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 .
Election/Restriction
The Examiner’s written office action mailed on 7/17/2025 may have not explicitly acknowledged Applicant’s election without traverse, made in Applicant’s reply filed on 5/6/2025, of Invention Group 1 (claims 4-6, along with linking claim 1, along with claims 2 and 3 which each recite a trivial feature). However, the written office action and associated Form PTOL-326 did correctly identify that claims 7-14 were withdrawn from consideration and claims 1-6 were examined.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's remarks filed 10/17/2025 have been fully considered.
Regarding the prior drawing objections, Applicant’s amendments overcome some prior objections.
Regarding the prior specification objections, including the objection to the abstract, and claim objections, Applicant’s amendments overcome all prior objections.
Regarding the prior 112(b) rejections, Applicant’s amendments overcome some prior rejections.
Regarding the prior art rejection of claim 1, in paragraph 1 of page 8 of Applicant’s Remarks, Applicant’s arguments are directed to that “Hirsch is directed to a blade for an aircraft rotor (e.g., a helicopter), not an industrial axial fan as claimed. The design constraints, operating environments, and performance objectives for helicopter blades are fundamentally different from those for large industrial fans.”
The argument is not persuasive because Hirsch discloses a fan exactly as claimed.
Courts have established that apparatus claims cover what a device is, not what a device does. See MPEP 2114(II).
It has also been held that where the claimed and prior art products are identical or substantially identical in structure or composition, or are produced by identical or substantially identical processes, a prima facie case of either anticipation or obviousness has been established. See MPEP 2112.01(I).
In this case, the device in the prior art reference has all the necessary structure and therefore performs the claimed function in the same manner as Applicant’s device. Since the prior art discloses all of the same structural elements which Applicant claims, the prior art structure would be expected to perform the same as Applicant’s structure.
A claim containing a recitation with respect to the manner in which a claimed apparatus is intended to be employed does not differentiate the claimed apparatus from a prior art apparatus if the prior art apparatus teaches all the structural limitations of the claim. See MPEP 2114(II).
A recitation of the intended use of the claimed invention must result in a structural difference between the claimed invention and the prior art in order to patentably distinguish the claimed invention from the prior art. If the prior art structure is capable of performing the intended use, then it meets the claim.
In other words, just because Applicant calls his fan an “industrial axial fan” in the preamble of claim 1, without further specifying any structure which distinguishes his fan from the prior art’s fan, that does not distinguish his fan from the prior art’s fan.
In response to Applicant's argument that the references fail to show certain features of Applicant’s invention, it is noted that the features upon which Applicant relies (i.e., “design constraints, operating environments, and performance objectives for helicopter blades are fundamentally different from those for large industrial fans.”) are not recited in the rejected claim(s). Although the claims are interpreted in light of the specification, limitations from the specification and arguments are not read into the claims. See In re Van Geuns, 988 F.2d 1181, 26 USPQ2d 1057 (Fed. Cir. 1993).
In paragraph 2 of page 8 of Applicant’s Remarks, Applicant’s arguments are directed to that the prior art fails to disclose, teach, or suggest the amended limitations of amended claim 1.
The arguments are not persuasive because each limitation is mapped to prior art. Please see mapping of amended limitations to prior art below for details.
In paragraph 3 of page 8 through paragraph 3 of page 9 of Applicant’s Remarks, Applicant’s arguments are directed to that Hirsch does not disclose “three distinct wing-shaped bodies” “attached to one another in succession” which explicitly allows for a modular construction.
The argument is not persuasive because Hirsch discloses a fan exactly as claimed.
In response to Applicant's argument that the references fail to show certain features of Applicant’s invention, it is noted that the features upon which Applicant relies (i.e., “three distinct wing-shaped bodies” , “attached to one another in succession”, modular construction) are not recited in the rejected claim(s). Although the claims are interpreted in light of the specification, limitations from the specification and arguments are not read into the claims. See In re Van Geuns, 988 F.2d 1181, 26 USPQ2d 1057 (Fed. Cir. 1993).
In paragraph 4 of page 9 through to the end of page 9 of Applicant’s Remarks, Applicant’s arguments are further directed to that dependent claims each depend from allowable claim 1 and are thus allowable. Respectfully, Applicant’s arguments are not persuasive because claim 1 is not currently allowable.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to under 37 CFR 1.83(a). The drawings must show every feature of the invention specified in the claims. Therefore, the following must be shown or the feature(s) canceled from the claim(s):
“the third leading edge (10c) and the third trailing edge (10d) inclined with respect to said keying axis (R) in an opposite direction to an inclination of the second leading edge (9c) and to the second trailing edge (9d)” as identified in claim 1. Note that Fig 6 does not show this, wherein an opposite direction would be offset by 180° from a reference direction, as one having ordinary skill would understand. Maintained
Note that 35 U.S.C. 113 identifies the requirement for drawings to be generally provided (“The applicant shall furnish a drawing where necessary for the understanding of the subject matter sought to be patented.”) and 37 CFR 1.83(a) identifies requirements for what those drawings must show (“The drawing in a nonprovisional application must show every feature of the invention specified in the claims. However, conventional features disclosed in the description and claims, where their detailed illustration is not essential for a proper understanding of the invention, should be illustrated in the drawing in the form of a graphical drawing symbol or a labeled representation (e.g., a labeled rectangular box).”)
No new matter should be entered.
Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
Claim Interpretation
The previous claim interpretation(s) (identified in the office action mailed on 7/17/2025) regarding the term(s) “substantially parallel” is/are maintained.
Claim Objections
The following claims are objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 1 (line 16) recites the limitation “forma second angle” which is grammatically incorrect because of the term “forma” and which also may introduce confusion because the claims have not previously introduced a “first angle”.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112(b)
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) 1-6 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 applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claim 1 (line 8) recites the limitation “the third leading edge (10c) and the third trailing edge (10d) inclined with respect to said keying axis (R) in an opposite direction to an inclination of the second leading edge (9c) and to the second trailing edge (9d)” which renders the claim indefinite because it is unclear how a first edge can possibly be inclined in an opposite direction to an inclination of a second edge, with respect to any axis. An opposite direction of/along a line/inclination/edge would be a direction offset by 180°, as one having ordinary skill would understand. Thus, two lines/inclinations/edges existing in opposite directions would not be inclined at all with respect to one another. Maintained
Claim 3 (line 2) recites the limitation “wherein each blade is selectively about said keying axis” which renders the claim indefinite because it is unclear what it means for a blade to be “selectively about said keying axis”.
Claim(s) 2-6 is/are also rejected by virtue of dependency.
In view of the 112(b) rejections set forth above, the claims are rejected below as best understood.
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)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 1, 4-6 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by US 20110236208 A1 (hereinafter Hirsch).
PNG
media_image1.png
479
741
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Annotated Fig 1a
Regarding claim 1, Hirsch discloses:
An industrial axial fan, comprising:
a hub (4; Fig 3) rotatable about an axis of rotation (Fig 3 shows this) and a plurality of blades (10; Fig 3) mounted on said hub, wherein each blade extends along a keying axis (annotated Fig 1a) and comprises in succession:
a first wing-shaped body having a first leading edge and a first trailing edge (annotated Fig 1a);
a second wing-shaped body having a second leading edge and a second trailing edge (annotated Fig 1a),
wherein the second leading edge and the second trailing edge are inclined with respect to said keying axis (Fig 1 shows this);
and a third wing-shaped body attached to the second wing-shaped body (Fig 1 shows this) and having a third leading edge and a third trailing edge (annotated Fig 1a),
the third leading edge and the third trailing edge inclined with respect to said keying axis in an opposite direction to an inclination of the second leading edge and to the second trailing edge (see related 112b rejection above; also the prior art’s configuration is analogous to Applicant’s; Fig 1),
wherein the second and the third leading edges form a second angle (“angle” in annotated Fig 1a) greater than 180° (Fig 1 clearly shows this), thereby defining a forward-pointing vertex (annotated Fig 1a) between the second leading edge and the third leading edge (Fig 1 shows this).
Regarding claim 4, Hirsch discloses:
on each one of the blades, the first leading edge is parallel to the keying axis and, the first trailing edge is parallel to the keying axis (Figs 1 and 3 show all this).
Regarding claim 5, Hirsch discloses:
on each one of the blades, the second leading edge and the second trailing edge are substantially parallel to each other (Figs 1 and 3 show all this).
Regarding claim 6, Hirsch discloses:
on each one of the blades, the third leading edge and the third trailing edge are substantially parallel to each other (Figs 1 and 3 show all this).
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, 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) 2 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hirsch in view of US 3685332 A (Davidson).
Regarding claim 2, Hirsch discloses:
the third wing-shaped body of each blade comprises an end edge (radially outer-most edge in Fig 1) having a circumferential profile (Fig 1 clearly shows this) about an axis of rotation (A).
Hirsch may not explicitly disclose:
the circumferential profile is about an axis of rotation.
However, Davidson, in the same field of endeavor, fans, teaches:
In Fig 4 a fan blade 13 contained within a housing 11 wherein both the blade tip and housing share what is clearly a circumferential profile about an axis of rotation.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify Hirsch to include Davidson’s teachings as described above, having the circumferential profile is about an axis of rotation, in order to contain the blade within a duct to obtain the flow characteristics of a ducted fan.
Claim(s) 3 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hirsch in view of US 6116857 A (hereinafter Splettstoesser).
Regarding claim 3, Hirsch discloses:
adjust a pitch angle of the blade (para 0070)
and wherein each blade further comprises a keying shaft (annotated Fig 1a) aligned with said keying axis (Fig 1 shows this) and fixed to the first wing-shaped body in a vicinity of the first leading edge (Fig 1 shows this).
Hirsch may not explicitly disclose:
each blade is selectively [rotatable?] about said keying axis
However, Splettstoesser, in the same field of endeavor, fan blades, teaches:
In Fig 1 a blade with a blade root 26 (corresponding to Applicant’s keying shaft), by which the blade is connected to the hub (col 5 line 63), and by which the blade can be pitched (col 5 line 67).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify Hirsch to include Splettstoesser’s teachings as described above, having each blade comprise Splettstoesser’s blade root, in order to allow the blade to pitch while using a robust unibody design for the blade attachment point to the hub. This modification would result in the limitation above.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 extension fee 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 date of this final action.
Contact Information
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Art Golik whose telephone number is (571)272-6211. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri 8:30-5:00.
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.
/Art Golik/Examiner, Art Unit 3745
/NATHANIEL E WIEHE/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3745