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 .
Status of Claims
The status of the claims as filed in the submission dated 7/12/2024 are as follows:
Claims 1-15 are pending and are being examined.
Specification
The abstract of the disclosure is objected to because it repeats phrases which can be implied (i.e. the first two lines) and refers to the purported merits of the invention (last sentence). A corrected abstract of the disclosure is required and must be presented on a separate sheet, apart from any other text. See MPEP § 608.01(b).
Applicant is reminded of the proper content of an abstract of the disclosure.
A patent abstract is a concise statement of the technical disclosure of the patent and should include that which is new in the art to which the invention pertains. The abstract should not refer to purported merits or speculative applications of the invention and should not compare the invention with the prior art.
If the patent is of a basic nature, the entire technical disclosure may be new in the art, and the abstract should be directed to the entire disclosure. If the patent is in the nature of an improvement in an old apparatus, process, product, or composition, the abstract should include the technical disclosure of the improvement. The abstract should also mention by way of example any preferred modifications or alternatives.
Where applicable, the abstract should include the following: (1) if a machine or apparatus, its organization and operation; (2) if an article, its method of making; (3) if a chemical compound, its identity and use; (4) if a mixture, its ingredients; (5) if a process, the steps.
Extensive mechanical and design details of an apparatus should not be included in the abstract. The abstract should be in narrative form and generally limited to a single paragraph within the range of 50 to 150 words in length.
See MPEP § 608.01(b) for guidelines for the preparation of patent abstracts.
Applicant is reminded of the proper language and format for an abstract of the disclosure.
The abstract should be in narrative form and generally limited to a single paragraph on a separate sheet within the range of 50 to 150 words in length. The abstract should describe the disclosure sufficiently to assist readers in deciding whether there is a need for consulting the full patent text for details.
The language should be clear and concise and should not repeat information given in the title. It should avoid using phrases which can be implied, such as, “The disclosure concerns,” “The disclosure defined by this invention,” “The disclosure describes,” etc. In addition, the form and legal phraseology often used in patent claims, such as “means” and “said,” should be avoided.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to because:
Figures 1-8 contain poor line quality which renders the drawings unclear and unsatisfactory for reproduction (See 37 CFR 1.84(l) which states: “(l) Character of lines, numbers, and letters. All drawings must be made by a process which will give them satisfactory reproduction characteristics. Every line, number, and letter must be durable, clean, black (except for color drawings), sufficiently dense and dark, and uniformly thick and well-defined. The weight of all lines and letters must be heavy enough to permit adequate reproduction. This requirement applies to all lines however fine, to shading, and to lines representing cut surfaces in sectional views. Lines and strokes of different thicknesses may be used in the same drawing where different thicknesses have a different meaning”).
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 following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked. As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
Currently, no claim limitations invoke 112(f).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 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.
Claims 1-7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Patti (KR20050046000, as cited in the IDS).
Re Claim 1. Patti teaches a sirocco fan (1) comprising:
a first plate (left 5 in Figure 2) into which a rotary shaft of a motor is inserted (Figures 1-3; Figure 1 illustrates a central hub for receiving a motor shaft);
a second plate (right 5 in Figure 2) spaced apart from the first plate in the extension direction of the rotary shaft (Figures 1-3);
a third plate (4 in Figure 2) disposed between the first plate and the second plate (Figures 1-3);
a first blade (left 2 in Figure 2) extending between the first plate and the third plate and inclined with respect to the rotary shaft (Figures 1-3); and
a second blade (right 2 in Figure 2) extending between the second plate and the third plate and inclined with respect to the rotary shaft (Figures 1-3).
Re Claim 2. Patti teaches the direction in which the first blade is inclined toward the third plate is identical to the direction in which the second blade is inclined toward the third plate (Figures 1-3; Both blades converge towards the middle).
Re Claim 3. Patti teaches the first blade and the second blade are inclined in the direction of rotation of the rotary shaft, nearing the third plate (Figures 1-3; Both blades converge towards the middle. Based on the intended use of rotation, the blades will either be inclined in the direction of rotation or inclined opposite the direction of rotation. It has been held that 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 satisfying the claimed structural limitations. See MPEP2114(II)).
Re Claim 4. Patti teaches the first blade includes: a first outer end portion adjoining the first plate; and a first inner end portion adjoining the third plate, at a position spaced apart from the first outer end portion in the direction of rotation of the rotary shaft, and the second blade includes: a second outer end portion adjoining the second plate; and a second inner end portion adjoining the third plate, at a position spaced apart from the second outer end portion in the direction of rotation of the rotary shaft (Figures 1-3; The blades span from the first plate and second plates towards the middle third plate).
Re Claim 5. Patti teaches the first blade and the second blade are inclined in a direction opposite to the direction of rotation of the rotary shaft, nearing the third plate (Figures 1-3; Both blades converge towards the middle. Based on the intended use of rotation, the blades will either be inclined in the direction of rotation or inclined opposite the direction of rotation. It has been held that 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 satisfying the claimed structural limitations. See MPEP2114(II)).
Re Claim 6. Patti teaches the first blade includes: a first outer end portion adjoining the first plate; and a first inner end portion adjoining the third plate, at a position spaced apart from the first outer end portion in a direction opposite to the direction of rotation of the rotary shaft, and the second blade includes: a second outer end portion adjoining the second plate; and a second inner end portion adjoining the third plate, at a position spaced apart from the second outer end portion in a direction opposite to the direction of rotation of the rotary shaft (Figures 1-3; The blades span from the first plate and second plates towards the middle third plate).
Re Claim 7. Patti teaches the angle at which the first blade and the second blade are inclined with respect to the rotary shaft is 15 degrees or smaller (Figures 1-3; Abstract teaches 5 degrees of inclination, which is within the cited range).
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.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
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.
Claims 8-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Takeuchi 9US2011/0111689A1) in view of Patti (KR10-005-0046000, as cited in the IDS).
Re Claim 8. Takeuchi teaches an air conditioner (1) comprising: a case (10) formed with an outside air inlet opening (13) and an outside air supply opening (16) through which air admitted through the outside air inlet opening passes; a total heat exchanger (22) disposed between the outside air inlet opening and the outside air supply opening; an air supply fan (20) disposed between the outside air supply opening and the total heat exchanger; and an air supply fan motor having a rotary shaft that is coupled to the air supply fan (Figure 1; Paragraph 56 teaches the fan is a sirocco fan that has a fan motor, and thus also implicitly teaches a rotary shaft for driving the fan from the fan motor; Paragraphs 52-57). While Takeuchi generally teaches a sirocco fan (Paragraph 56), Takeuchi fails to specifically teach wherein the air supply fan includes: a first plate into which a rotary shaft of a motor is inserted; a second plate spaced apart from the first plate in the extension direction of the rotary shaft; a third plate disposed between the first plate and the second plate; a first blade extending between the first plate and the third plate and inclined with respect to the rotary shaft; and a second blade extending between the second plate and the third plate and inclined with respect to the rotary shaft.
However, Patti teaches a sirocco fan (1) comprising: a first plate (left 5 in Figure 2) into which a rotary shaft of a motor is inserted (Figures 1-3; Figure 1 illustrates a central hub for receiving a motor shaft); a second plate (right 5 in Figure 2) spaced apart from the first plate in the extension direction of the rotary shaft (Figures 1-3); a third plate (4 in Figure 2) disposed between the first plate and the second plate (Figures 1-3); a first blade (left 2 in Figure 2) extending between the first plate and the third plate and inclined with respect to the rotary shaft (Figures 1-3); and a second blade (right 2 in Figure 2) extending between the second plate and the third plate and inclined with respect to the rotary shaft (Figures 1-3). When Patti is combined with Takeuchi, the resulting combination would be the sirocco fans of Patti would be used as the supply and exhaust fans in Takeuchi.
Therefore, in view of Patti's teaching, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to use Patti’s sirocco fan configuration in Takeuchi in order to achieve optimal fan performance with optimal acoustical characteristics (abstract of Patti).
Re Claim 9. Takeuchi as modified by Patti teach the direction in which the first blade is inclined toward the third plate is identical to the direction in which the second blade is inclined toward the third plate (Takeuchi Figure 1, Paragraphs 52-57; Patti Figures 1-3, Both blades converge towards the middle).
Re Claim 10. Takeuchi as modified by Patti teach the first blade and the second blade are inclined in the direction of rotation of the rotary shaft, nearing the third plate (Takeuchi Figure 1, Paragraphs 52-57; Patti Figures 1-3, Both blades converge towards the middle. Based on the intended use of rotation, the blades will either be inclined in the direction of rotation or inclined opposite the direction of rotation. It has been held that 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 satisfying the claimed structural limitations. See MPEP2114(II)).
Re Claim 11. Takeuchi as modified by Patti teach the first blade includes: a first outer end portion adjoining the first plate; and a first inner end portion adjoining the third plate, at a position spaced apart from the first outer end portion in the direction of rotation of the rotary shaft, and the second blade includes: a second outer end portion adjoining the second plate; and a second inner end portion adjoining the third plate, at a position spaced apart from the second outer end portion in the direction of rotation of the rotary shaft (Takeuchi Figure 1, Paragraphs 52-57; Patti Figures 1-3, The blades span from the first plate and second plates towards the middle third plate).
Re Claim 12. Takeuchi as modified by Patti teach the first blade and the second blade are inclined in a direction opposite to the direction of rotation of the rotary shaft, nearing the third plate (Takeuchi Figure 1, Paragraphs 52-57; Patti Figures 1-3, Both blades converge towards the middle. Based on the intended use of rotation, the blades will either be inclined in the direction of rotation or inclined opposite the direction of rotation. It has been held that 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 satisfying the claimed structural limitations. See MPEP2114(II)).
Re Claim 13. Takeuchi as modified by Patti teach the first blade includes: a first outer end portion adjoining the first plate; and a first inner end portion adjoining the third plate, at a position spaced apart from the first outer end portion in a direction opposite to the direction of rotation of the rotary shaft, and the second blade includes: a second outer end portion adjoining the second plate; and a second inner end portion adjoining the third plate, at a position spaced apart from the second outer end portion in a direction opposite to the direction of rotation of the rotary shaft (Takeuchi Figure 1, Paragraphs 52-57; Patti Figures 1-3, The blades span from the first plate and second plates towards the middle third plate).
Re Claim 14. Takeuchi as modified by Patti teach the first blade and the second blade are inclined toward a downstream side of the total heat exchanger, nearing the third plate (Takeuchi Figure 1, Paragraphs 52-57; Patti Figures 1-3). Based on the installation direction, the blades will either be inclined towards the upstream or downstream side of the total heat exchanger. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to rearrange the fan housing to have the blades inclined either towards the upstream or downstream side of the total heat exchanger, since it has been held that rearranging parts of an invention involves only routine skill in the art. See MPEP 2144.04 (VI, C).
Re Claim 15. Takeuchi as modified by Patti teach the first blade and the second blade are inclined toward an upstream side of the total exchanger, nearing the third plate (Takeuchi Figure 1, Paragraphs 52-57; Patti Figures 1-3). Based on the installation direction, the blades will either be inclined towards the upstream or downstream side of the total heat exchanger. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to rearrange the fan housing to have the blades inclined either towards the upstream or downstream side of the total heat exchanger, since it has been held that rearranging parts of an invention involves only routine skill in the art. See MPEP 2144.04 (VI, C).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. See attached PTO-892 for other relevant prior art.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to TRAVIS C RUBY whose telephone number is (571)270-5760. The examiner can normally be reached M-F: 9AM-5PM.
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, Jianying Atkisson can be reached at 571-270-7740. 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.
/TRAVIS RUBY/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3763
Prosecution Insights