end of the air outlet duct facing away from the cross-flow fan wheel (see Annotated Figure 1);
a height of the flow guide member gradually increases along the air outlet duct in a direction from the air outlet to the cross-flow fan wheel (the previous Markush limitation was not selected) or a direction from the cross-flow fan wheel to the air outlet (see Annotated Figure 1 – the height of the flow guide member gradually increases along the air outlet duct in a direction from the cross-flow fan wheel to the air outlet).
Regarding claim 22, Takada shows wherein:
the volute includes a surrounding plate (see Annotated Figure 1 – the surrounding plate is element 8b of which comprises of the air outlet duct within the structure of element 8b), two side plates (15, Fig. 7) covering two sides of the surrounding plate (Fig. 6/7), respectively, and a volute tongue (7, Fig. 6) disposed between the two side plates (Fig. 7), two sides of the volute tongue being connected with the two side plates (Fig. 7 – the Examiner is using the broadest reasonable interpretation to understand the volute tongue does not float in space, and must have its weight supported by something, of which Fig. 7 shows the two side plates 15, of which the Examiner is understanding the volute tongue 7 is to be connected to the two sides plates 15), respectively (Fig. 7);
the two side plates, the surrounding plate and the volute tongue enclose to form the air supply duct (see Annotated Figure 1 – the tow side plates, the surround plate, and the volute tongue all enclose to form the air supply duct 8a/8b);
an axial direction of the cross-flow fan wheel is perpendicular to the side plates (Fig. 7); and
the flow guide member is disposed at an inward-facing surface of one side plate of the two side plates (see Annotated Figure 1 – the flow guide member, of which comprises of the surrounding plate, the volute tongue and the two sides plates 15, of which Annotated Figure 1 will show the dashed lines of the flow guide member being overlayed on the part of the side walls 15 that comprise of the flow guide member, meaning, the flow guide member is disposed at an inward-facing surface of one side plate of the two side plates 15) and is located at an end of the air outlet duct close to the cross-flow fan wheel (see Annotated Figure 1 – the flow guide member is disposed at a side wall of the air outlet duct 8b that is close to an end of the cross-flow fan wheel, as the guide member is comprised of the structure of the walls of the air outlet duct 8b, including the side walls of the air outlet duct).
Regarding claim 23, Takada shows wherein:
the flow guide member is configured as a boss (see Annotated Figure 1 – Dictonary.com defines Boss: ” an area of increased thickness, usually cylindrical, that strengthens or provides room for a locating device on a shaft, hub of a wheel, etc”; as the Applicant states the flow guide member is configured as a boss, as does Takada show the air flow guide member configured as a boss, of which provides room for an element, that of being a boss for element 10), a necking is disposed at the air outlet duct (see Annotated Figure 1 – as the Applicant claims a necking 513 as in Fig. 7 as the end of the flow guide member, as does Takada show a necking being disposed at the air outlet duct), and
a distance between the surrounding plate and the volute tongue is minimal at the necking (see Annotated Figure 1 – the distance between the surrounding plate and the volute tongue is minimal at the necking, as it is narrower at the necking, as the distance between the surrounding plate and the volute tongue at the air outlet gradually increases from the necking); and
the flow guide member covers at least a region of the one side plate between the necking and the cross-flow fan wheel in the air outlet duct (see Annotated Figure 1).
Regarding claim 24, Takada shows wherein the flow guide member covers all regions of the one side plate in the air outlet duct (see Annotated Figure 1).
Regarding claim 31, Takada shows wherein the flow guide member is configured as a rib (see Annotated Figure 1) extending from the surrounding plate to the volute tongue (see Annotated Figure 1 – the rib extends from the surrounding plate, and extends towards a direction of the volute tongue 7).
Regarding claim 32, Takada shows wherein:
a necking is disposed at the air outlet duct (see Annotated Figure 1), and
a distance between the surrounding plate and the volute tongue is minimal at the necking (see Annotated Figure 1 – a distance between the surrounding plate and the volute tongue 7 is minimal at the necking, as the distance between the surrounding plate and the volute tongue grows as it extends towards the air outlet); and the flow guide member is disposed at the necking (see Annotated Figure 1).
Claims 26-27 & 29-30 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Takada et al (US 5,094,586), hereinafter referred to as Takada, in view of Sun et al (CN111503733), hereinafter referred to as Sun.
Regarding claim 26, Takada shows elements of the claimed invention as stated above in claim 22 including the flow guide member, and a direction from the volute tongue to the surrounding plate (see Annotated Figure 1 – a direction exists that is between the volute tongue and the surrounding plate, as the airflow comes out of the air outlet).
However, Takada lacks showing wherein: each of the side plates is provided with a plurality of flow guide members each configured as a flow guide vane protruding from a corresponding one of the side plates; a cross section of each of the flow guide members includes a windward front end and a leeward tail end, and an included angle between an extending direction of the cross section at a tip of the tail end and a flow direction of an airflow at a position where the tip is located is an obtuse angle or a flat angle; the plurality of flow guide members are arranged sequentially at intervals in a direction.
Sun (CN111503733), an air conditioner with a guide for directing airflow, is in the same field of endeavor as Takada which is an air conditioner with a guide for directing airflow.
Sun teaches each of the side plates (see Annotated Figure 2) is provided with a plurality of flow guide members (227, Fig. 17) each configured as a flow guide vane (Fig. 22/23) protruding from a corresponding one of the side plates (Fig. 22/23, see Annotated Figure 2 – when assembled, the plurality of flow guide members 227 protrude from the side plates);
a cross section of each of the flow guide members includes a windward front end (see Annotated Figure 2) and a leeward tail end (see Annotated Figure 2), and
an included angle between an extending direction of the cross section at a tip of the tail end and a flow direction of an airflow at a position where the tip is located is an obtuse angle or a flat angle (see Annotated Figure 2 – the included angle between an extending direction of the cross section at a tip of the leeward tail end and a flow direction of an airflow, that is the direction that exists between two of the plurality of flow guides 227, at a position where the tip is located is a flat angle, or an angle of 180 degrees from windward front end to leeward tail end);
the plurality of flow guide members are arranged sequentially (see Annotated Figure 2) at intervals in a direction (see Annotated Figure 2 – the plurality of flow guide members 227 are arranged sequentially at intervals, in a certain direction).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the flow guide member of Takada to incorporate the teachings of the plurality of flow guide members of Sun, which would provide a plurality of flow guide members with flat profiles that can evenly distribute air between each flow guide member, that can be used for adjusting the flow direction of the airflow to increase control and comfort to the user (¶0163).
PNG
media_image2.png
560
1426
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Annotated Figure 2
Regarding claim 27, Takada shows elements of the claimed invention as stated above in claim 26 except wherein the included angle is in a range of 135˚ - 180˚.
Sun teaches the included angle is in a range of 135˚ - 180˚ (see Annotated Figure 2).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the flow guide member of Takada to incorporate the teachings of the plurality of flow guide members of Sun, which would provide a plurality of flow guide members with flat profiles that can evenly distribute air between each flow guide member, that can be used for adjusting the flow direction of the airflow to increase control and comfort to the user (¶0163).
Regarding claim 29, Takada shows elements of the claimed invention as stated above in claim 26 including the flow guide member, a direction perpendicular to an air outlet direction of the cross-flow fan (See Annotated Figure 1 – within the flow guide member is a direction perpendicular to an air outlet direction of the cross-flow fan, which is a direction of the air outlet at the mouth of the air outlet) and an axial direction of the cross-flow fan wheel (See Annotated Figure 1 – an axial direction of the cross-flow fan wheel exists within the flow guide member at an axial direction of the cross-flow fan).
However, Takada lacks showing wherein projections of the plurality of flow guide members are connected end-to-end in sequence.
Sun teaches wherein projections of the plurality of flow guide members (227, see Annotated Figure 2 – the plurality of flow guide members 227 comprise of projections) are connected end-to-end in sequence (see Annotated Figure 2 – the projections of the plurality of flow guide members are connected, in a vertical plane, in an end-to-end sequence where the end of one flow guide member overlaps an end of another).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the flow guide member of Takada to incorporate the teachings of the plurality of flow guide members of Sun, which would provide a plurality of flow guide members that can evenly distribute air between each flow guide member, that can be used for adjusting the flow direction of the airflow to increase control and comfort to the user (¶0163).
Regarding claim 30, Takada shows wherein:
a necking is disposed at the air outlet duct (see Annotated Figure 1 – as the Applicant claims a necking 513 as in Fig. 7 as the end of the flow guide member, as does Takada show the necking being disposed in the air outlet duct 8b), and
a distance between the surrounding plate and the volute tongue is minimal at the necking (see Annotated Figure 1 – the distance between the surrounding plate and the volute tongue is minimal at the necking, as it is narrower at the necking, as the distance between the surrounding plate and the volute tongue at the air outlet gradually increases from the necking); and
the flow guide member is distributed in regions of the side plates between the necking and the cross-flow fan wheel in the air outlet duct (see Annotated Figure 1).
However, Takada lacks showing a plurality of the flow guide members.
Sun teaches the plurality of flow guide members (see Annotated Figure 2).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the flow guide member of Takada to incorporate the teachings of the plurality of flow guide members of Sun, which would provide a plurality of flow guide members with flat profiles that can evenly distribute air between each flow guide member, that can be used for adjusting the flow direction of the airflow to increase control and comfort to the user (¶0163).
Regarding claim 31, Takada shows wherein the flow guide member is configured as a rib (see Annotated Figure 1) extending from the surrounding plate to the volute tongue (see Annotated Figure 1 – the rib extends from the surrounding plate, and extends towards a direction of the volute tongue 7).
Regarding claim 32, Takada shows wherein:
a necking is disposed at the air outlet duct (see Annotated Figure 1), and
a distance between the surrounding plate and the volute tongue is minimal at the necking (see Annotated Figure 1 – a distance between the surrounding plate and the volute tongue 7 is minimal at the necking, as the distance between the surrounding plate and the volute tongue grows as it extends towards the air outlet); and the flow guide member is disposed at the necking (see Annotated Figure 1).
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 21 & 25 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Takada et al (US 5,094,586), hereinafter referred to as Takada.
Regarding claim 21, Takada shows wherein:
a necking (see Annotated Figure 1 – as the Applicant claims a necking 513 as in Fig. 7 as the end of the flow guide member, as does Takada show) is disposed at the air outlet duct (see Annotated Figure 1); and
the flow guide member is configured as a boss (see Annotated Figure 1 – Dictonary.com defines Boss: ” an area of increased thickness, usually cylindrical, that strengthens or provides room for a locating device on a shaft, hub of a wheel, etc”; as the Applicant states the flow guide member is configured as a boss, as does Takada show the air flow guide member configured as a boss, of which provides room for an element, that of being a boss for element 10)
and
the height of the flow guide member at the necking is of a relative height in mm (see Annotated Figure 1).
Regarding claim 21 and the limitation “the height of the flow guide member at the necking is 3-6 mm”, at the time the invention was made, it would have been an obvious matter of design choice to a person of ordinary skill in the art to have the height of the flow guide member at the necking being 3-6 mm instead of having the height of the flow guide member at the necking being of a relative height in mm, because applicant has not disclosed that having the height of the flow guide member at the necking being 3-6 mm provides an advantage, is used for particular purpose, or solves a stated problem, that also factors in the speed of the cross-flow fan wheel in relation to the mm requirement, as the speed of air flowing through any area will have an effect on the size of the ventilation means used to transfer the air from that area to another. One of ordinary skill in the art, would have expected the Applicant's invention to perform equally well with having the height of the flow guide member at the necking being 3-6 mm or having the height of the flow guide member at the necking being of a relative height in mm, because both heights of the flow guide member performs the function of passing air therethrough equally well. (MPEP 2144.04, Sect VI.C).
Therefore, 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 flow guide member of Takada to have the height of the flow guide member at the necking be 3-6 mm for the predictable result and benefit of reducing the noise level from the fan even when a clogged filter increases a flow resistance on an air suction side (Col. 1, Lines 5-11).
Regarding claim 25, Takada shows wherein the flow guide member is a platform (see Annotated Figure 1 – The Merriam-Websters Dictionary defines Platform: “a device or structure incorporating or providing a platform””; the flow guide member is a platform that is a structure incorporating a platform at least for the cross-flow fan wheel/ element 10) and
a height of the flow guide member is of a relative height in mm (see Annotated Figure 1).
Regarding claim 25 and the limitation “a height of the flow guide member is 3-6 mm”, at the time the invention was made, it would have been an obvious matter of design choice to a person of ordinary skill in the art to have the height of the flow guide member being 3-6 mm instead of having the height of the flow guide member being of a relative height in mm, because applicant has not disclosed that having the height of the flow guide member being 3-6 mm provides an advantage, is used for particular purpose, or solves a stated problem, that also factors in the speed of the cross-flow fan wheel in relation to the mm requirement, as the speed of air flowing through any area will have an effect on the size of the ventilation means used to transfer the air from that area to another. One of ordinary skill in the art, would have expected the Applicant's invention to perform equally well with having the height of the flow guide member being 3-6 mm or having the height of the flow guide member being of a relative height in mm, because both heights of the flow guide member performs the function of passing air therethrough equally well. (MPEP 2144.04, Sect VI.C).
Therefore, 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 flow guide member of Takada to have the height of the flow guide member being 3-6 mm for the predictable result and benefit of reducing the noise level from the fan even when a clogged filter increases a flow resistance on an air suction side (Col. 1, Lines 5-11).
Claims 28 & 38 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Takada et al (US 5,094,586), hereinafter referred to as Takada, in view of Sun et al (CN111503733), hereinafter referred to as Sun.
Regarding claim 28, Takada shows wherein a height of the flow guide member is of a relative range in mm (see Annotated Figure 1).
Regarding claim 28 and the limitation “a height of the flow guide member is in a range of 3-6 mm”, at the time the invention was made, it would have been an obvious matter of design choice to a person of ordinary skill in the art to have the height of the flow guide member being in a range of 3-6 mm instead of having the height of the flow guide member being of a relative range in mm, because applicant has not disclosed that having the height of the flow guide member being in a range of 3-6 mm provides an advantage, is used for particular purpose, or solves a stated problem, that also factors in the speed of the cross-flow fan wheel in relation to the mm requirement, as the speed of air flowing through any area will have an effect on the size of the ventilation means used to transfer the air from that area to another. One of ordinary skill in the art, would have expected the Applicant's invention to perform equally well with having the height of the flow guide member being in a range of 3-6 mm or having the height of the flow guide member being of a relative range in mm, because both heights of the flow guide member performs the function of passing air therethrough equally well. (MPEP 2144.04, Sect VI.C).
Therefore, 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 flow guide member of Takada to have the height of the flow guide member be in a range 3-6 mm for the predictable result and benefit of reducing the noise level from the fan even when a clogged filter increases a flow resistance on an air suction side (Col. 1, Lines 5-11).
Regarding claim 38, Takada shows wherein:
a necking is disposed at the air outlet duct (see Annotated Figure 1 – as the Applicant claims a necking 513 as in Fig. 7 as the end of the flow guide member, as does Takada show the necking being disposed in the air outlet duct 8b); and
the flow guide member is configured as a boss (see Annotated Figure 1 – Dictonary.com defines Boss: ” an area of increased thickness, usually cylindrical, that strengthens or provides room for a locating device on a shaft, hub of a wheel, etc”; as the Applicant states the flow guide member is configured as a boss, as does Takada show the air flow guide member configured as a boss, of which provides room for an element, that of being a boss for element 10) and
the height of the flow guide member at the necking is of a relative height in mm (see Annotated Figure 1).
Regarding claim 38 and the limitation “the height of the flow guide member at the necking is 3-6 mm”, at the time the invention was made, it would have been an obvious matter of design choice to a person of ordinary skill in the art to have the height of the flow guide member at the necking being 3-6 mm instead of having the height of the flow guide member at the necking being of a relative height in mm, because applicant has not disclosed that having the height of the flow guide member at the necking being 3-6 mm provides an advantage, is used for particular purpose, or solves a stated problem, that also factors in the speed of the cross-flow fan wheel in relation to the mm requirement, as the speed of air flowing through any area will have an effect on the size of the ventilation means used to transfer the air from that area to another. One of ordinary skill in the art, would have expected the Applicant's invention to perform equally well with having the height of the flow guide member at the necking being 3-6 mm or having the height of the flow guide member at the necking being of a relative height in mm, because both heights of the flow guide member performs the function of passing air therethrough equally well. (MPEP 2144.04, Sect VI.C).
Therefore, 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 flow guide member of Takada to have the height of the flow guide member at the necking be 3-6 mm for the predictable result and benefit of reducing the noise level from the fan even when a clogged filter increases a flow resistance on an air suction side (Col. 1, Lines 5-11).
Claims 33-34 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Takada et al (US 5,094,586), hereinafter referred to as Takada, in view of Sun et al (CN111503733), hereinafter referred to as Sun.
Regarding claim 33, Takada shows elements of the claimed invention as stated above in claim 22 including the flow guide member, the cross-flow fan, and the side plate.
However, Takada lacks showing wherein the flow guide member is one of a plurality of flow guide members of the cross-flow fan each configured as a column projecting from the side plate.
Sun (CN111503733), an air conditioner with a guide for directing airflow, is in the same field of endeavor as Takada which is an air conditioner with a guide for directing airflow.
Sun shows wherein the flow guide member is one of a plurality of flow guide members (227, Fig. 23, see Annotated Figure 2) of the fan (121, Fig. 1) each configured as a column (see Annotated Figure 2 - each of the plurality of flow guide members at their ends are configured as a physical column of a circular nature, that projects from a side plate where it is connected to) projecting from the side plate (see Annotated Figure 2).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the flow guide member of Takada to incorporate the teachings of the plurality of flow guide members of Sun, which would provide a plurality of flow guide members that can be used for adjusting the flow direction of the airflow to increase control and comfort to the user (¶0163).
Regarding claim 34, Takada shows wherein:
a necking is disposed at the air outlet duct (see Annotated Figure 1), and
a distance between the surrounding plate and the volute tongue is minimal at the necking (see Annotated Figure 1); and
the flow guide member is distributed in a region of the side plate between the necking and the cross-flow fan wheel in the air outlet duct (see Annotated Figure 1).
However, Takada lacks showing the plurality of flow guide members.
Sun teaches the plurality of flow guide members (see Annotated Figure 2).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the flow guide member of Takada to incorporate the teachings of the plurality of flow guide members of Sun, which would provide a plurality of flow guide members that can be used for adjusting the flow direction of the airflow to increase control and comfort to the user (¶0163).
Claims 36-37 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Takada et al (US 5,094,586).
Regarding claim 36, Takada (US 5,094,586) shows an air conditioner comprising:
a cross-flow fan (11, Fig. 7) including:
a volute (8a/8b, Fig. 1) internally provided with an air supply duct (8a/8b, Fig. 7 – the enclosure of elements 8a/8b comprises of the air supply duct);
a cross-flow fan wheel (1, Fig. 7) disposed in the air supply duct (Fig. 6) and dividing the air supply duct into an air inlet duct (8a, Fig. 6) located upstream of the cross-flow fan wheel (Fig. 6) and
an air outlet duct (8b, Fig. 6) located downstream of the cross-flow fan wheel (Fig. 6); and
a flow guide member (see Annotated Figure 3 – as the Applicant claims a flow guide member by showing in Fig. 4 the flow guide member to be the structural area or section of the volute, as does Takada show) disposed at a side wall of the air outlet duct close to an end of the cross-flow fan wheel (see Annotated Figure 3 – the flow guide member is disposed at a side wall of the air outlet duct 8b that is close to an end of the cross-flow fan wheel, as the guide member is comprised of the structure of the walls of the air outlet duct 8b, including the side walls of the air outlet duct).
PNG
media_image3.png
434
577
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Annotated Figure 3
Regarding claim 37, Takada shows wherein: the volute includes an air outlet (see Annotated Figure 3) disposed at an end of the air outlet duct facing away from the cross-flow fan wheel (see Annotated Figure 3);
a height of the flow guide member gradually increases along the air outlet duct in a direction from the air outlet to the cross-flow fan wheel (the previous Markush limitation was not selected) or a direction from the cross-flow fan wheel to the air outlet (see Annotated Figure 3 – the height of the flow guide member gradually increases along the air outlet duct in a direction from the cross-flow fan wheel to the air outlet).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 35 is objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Regarding claim 35, the closest prior art of record is Takada (US 5,094,586) and Sun (CN111503733), and while these references do disclose the flow guide member, and plurality of flow guide members arranged in a plurality of rows in a direction perpendicular to the airflow direction in their manner, however these references alone or combined do not disclose the structure required to meet the bar for the claimed limitations of providing the plurality of flow guide members where the heights of the flow guide members in a single row increases in the airflow direction, as well as having the number of flow guide members in a single row increases as the airflow direction proliferates towards the air outlet.
The Examiner finds no reasonable rationale that would have made it obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify Takada or Sun as doing so would employ hindsight reasoning and compromise the mechanical continuity of Takada by structurally modifying out of its best mode use.
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant’s disclosure and is provided in the Notice of References Cited.
The following prior art teaches related cross flow fan systems:
Harloff US 4,279,569 - Harloff discloses flow guide members.
Park (US 2013/0129515) – Park discloses a flow guide member of a certain camber.
Liang (US 3,279,209) - Liang discloses a cross flow fan system with flow guide members.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to RYAN L FAULKNER whose telephone number is (469)295-9209. The examiner can normally be reached M-F: 9-7, Every other F: Flex.
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, Michael Hoang can be reached at 571-272-6460. 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.
/RYAN L FAULKNER/Examiner, Art Unit 3762
/AVINASH A SAVANI/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3762
Prosecution Insights