Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
DETAILED ACTION
This Office Action is in response to the Applicant’s communication filed on 19 June 2026. In virtue of this communication, claims 1-12 are currently presented in the instant application. Presently, claims 1 and 9 have been amended and claims 4-8 have been cancelled.
Information Disclosure Statement(s)
The information disclosure statement(s) (IDS) submitted on 7/13/2026 is/are in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97 and 1.98. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement(s) is/are being considered by the examiner.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments filed 6/19/2026, with respect to the rejection(s) of claim(s) 1 under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) have been fully considered and are persuasive. Therefore, the rejection has been withdrawn. However, upon further consideration, a new ground(s) of rejection is made in view of Shirahama and Ueha et al. (both cited in full below).
Examiner partially agrees with Applicant’s arguments regarding the newly amended subject matter. Examiner agrees that Lorcher does not disclose using specifically a hot wire anemometer in the immediate vicinity of the fan or the impeller (instead, Lorcher discloses that it is known to determine the volume flow using differential pressure adjustments at the inlet nozzle or using a vane anemometer or thermal anemometer). Examiner is considering at the inlet nozzle to teach immediate vicinity as that is a relative term of degree, and while thermal anemometer generally can include hot wire anemometers as known in the art, is not specifically the case.
Prior arts Shirahama (Fig. 7) and Ueha et al. (Fig. 1) both teach using hot wire anemometers (27 and 2, respectively) arranged in the immediate vicinity of the impeller (7 of Shirahama) or fan (blades 1b rotated by motor 1a). Shirahama and Ueha both teach using one as the wind speed detecting means, similarly to that desired by Lorcher “It has been shown that such high accuracy requirements in the volume flow / mass flow determination are met, in particular with methods that are based on an analysis of the flow velocity field at a suitable point in the area of the fan. Such methods are based, for example, on measuring the speed of a vane anemometer.”.
Snibbe and Volmer et al., both cited in the references cited below, offer additional teachings of the art. Snibbe describes some of the advantages and disadvantages for hot-wire anemometers for measuring airflow velocity, specifically that hot-wire anemometers are difficult to calibrate in some temperature environments, while impeller devices have lower sensitivity by comparison and so are less desirable for low velocity applications. Volmer et al. teaches measuring flow parameters using hot-wire anemometers that allow for easy control of the fan motor with high accuracy, and similarly to Lorcher notes that the hot-wire anemometer is a known alternative to differential pressure sensors or impeller anemometers.
In summary, while Lorcher does not explicitly show the location of the sensor (only noting to be at the inlet nozzle) or specifically that the thermal anemometer is a hot-wire anemometer, the combined teachings of the above teach and give motivation to utilizing hot-wire anemometers in the immediate vicinity of the impeller or fan to measure the wind speed to be used to determine the motor parameters and control the motor.
The claims will be rejected under these combinations.
The amendments to the claims have overcome all claim objections on record.
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.
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.
Claim(s) 1-3 and 9-12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lorcher et al. (Publication No.: DE 10 2019 212 325 A1, herein known as D1, provided and cited in the previous Office Action) in view of Shirahama (Publication No.: JP 2013-92160 A, herein known as D2, a machine translation is provided herewith) and Ueha et al. (Publication No.: JP 2005-221089 A, herein known as D3, a machine translation is provided herewith).
With respect to claim 1, D1 discloses a method for quantitatively determining the current conveying volume flow or another operating-point-dependent variable of a fan having a motor-driven impeller (abstract, claim 1 and Fig. 1; operating-point-dependent variable is a pressure change, impeller 3 of fan 1; Fig. 3), comprising:
determining a motor-internal variable and a motor-external variable (speed and mass flow, respectively; claim 1, mass flow is described to be measured by a vane anemometer in claim 2, the speed or speed profile of the fan as described in claim 3),
directly or indirectly calculating or determining by means of an algorithm a conveying volume flow or the other operating-point-dependent variable from the motor-internal variable and the motor-external variable (see the graph of Fig. 1 and claim 4, with a known volume flow V and known speed n, the fan pressure increase Δp is known).
D1 does not explicitly disclose a method wherein the motor-external variable is a signal of a sensor which is arranged in the immediate vicinity of the fan or the impeller, wherein the sensor is a hot wire anemometer which reacts sensitively to a flow velocity (instead D1 teaches “It is also already known from the prior art to determine the volume flow using the shaft torque with backward curved radial impellers, using differential pressure measurements at the inlet nozzle or using a vane anemometer or thermal anemometer” and “It has been shown that such high accuracy requirements in the volume flow / mass flow determination are met, in particular with methods that are based on an analysis of the flow velocity field at a suitable point in the area of the fan. Such methods are based, for example, on measuring the speed of a vane anemometer.”, as noted in the response to arguments above).
Shirahama (Fig. 7) and Ueha et al. (Fig. 1) both teach using hot wire anemometers (27 and 2, respectively) arranged in the immediate vicinity of the impeller (7 of Shirahama) or fan (blades 1b rotated by motor 1a). Shirahama (“With this configuration, the position of the movable part 19 is automatically adjusted according to the wind speed detected by the hot-wire anemometer 27”) and Ueha (“In the first embodiment, a hot-wire anemometer is used as the wind speed detecting means 2, but an ultrasonic-type anemometer, an impeller-type anemometer, a Pitot tube-type anemometer, or the like is used instead of the hot-wire anemometer. It does not make a difference in its effects.”) both teach using the hot wife anemometers as wind speed detecting means (see response to arguments above).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to modify the method of D1 by utilizing hot wire anemometers in the immediate vicinity of the fan or impeller as taught by D2 and D3 as known alternatives in the art (D3 specifically discloses that there is little change from using the various types of anemometer), and D1 already discusses using a thermal anemometer for the sensing means. See further the response to arguments above.
Volmer et al. and Snibbe, cited below, further teach the uses and advantages of using these devices as discussed in the above response to arguments.
With respect to claim 2, the combination of D1, D2, and D3 does not explicitly disclose a method wherein the motor-internal variable is an electric current, in the motor or in the control system thereof.
However, the properties of the motor is known, including the voltage levels needed to achieve the designated and known speeds (such as those shown in Fig. 1), and from that the current could be readily determined by one of ordinary skill in the art as a way of calculating/determining the motor speed.
In addition, D2 further discloses determining the electric characteristics of the motor and adjusting the device based on the detected characteristic. Examples of this characteristic can be current and voltage of the DC motor that is measured by an electronic circuit (“In addition, the same effect can be obtained even if an electric characteristic detecting means for detecting the electric characteristic of the electric motor 6 is provided and the position of the movable portion 19 is automatically adjusted according to the detected electric characteristic of the electric motor 6. Examples of the electric characteristic detection means include an electronic circuit that acquires electric characteristics such as current and voltage of a DC motor.”)
It would have been further obvious to one of ordinary skill to further modify the method of the combination of D1, D2, and D3 by directly or indirectly measuring the current from known values or directly as discussed by D3.
With respect to claim 3, the combination of D1, D2, and D3 further discloses a method wherein the motor-internal value is the motor speed (D1: claims 1 and 3, Fig. 1).
With respect to claim 9, the combination of D1, D2, and D3 further discloses a method wherein the algorithm is implemented in a motor control system or in an external evaluation unit, in each case having a processor and a memory, wherein sensor signals are transmitted to the processor via wire or contactlessly (would inherently be the case for the method to function).
D1 expressly teaches “advantageously, the user or a higher-level system can read out the current operating state-dependent variable determined, such as the pressure change or the pressure increase, and use it to control the fan or to control a complete ventilation system.”,
“The fan can control itself with the calculated current operating status dependent variable. For example, speed control as a function of a currently determined pressure increase is possible.”,
“It is also conceivable that the pressure increase or some other current operating-state-dependent variable is controlled by a user or a superordinate system can be read out, so that the user or the superordinate system can control or otherwise influence the fan speed or the ventilation system based on this information.”, and
“The current operating state-dependent variable or its course over time can also be stored and / or transmitted to the user or the fan manufacturer in order to be able to carry out further optimizations.”.
All of these teachings indicates that there is some control system (that inherently has to be inside or external) that has a processor with a memory (in order to perform the designated functions) and communication for the control has to be wire or contactlessly as that generally encompasses all means of communications.
With respect to claim 10, the combination of D1, D2, and D3 further discloses a method wherein the fan or the fan motor has an interface which is used to transmit a determined current conveying volume flow or a determined current operating-state-dependent variable to a superordinate system (D1: see all recitations in above claim 9 rejection, particularly ““It is also conceivable that the pressure increase or some other current operating-state-dependent variable is controlled by a user or a superordinate system can be read out, so that the user or the superordinate system can control or otherwise influence the fan speed or the ventilation system based on this information.”).
With respect to claim 11, the combination of D1, D2, and D3 further discloses a method wherein a signal for a setpoint volume flow or a setpoint value for an operating-point-dependent variable is transmitted to the motor and/or to the evaluation unit, said signal being used to control a motor speed in such a way that the conveying volume flow or the operating-point-dependent variable determined using a sensor signal or sensor signals corresponds as accurately as possible to the setpoint volume flow or to the setpoint value for the operating-point dependent variable (D1: see recitations from above claim 9 rejection, in which the values determined are used to control the system for maximum efficiency).
With respect to claim 12, the combination of D1, D2, and D3 discloses a fan for applying a method as claimed in claim 1, configured for controlling the current conveying volume flow or the current operating-point-dependent variable (see rejections of claim 1 and 9-11 above).
Citation of Pertinent Prior Art
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Volmer et al. (Publication No.: DE# 10 2013 016 600 A1), a machine translation is provided herewith
Snibbe (Patent No.: US 6,923,079 B1)
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.
Inquiry
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to DIANA HANCOCK whose telephone number is (571)270-7547. The examiner can normally be reached on 10AM-6PM EST M-F.
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, Stephanie Bloss can be reached on (571) 272-3555. 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.
/D.H/Examiner, Art Unit 2852
9/14/2026
/NOAM REISNER/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2852 9/16/2026
Prosecution Insights