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 .
Response to Amendment
The amendment submitted 03/17/2026 has been entered. Claims 14-32 remain pending. Claims 1-13 have been cancelled.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 03/17/2026 have been fully considered and were found persuasive. However, the amendments to the claims have changed the scope of the claims necessitating new grounds of rejection. Please see new grounds of rejection below.
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.
Claim(s) 14-16, 20-25, 28, and 31 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 6626640 to Ivanovic in view of US 9726192 to Whitley.
(*) Regarding claim 14:
(i) Ivanovic discloses an industrial axial fan (see title and technical field), comprising:
a retaining ring (fan housing 12 comprising interior wall 12b, Fig 1);
a hub (hub 14, Fig 1) rotatable about a rotation axis (central axis of hub 14, Fig 1);
a plurality of blades (fan blades 16, Fig 1) coupled to the hub (Fig 1),
each of the blades comprising an airfoil (airfoil of fan blades 16, Figs 3/5) extending along a blade axis (longitudinal axis of fan blades 16, Fig 1) and having a leading edge (upstream edge of fan blades 16, Figs 1/5), a trailing edge (downstream edge of fan blades 16, Figs 1/5), a root side (side of fan blades 16 proximate hub 14, Fig 1), a tip side (radially outer side of fan blades 16, Fig 1), an intrados (lower concave surface of fan blades 16, Fig 5) and an extrados (upper convex surface of fan blades 16, Fig 5); and
a terminal member (end piece 18/20, Figs 1/4-6/8) arranged to close the tip side of each of the plurality of blades (Figs 1/4-6/8),
wherein the terminal member has a rounded front portion in a top plan view as viewed from above at the leading edge (rounded portion of or near leading edge 18f, Fig 4; reasonably disclosed in Fig 5; rounding at leading edge, Figs 6/8), and
a rounded rear portion with a convex profile in a plan view between the front portion and the trailing edge (rounded portion of or near trailing edge 18e, Fig 4; reasonably disclosed in Fig 5; rounding at trailing edge, Figs 6/8).
(ii) Ivanovic does not disclose wherein the airfoil is extruded or pultruded.
(iii) Whitley is also in the field of fan blades (see title) and teaches a fan blade comprising an airfoil that is extruded (airfoil 118, Fig 1; Col 3 Lns 26-27).
(iv) 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 airfoil as disclosed by Ivanovic to be extruded as taught by Whitley for the purpose of forming the airfoil (Col 3 Lns 26-27).
(v) The Examiner notes that the limitation “to modify an angle of a trajectory of a leading point in relation to air around the tip side of the blade at an interface between the terminal member and the retaining ring to reduce turbulence at the blade tip” is a functional limitation and since the prior art teaches all structural limitations of the claim can perform the claimed function.
(b) Regarding claim 15:
(i) Ivanovic as modified by Whitley teaches the axial fan according to claim 14.
(ii) Ivanovic further discloses wherein the rear portion of the terminal member has a bending radius coinciding with a maximum radius of the axial fan (reasonably disclosed in Fig 1; Fig 6, Col 4 Lns 53-55).
(c) Regarding claim 16:
(i) Ivanovic as modified by Whitley teaches the axial fan according to claim 14.
(ii) Ivanovic further wherein the terminal member externally conforms to the retaining ring (reasonably disclosed in Fig 1; Fig 6, Col 4 Lns 53-55).
(d) Regarding claim 20:
(i) Ivanovic as modified by Whitley teaches the axial fan according to claim 14.
(ii) Ivanovic further discloses wherein the front portion is connected to the rear portion at a connection point (such a point must exist) with an entirety of the front portion and an entirety of the rear portion being rounded in the top plan view (Figs 1/4-6/8).
(e) Regarding claim 21:
(i) Ivanovic as modified by Whitley teaches the axial fan according to claim 14.
(ii) Ivanovic further wherein the terminal member has an outer face (radially outer surface of end piece 18/20, Figs 1/4-6/8), an inner face opposite to the inner face and coupled to the airfoil (radially inner surface of end piece 18/20 connected to radially outer end of fan blades 16, Figs 1/4-6/8) and a maximum cord defined at the inner face (maximum chord of fan blades 16, Figs 1/5-6/8).
(f) Regarding claim 22:
(i) Ivanovic as modified by Whitley teaches the axial fan according to claim 21.
(ii) Ivanovic further discloses wherein, in the radial direction, the front portion of the terminal member has a radial dimension ranging between 5% and 25% of the maximum cord (reasonably disclosed in Fig 1; as front portion has no particular location defined in the claims, the front portion may include a radial dimension of any one or combination of arbitrarily located rounded portions proximate the leading edge ranging from infinitely small to the maximum radial thickness of the end piece 18/20, Figs 1/5-6/8).
(g) Regarding claim 23:
(i) Ivanovic as modified by Whitley teaches the axial fan according to claim 21.
(ii) Ivanovic further wherein, in the tangential direction, the terminal member has a tangential dimension ranging between 3% and 25% of the maximum cord (as tangential dimension has not be defined in the claim, any arbitrarily chosen tangential dimension of the end piece 18/20 within the claimed range may be chosen, Figs 1/5-6/8).
(h) Regarding claim 24:
(i) Ivanovic as modified by Whitley teaches the axial fan according to claim 21.
(ii) Ivanovic as modified by Whitley further teaches wherein the terminal member has an intrados face (Ivanovic: lower concave surface of end piece 20 conforming to airfoil shape of fan blade 16, Fig 5; Whitley: lower concave surface of blade tip 114 conforming to airfoil shape of airfoil 118, Fig 4; concave surface 514, Fig 5B), an extrados face (Ivanovic: upper convex surface of end piece 20 conforming to airfoil shape of fan blade 16, Fig 5; Whitley: upper convex surface of blade 114 conforming to airfoil shape of airfoil 118, Fig 4; surface 512, Fig 5B), a radially inner face (Ivanovic: radially inner surface of end piece 20 connected to fan blade 16, Fig 5; Whitley: radially inner surface of blade tip 114 connected to airfoil 118, Fig 5A-B) and a radially outer face (Ivanovic: any radially outer end of end piece 20, Fig 5; Whitley: tip end 112, Figs 5A-B), wherein the terminal member is tapered toward the outside in the direction of the blade axis continuously from the radially inner face to the radially outer face (Ivanovic: reasonably disclosed in Fig 5; Whitley: Figs 5A-5B) and wherein the intrados face and the extrados face decline towards each other (Ivanovic: reasonably disclosed in Fig 5; Whitley: Figs 5A-5B) and are connected to the radially outer face with respective rounded corners (Ivanovic: reasonably disclosed in Fig 5 as being any respective upper and lower rounded portions between radially inner and outer faces which may be arbitrarily defined; Whitley: Figs 5A-5B).
(i) Regarding claim 25:
(i) Ivanovic as modified by Whitley teaches the axial fan according to claim 24.
(ii) Ivanovic as modified by Whitley further teaches wherein the terminal member has an intrados face, an extrados face, and a radially outer face (see rejection of claim 24 above) and wherein the intrados face and the extrados face decline towards each other (Ivanovic: reasonably disclosed in Fig 5; Whitley: Figs 5A-5B).
(j) Regarding claim 28:
(i) Ivanovic as modified by Whitley teaches the axial fan according to claim 22.
(ii) Ivanovic as modified by Whitley further teaches wherein a maximum outer thickness of the terminal member to the outer face is at least 50% of a maximum inner thickness of the terminal member at the inner face (Ivanovic: as the maximum outer thicknesses location has not been defined from some radially inner location “to the outer face”, the thickness of any portion between inner and outer faces of end piece 20 may be interpreted as the maximum thickness, reasonably disclosed in Fig 5 as being between 0-100% of the maximum thickness at the radially inner face; Whitley: reasonably disclosed in Fig 5B; reasonably disclosed as being approximately 100% in Fig 7).
(k) Regarding claim 31:
(i) Ivanovic as modified by Whitley teaches the axial fan according to claim 21.
(ii) Ivanovic as modified by Whitley further teaches wherein the airfoil comprises a hollow first portion (Whitley: portion defining leading edge cavity 454a, Fig 4A) and a second portion (Whitley: portion defining trailing edge cavity 454b, Fig 4A) in form of a lamina (Whitley: Fig 4A), wherein the first portion and the second portion extend adjacent to each other from the root side (Whitley: Figs 10A-B) to the tip side (Whitley: Fig 4A) and wherein the first portion defines the leading edge and the second portion defines the trailing edge (Whitley: Fig 4A).
Claim(s) 17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 6626640 to Ivanovic in view of US 9726192 to Whitley as applied to claim 14 above, and further in view of JP 2540439 to Hiroyuki (see machine translation in the file wrapper) in even further view of US 6902377 to Crocker.
(a) Regarding claim 17:
(i) Ivanovic as modified by Whitley teaches the axial fan according to claim 14.
(ii) Ivanovic does not disclose a lobe of each blade wherein the lobe overlaps, in a plan view, the root end of the leading edge of an immediately subsequent respective blade according to a rotation direction.
(iii) Hiroyuki is also in the field of blades (wing 1, Fig 1) and teaches an axial fan comprising a plurality of blades and a lobe of each blade (extension 15, Figs 1-2).
(iv) 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 each blade as disclosed by Ivanovic with the above aforementioned lobe as taught by Hiroyuki for the purpose of reducing noise (page 3, second paragraph, last sentence).
(v) Crocker is also in the field of axial fans (see title) and teaches fan blades (10, Fig 1) having leading and trailing edges wherein the trailing edge overlaps, in a plan view, a root end of the leading edge of an immediately subsequent respective blade (overlapping portion 18, Fig 1) according to a rotation direction (50, Fig 1).
(vi) 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 lobe as taught by Horng as modified by Ivanovic as further modified by Hiroyuki to overlap a root end of the leading edge of an immediately subsequent respective blade according to a rotation direction as taught by Crocker for the purpose of improving blade lift, mass flow, and exit pressure (see abstract).
Claim(s) 18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 6626640 to Ivanovic in view of US 9726192 to Whitley as applied to claim 14, and further in view of CN 107023512 to Chen (see machine translation in the file wrapper).
(a) Regarding claim 18:
(i) Ivanovic as modified by Whitley teaches the axial fan according to claim 14.
(ii) Ivanovic further discloses wherein a concave stretch of the root side of each blade is circular with a first radius equal to an outer radius of the hub (Fig 1).
(iii) Ivanovic does not discloses and a convex stretch is circular with a second radius smaller than the first radius.
(iv) Chen is also in the field of axial flow fans (see title) and teaches a concave stretch of the root side of each blade is circular with a first radius equal to an outer radius of the hub (reasonably disclosed in Fig 1) and a convex stretch is circular with a second radius smaller than the first radius (reasonably disclosed in Figs 1/3).
(v) 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 root side as disclosed by Ivanovic with the above aforementioned concave and convex stretches as taught by Chen for the purpose of increasing the wind volume at the root and improving efficiency (Par 0007, last sentence, Page 3).
Claim(s) 19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 6626640 to Ivanovic in view of US 9726192 to Whitley as applied to claim 14 above, and further in view of JP 2540439 to Hiroyuki (see machine translation in the file wrapper).
(a) Regarding claim 19:
(i) Ivanovic as modified by Whitley teaches the axial fan according to claim 14.
(ii) Ivanovic does not disclose wherein in each blade a lobe extends parallel to the respective blade axis until the rotation axis.
(iii) Hiroyuki is also in the field of blades (wing 1, Fig 1) and teaches an axial fan comprising a plurality of blades and a lobe of each blade (extension 15, Figs 1-2).
(iv) 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 each blade as disclosed by Ivanovic with the above aforementioned lobe as taught by Hiroyuki for the purpose of reducing noise (page 3, second paragraph, last sentence).
(v) Hiroyuki further teaches wherein the size of the lobe affects how much noise is generated (page 3, second paragraph, last sentence), establishing the size of the lobe as a result effective variable. Routine optimization of a result effective variable requires only ordinary skill in the art, see MPEP 2144.05(II).
(vi) 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 lobe as taught by Ivanovic as modified by Whitley as further modified by Hiroyuki to have the size as claimed through routine optimization of a result effective variable, see MPEP 2144.05(II).
Claim(s) 26-27 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 6626640 to Ivanovic in view of US 9726192 to Whitley as applied to claim 24 above, and further in view of US 6457941 to Larzelere.
(a) Regarding claim 26:
(i) Ivanovic as modified by Whitley teaches the blade according to claim 24.
(ii) Ivanovic as modified by Whitley further teaches wherein the intrados face and the extrados face are connected to the radially outer face with the respective rounded corners with respective bending radii (see rejection of claim 24 above).
(iii) Ivanovic as modified by Whitley are silent regarding the size of the bending radii and therefore does not disclose wherein the bending radii range between 0.8% and 10% of the maximum cord.
(iv) Larzelere teaches wherein stress between two interconnected structures is controlled by adjusting the bending radii of rounded corners (Col 3 Lns 58-60), establishing the bending radii as result effective variables. Routine optimization of a result effective variable requires only ordinary skill in the art, see MPEP 2144.05(II).
(v) 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 bending radii as taught by the combined teachings of Ivanovic as modified by Whitley to be within the claimed range through routine optimization of a result effective variable, see MPEP 2144.05(II).
(b) Regarding claim 27:
(i) Ivanovic as modified by Whitley as further modified by Larzelere teaches the axial fan according to claim 26.
(ii) Ivanovic as modified by Whitley as further modified by Larzelere further teaches wherein the terminal member has a radially inner face opposite the radially outer face and coupled to the airfoil (see rejection of claim 24 above) and wherein the radially outer face has an area ranging between 40% and 80% of an area of the radially inner face (Ivanovic: as the radially outer face has not been limited by structural features, any radially outward facing portion of end piece 20 may be interpreted as the radially outer face which is reasonably disclosed in Figure 5 as having an area within a range of 0-100% of the radially inner face; Whitley: reasonably disclosed in Figs 5A-C).
Claim(s) 29-30 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 6626640 to Ivanovic in view of US 9726192 to Whitley as applied to claim 21 above, and further in view of CN 107023512 to Chen (see machine translation in the file wrapper).
(b) Regarding claim 29:
(i) Ivanovic as modified by Whitley teaches the axial fan according to claim 21.
(ii) Ivanovic as modified by Whitley further teaches a rod (Whitley: bracket 108, Fig 9) having a first end connected to the airfoil at an insertion point through the root side (Whitley: via insert portions 951, Fig 10A) and a second end protruding from the airfoil (base member 950, Figs 9-10A) for coupling to a hub (Whitley: hub 104, Fig 9C).
(iii) Ivanovic as modified by Whitley does not teach:
wherein the root side has a rounded contour with a concave stretch adjacent to the leading edge and a convex stretch adjacent to the trailing edge;
wherein a root end of the leading edge protrudes with respect to the insertion point toward the second end of the rod in a direction parallel to the blade axis; and
wherein the airfoil forms a lobe at a junction between the trailing edge and the root side and the lobe extends in the direction parallel to the blade axis toward the second end of the rod more than with respect to the root end of the leading edge.
(iv) Chen is also in the field of axial flow fans (see title) and teaches a blade comprising:
a root side has a rounded contour with a concave stretch adjacent to a leading edge (concave stretch adjacent leading edge of auxiliary blade 4, Fig 3) and a convex stretch adjacent to a trailing edge (convex stretch adjacent trailing edge of auxiliary blade 4, Fig 3);
wherein a root end of the leading edge protrudes with respect to an insertion point (insertion hole 41, Fig 3) toward a second end (radially inner end of handle 6, Fig 3) of a rod (handle 6, Fig 3) in a direction parallel to a blade axis (Fig 3); and
wherein an airfoil forms a lobe (rounded radially inner corner of reinforcement portion 42, Fig 3) at a junction between the trailing edge and the root side (Fig 3) and the lobe extends in the direction parallel to the blade axis toward the second end of the rod more than with respect to the root end of the leading edge (Fig 3).
(v) 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 root side as taught by the combined teachings of Ivanovic as modified by Whitley with the above aforementioned concave and convex stretches as taught by Chen for the purpose of increasing the wind volume at the root and improving efficiency (Par 0007, last sentence, Page 3).
(b) Regarding claim 30:
(i) Ivanovic as modified by Whitley teaches the industrial axial fan according to claim 21.
(ii) Ivanovic as modified by Whitley does not teach wherein the trailing edge is rounded at least in a portion adjacent to the root side and joins the convex stretch of the root side without corners.
(iii) Chen is also in the field of axial flow fans (see title) and teaches a blade wherein a trailing edge (reinforcement portion 42, Fig 3) is rounded at least in a portion adjacent to a root side (radially inner side of the blade, Fig 3) and joins a convex stretch (curved radially inner corner of reinforcement portion 42, Fig 3) of the root side without corners (Fig 3).
(iv) 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 trailing edge as taught by the combined teachings of Ivanovic as modified by Whitley with the above aforementioned trailing edge as taught by Chen for the purpose of increasing the wind volume at the root and improving efficiency (Par 0007, last sentence, Page 3).
Claim(s) 32 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 6626640 to Ivanovic in view of US 9726192 to Whitley as applied to claim 31 above, and further in view of US 46188313 to Mosiewicz.
(a) Regarding claim 32:
(i) Ivanovic as modified by Whitley teaches the axial fan according to claim 31.
(ii) Ivanovic as modified by Whitley do not teach wherein at least in a region around a maximum cord point the trailing edge is bent toward the extrados.
(iii) Mosiewicz is also in the field of blades (see title) and teaches a trailing edge (tab 32, Figs 4a/7/9) is bent towards (Figs 7, example c) an extrados (convex surface 30, Fig 7).
(iv) 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 trailing edge as taught by the combined teachings of Ivanovic as modified by Whitley to curve towards the extrados as taught by Mosiewicz for the purpose of increasing the effective displacement of air (see abstract).
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 Justin A Pruitt whose telephone number is (571)272-8383. The examiner can normally be reached T-F 8:30am - 6:30pm.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Nathaniel Wiehe can be reached at (571) 272-8648. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/JUSTIN A PRUITT/Examiner, Art Unit 3745
/NATHANIEL E WIEHE/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3745
Prosecution Insights