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 present Office action is responsive to the Request for Continued Examination filed on 03-10-2026. As directed, claims 1 and 15 were amended, claim 7 was newly cancelled, with claims 1 and 4 having been previously cancelled, and new claims 18-21 have been added. Thus, claims 2-3, 5-6, and 8-21 are currently pending examination.
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 03-10-2026 has been entered.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
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.
Claims 13 and 18-21 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.
Regarding claim 13, line 2 recites “an outlet” which renders the claim indefinite. Claim 2, at line 10 recites “an outlet”, and therefore the recitation of “an outlet” in claim 13 makes it unclear if there are two separate outlets, or if the same outlet is being claimed in each of claims 2 and 13.
For the purposes of examination, each outlet will be interpreted to be the same one. To overcome the rejection, it is suggested that “an outlet” in claim 13 be replaced with “the outlet”.
Regarding claim 18, line 1 recites “an outlet” which renders the claim indefinite. Claim 2, at line 10 recites “an outlet”, and therefore the recitation of “an outlet” in claim 18 makes it unclear if there are two separate outlets, or if the same outlet is being claimed in each of claims 2 and 18.
For the purposes of examination, each outlet will be interpreted to be the same one. To overcome the rejection, it is suggested that “an outlet” in claim 18 be replaced with “the outlet”.
Claims 19-21 are rejected by virtue of their dependency on claim 18.
Response to Amendment
Applicant has amended claim 2 to at least include previous limitations of claim 7. Given that claim 7 was previously rejected employing a combination of Fujieda and Dybenko, the previous 102 rejection over claims 2-3, 5-6, 8-12, and 14-17 has been obviated and is therefore withdrawn.
Response to Arguments
Applicant argues that Fujieda is directed to a fan for a personal computer, and is therefore not pertinent art to the claimed subject matter, which is a blower for a breathing apparatus. Applicant argues that the ordinarily skilled artisan in the art of breathing apparatuses would not look to PC fans as an avenue to solve any problems within the art of breathing devices and blowers therefor. Applicant then concludes Fujieda is not analogous prior art.
Examiner respectfully disagrees. As was addressed in the prior 102 rejection of record, while the claim’s preamble recites “for a breathing apparatus”, the phrase is interpreted to be a statement of intended use, and is not interpreted to impart any additional structural constraints on the claim (see MPEP 2111.02(II)). Since the body of the claim contains no additional structures that necessarily limit the claim as a whole to a blower specifically for a breathing device, the broadest reasonable interpretation of the claim as a whole is a blower/fan/impeller that includes the recited structures (housing, motor core, rotor, shaft, hub, blades, annular ring), and as long as the prior art document(s) used in the rejections of record include such structural limitations, the claimed language is met. Further, to the extent that Fujieda recites a blower/fan apparatus, it is considered to be within the same field of endeavor, as the thrust of the instant claims are limited to a fan/blower structure, not a breathing apparatus.
Applicant further argues that each of Fujieda and Dybenko concern themselves with centrifugal blowers with radial outlets. To the contrary, Applicant argues that the claims require axially oriented airflow, and thus concludes that claim 2, and its recitation of axial air flow, overcomes each of Fujieda and Dybenko which Applicant alleges direct air circumferentially.
Examiner respectfully disagrees. First, the claims do not specify a difference between axial and radial or circumferential air flow. Axial simply means “of, relating to, or having the characteristic of an axis”. At paragraph 68, Fujieda specifically states that “The air stream in the rotational axis direction (Z direction) is accelerated in the centrifugal direction by the plurality of rotating centrifugal long blades 52 at inner circumferential sides 52a. The air stream accelerated in the centrifugal direction is further accelerated in the centrifugal direction by the plurality of rotating long blades 52 at the outer circumferential sides 52b and the plurality of rotating centrifugal short blades 53”, and Figure 3 shows the Z-axis as identified by Fujieda. First, an airflow in the Z-direction as identified at Figure 3 is an axially oriented direction, aligned with an axis of the stator 30 as an example. Second, the air stream accelerated by the blades in the centrifugal direction is also understood to be axially perpendicular to the Z-axis, given that centrifugal is defined as “proceeding or acting in a direction away from a center or axis”. In other words, the centrifugal flow is understood to flow axially away from the center of the fan “along the inner wall surface 21d and discharged via the discharge port 23” per the Fujieda disclosure. Still further, Dybenko specifically states that its disclosure is relevant to each of “axial and mixed flow fans” at paragraph 28. Thus, Fujieda and Dybenko will be maintained in rejecting the instant claims.
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.
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 non-obviousness.
Claims 2-3, 5-6, and 8-21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Fujieda (US 2008/0226446) in view of Dybenko (US 2015/0152883).
Regarding claim 2, Fujieda discloses a blower (200) for a breathing apparatus (paragraph 63, lines 1-2; paragraph 67, lines 1-2; Fig. 3; Examiner notes that the phrase “for a breathing apparatus” is interpreted to be an intended use statement, and is not interpreted to impart any additional structural constraints on the claim, see MPEP 2111.02(II)), comprising:
a housing (20) (paragraph 63, lines 1-2; paragraph 68, lines 3-4; Fig. 3);
a motor core (30+42) within the housing (20) (paragraph 54, lines 1-8; paragraph 63, lines 1-3; Figs. 1 and 3, note the overlapping motor structures in these figures; note that the instant specification at paragraph 46 defines the motor core to include a stator and a rotor); and
an impeller (50) coupled to a rotor (42) via a shaft (31) (paragraph 54, lines 1-8, note that impeller 10 is analogous to impeller 50; note that in Figs. 1 and 3, the motor portions have an overlapping structure; paragraph 66, lines 1-2; Fig. 3);
wherein the impeller (50) comprises:
a hub (51) (paragraph 66, lines 1-2; Fig. 3),
blades (52) extending from the hub (51) (paragraph 66, lines 1-2; Fig. 3), and
an annular ring (54) that extends between the blades (52), the annular ring (54) is spaced from the hub (51) and the annular ring (54) is connected to the hub (51) by the blades (52) (paragraph 66, lines 1-14; paragraph 68, lines 1-13; Fig. 3-5, where 54 is spaced apart from 51, and by virtue of blades 52 being connected on one side to the ring 54 and on the other side to the hub 51, the annular ring is indirectly connected to the hub via the blades 52).
While Fujieda discloses that the blower (200) includes an outlet (23) (paragraph 68, lines 13-16 and Fig. 3), wherein airflow is designed to be centrifugally accelerated towards the outlet (paragraph 68, lines 1-16), Fujieda fails to specifically disclose wherein the annular ring has an edge turned towards an outlet to direct air axially to create an axial airflow.
However, Dybenko teaches an impeller (800) (abstract, lines 1-3; paragraph 38, lines 1-7; Figs. 8A-C) wherein an annular ring (808 in Figs. 8A-C, see for example shroud 610 in Fig. 6 for the annular aspect) has an edge turned towards an outlet (810) to direct air axially and prevent recirculation by imparting a vertical component to the airflow (paragraph 38, lines 10-15; Figs. 8A-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 have modified the outside edge of the annular ring of Fujieda closest to the outlet to include an edge turned towards the outlet to direct air axially and create an axial air flow, as taught by Dybenko, in order to prevent recirculation by imparting a vertical component to the airflow.
Regarding claim 3, Fujieda in view of Dybenko disclose the blower of claim 2, as discussed above.
Fujieda further discloses wherein the annular ring (54) is formed into the blades (52) (paragraph 66, lines 9-13; Figs. 3-5).
Regarding claim 5, Fujieda in view of Dybenko disclose the blower of claim 2, as discussed above.
Fujieda further discloses wherein the impeller (50) comprises stub blades (53) (paragraph 66, lines 6-9; Figs. 3-5).
Regarding claim 6, Fujieda in view of Dybenko disclose the blower of claim 5, as discussed above.
Fujieda further discloses wherein the annular ring (54) supports the stub blades (53) (paragraph 69, lines 1-4; Figs. 3-5).
Regarding claim 8, Fujieda in view of Dybenko disclose the blower of claim 2, as discussed above.
Fujieda further discloses wherein the blades (52) further comprise a vertical flat portion extending from the hub (51) (see annotated Figs. 4 and 5 below).
PNG
media_image1.png
612
502
media_image1.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image2.png
521
582
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 9, Fujieda in view of Dybenko disclose the blower of claim 5, as discussed above.
Fujieda further discloses wherein the stub blades (53) extend part-way to the hub (51) (see annotated Fig. 5 below).
PNG
media_image3.png
521
494
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 10, Fujieda in view of Dybenko disclose the blower of claim 5, as discussed above.
Fujieda further discloses wherein the stub blades (53) are interspaced between the blades (52) (see annotated Fig. 5 below).
PNG
media_image4.png
563
547
media_image4.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 11, Fujieda in view of Dybenko disclose the blower of claim 5, as discussed above.
Fujieda further discloses wherein the stub blades are forward-swept (see annotated Fig. 5 below).
PNG
media_image5.png
566
627
media_image5.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 12, Fujieda in view of Dybenko disclose the blower of claim 5, as discussed above.
Fujieda further discloses wherein the annular ring (54) is configured to provide rigidity to the blades (52) (paragraph 66, lines 9-13; Figs. 3-5; note the instant specification at paragraph 49 that notes that the annular rib 7 is formed into and extends between blades 6 to provide rigidity; per MPEP 2112.01(I), when the claimed product and the prior art product are substantially identical, a prima facie case of anticipation for the claimed properties or functions is established).
Regarding claim 13, Fujieda in view of Dybenko disclose the blower of claim 5, as discussed above.
As best understood in light of the rejection under 35 USC 112(b) above, modified Fujieda discloses wherein the annular ring (54) is curved towards an outlet (23) (Dybenko: paragraph 38, lines 10-15; Figs. 8A-C, see curved portion at/near 814).
Regarding claim 14, Fujieda in view of Dybenko disclose the blower of claim 2, as discussed above.
Fujieda further discloses wherein the annular ring (54) is positioned at a perimeter of the blades (52) (paragraph 66, lines 9-13 and Figs. 3-5; note the instant specification at paragraph 49 and Figures 2 and 5-6, where the rib 7 does not appear to extend all the way to the end of the blades 6 and 8, and so, a perimeter is understood in light of the specification to include an annular boundary near the end of the blades opposite the hub).
Regarding claim 15, Fujieda in view of Dybenko disclose the blower of claim 2, as discussed above.
Fujieda further discloses wherein there is at least one axial gap defined between the annular ring (54) and the hub (51) (paragraph 68, lines 1-6; Figs. 3-5, where the axial gap is between the end of annular ring 54 closest to hub 51 and the hub 51).
Regarding claim 16, Fujieda in view of Dybenko disclose the blower of claim 15, as discussed above.
Fujieda further discloses wherein the stub blades (53) extend into the at least one axial gap defined between the annular ring (54) and the hub (51) (paragraph 68, lines 1-6; Figs. 3-5, where the axial gap is between the end of annular ring 54 closest to hub 51 and the hub 51, and in the figures, blades 53 extend into this space).
Regarding claim 17, Fujieda in view of Dybenko disclose the blower of claim 2, as discussed above.
Fujieda further discloses wherein the annular ring (54) comprises an inner surface that faces the hub (51) (see annotated Fig. 5 below).
PNG
media_image6.png
566
627
media_image6.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 18, Fujieda in view of Dybenko disclose the blower of claim 2, as discussed above.
As best understood in light of the rejection under 35 USC 112(b) above, Fujieda further discloses an outlet (23), the outlet (23) directing an outlet air flow in an axial direction (paragraph 68, lines 1-16 and Fig. 3, where the centrifugal direction is axially oriented away from the center of the fan towards inner walls and out outlet 23; note also the modification with Dybenko to provide axially directed airflow via the curved edge of the annular ring).
Regarding claim 19, Fujieda in view of Dybenko disclose the blower of claim 18, as discussed above.
Fujieda further discloses an inlet (see 22A and the apertures in hub 51 in Fig. 3), the inlet directing an inlet air flow in an axial direction (paragraph 56, lines 1-7, and see Fig. 3 for the Z-axis direction which is axially aligned with the longitudinal axis of the stator 30).
Regarding claim 20, Fujieda in view of Dybenko disclose the blower of claim 19, as discussed above.
Fujieda further discloses a stator ring (30) (paragraph 46, lines 1-2; Fig. 3), wherein the stator ring (30) is positioned within the axial air flow (paragraph 56, lines 1-7, and see Fig. 3 for the Z-axis direction which is axially aligned with the longitudinal axis of the stator 30, and the stator is in alignment with each of the inlets 22A and the apertures on hub 51).
Regarding claim 21, Fujieda in view of Dybenko disclose the blower of claim 20, as discussed above.
Fujieda further discloses wherein the stator ring (30) and an air passage in a region of the stator ring (30) are configured to create pressure and the axial air flow is directed axially outward from the stator ring (30) (paragraph 56, lines 1-7, and see Fig. 3 for the Z-axis direction which is axially aligned with the longitudinal axis of the stator 30, and the stator is in alignment with each of the inlets 22A and the apertures on hub 51; see paragraph 68, lines 1-16 for the “centrifugal” flow directed axially towards the inner walls and outlet 23, where the “acceleration” of the air flow is understood to impart pressure via the impeller, and the apertures on hub 51 and the inlet 22A create an air passage).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to PAIGE BUGG whose telephone number is (571)272-8053. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 9-5.
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, Kendra Carter can be reached at (571) 272-9034. 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.
/PAIGE KATHLEEN BUGG/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3785