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 .
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statements (IDS) were filed on 07/09/2024 and 07/23/2025. The submissions are in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statements are being considered by the examiner.
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 4-9, 14-15, and 19-20 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.
The term “close to the boss portion” in Claims 4, 14, and 19 is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “close” is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention. It is unclear what is meant by the wind-cutting edge being disposed “close” to the boss portion.
Claims 5-9, 15, and 20 are rejected due to their dependence upon rejected Claims 4, 14, and 19, respectively.
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) 11 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Hayamitsu (US Publication No: 2018/0177373).
Regarding Claim 11: Hayamitsu discloses an impeller (Figure 2, No. 10) disposed within an air passage to generate a suction force while being rotated by a motor (20) (Paragraph [0027], Last four lines), the impeller comprising a boss portion (Figure 4, No. 11a), wherein the boss portion is connected to a shaft (27) of the motor; a base portion (11) that slopes downward from an upstream side of the air passage toward a downstream side of the air passage based on the boss portion (Figures 3-4), and which has a diameter that gradually increases from the upstream side of the air passage toward the downstream side of the air passage (Figures 3-4); and a plurality of blades (12) disposed radially on the base portion to generate a suction force within the air passage (Paragraph [0027], last four lines), wherein each of the plurality of blades has a pressure surface (Figure 7, No. 12p) which is a front surface of each of the plurality of blades with respect to a rotational direction of the impeller, and wherein the pressure surface is curved concavely toward the rotational direction (Figure 7).
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.
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) 12-13 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hayamitsu in view of Cartellone (US Patent Noa : 6,616,722).
Regarding Claim 12: Hayamitsu discloses the impeller of Claim 11, wherein a length of a blade of the plurality of blades is expressed as a percentage, and an end of the blade located adjacent to the boss portion is set to about 0% and an end of the blade located on outside portion of the blade in a diameter direction is set to about 100%. Hayamitsu, however, fails to disclose a minimum radius of curvature of a cross-sectional shape of the pressure surface becomes minimum at between about 60% and about 95% of a lengthwise direction of the blade.
Cartellone teaches a cleaner (Figure 1, No. 10) with an impeller (114) having a plurality of blades (115) with lengths, wherein a minimum radius of curvature of a cross-sectional shape of a pressure surface of the blade becomes minimum at between about 60% and about 95% of a lengthwise direction of the blade (Figure 6; Column 14, Lines 57-62).
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to make the blade of Hayamitsu with a minimum radius of curvature of the pressure surface as claimed, as taught by Cartellone, for the purpose of accommodating different air cleaner designs (Column 14, Lines 62-64) and countering any harmonic vibration of the blades during operation of the cleaner (Column 15, Lines 47-49).
Regarding Claim 13: Hayamitsu, as modified by Cartellone, discloses the impeller of Claim 12, wherein the base portion includes an inclined surface that slopes downward from the upstream side of the air passage toward the downstream side of the air passage and has a diameter that gradually increases from the upstream side of the air passage toward the downstream side of the air passage (Hayamitsu: Figures 3-4), and the plurality of blades protrude from the inclined surface and extend to be shifted in a backward direction with respect to the rotational direction in a radial direction from the boss portion (Hayamitsu: Figures 3 & 7-8).
Claim(s) 14-15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hayamitsu in view of Dries (US Publication No: 2019/0313878).
Regarding Claim 14: Hayamitsu discloses the impeller of Claim 11, wherein each of the plurality of blades includes a wind-cutting edge located close to the boss portion, wherein the wind-cutting edge includes a proximal end disposed on a side of the base portion and a protruding end spaced apart from the base portion (Figures 7-8 & 10-11); however, Hayamitsu fails to disclose each of the plurality of blades having a swept-back wing shape in which the protruding end is located behind the proximal end with respect to the rotational direction.
Dries teaches a cleaner (Figure 1, No. 100) comprising an impeller (Figure 5, No. 182) with a plurality of blades (222), wherein the plurality of blades have a swept-back wing shape in which the protruding end is located behind the proximal end with respect to the rotational direction (Figures 5-6; Paragraph [0055], Lines 6-7).
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to make the plurality of blades of Hayamitsu with a swept-back wing shape, as taught by Dries, for the purpose of improving the flow characteristics of the impeller (Paragraph [0055], Lines 6-8).
Regarding Claim 15: Hayamitsu, as modified by Dries, discloses the impeller of Claim 14, wherein the wind-cutting edge is inclined to protrude toward the upstream side of the air passage in a direction from the proximal end to the protruding end (Hayamitsu: Figures 7-8).
Claim(s) 1, 3, and 16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hayamitsu (US Publication No: 2018/0177373) in view of Hyun (US Patent No: 11,191,404).
Regarding Claim 1: Hayamitsu discloses a cleaner (Figure 1, No. 100) comprising a main body (102) portion; a dust case (Paragraph [0030], Lines 3-6) connected to the main body portion; an impeller (Figure 2, No. 10) disposed in the main body portion to generate a suction force within an air passage to suck air from the dust case into the main body portion through the air passage while being rotated (Paragraph [0027], last four lines); and a motor (Figure 4, No. 20) for rotating the impeller (Paragraph [0035], Lines 7-9), wherein the motor includes a shaft (27) and wherein the impeller comprises a boss portion (11a) to which the shaft is fixed (Figure 4; Paragraph [0047], Lines 6-8); a base portion (11) that slopes downward from an upstream side of the air passage toward a downstream side of the air passage based on the boss portion, wherein the base portion has a diameter that gradually increases from the upstream side of the air passage toward the downstream side of the air passage (Figures 3-4); and a plurality of blades (12) disposed radially on the base portion to generate the suction force within the air passage (Figures 2-4), wherein each of the plurality of blades has a pressure surface (Figure 7, No. 12p), which is a front surface of each of the plurality of blades with respect to a rotational direction of the impeller, and wherein the pressure surface is curved concavely toward the rotational direction (Figure 7). Hayamitsu, however, fails to disclose the main body portion including a filtration chamber and an exhaust chamber.
Hyun teaches a cleaner (Figure 1, No. 100) with a main body comprising a filtration chamber (Figure 6, No. 81 & 82) and an exhaust chamber (153).
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to make the main body of the cleaner of Hayamitsu with filtration and exhaust chambers, as taught by Hyun, for the purpose of filtering particles, thus minimizing the amount of fine dust discharged to an indoor space (Column 7, Lines 35-37 & 50-51), and discharging air from inside the main body to the outside (Column 4, Lines 55-57).
Regarding Claim 3: Hayamitsu, as modified by Hyun, discloses the cleaner of Claim 1, wherein the base portion includes an inclined surface that slopes downward from the upstream side of the air passage toward the downstream side of the air passage and has a diameter that gradually increases from the upstream side of the air passage toward the downstream side of the air passage (Hayamitsu: Figures 2-4), the plurality of blades protrude from the inclined surface and extend to be shifted in a backward direction with respect to the rotational direction in a radial direction from the boss portion (Hayamitsu: Figures 3 & 7-8), and when the impeller rotates, air within the air passage flows from inside of the air passage to outside of the air passage in a diameter direction and slips out of the impeller through gaps disposed between the plurality of blades in a direction inclined with respect to a rotation axis, and thus a suction force is generated on the upstream side of the air passage (Figures 3-4; Paragraph [0027], last four lines).
Regarding Claim 16: Hayamitsu discloses a cleaner (Figure 1, No. 100) comprising a main body (102) portion; a dust case (Paragraph [0030], Lines 3-6) connected to the main body portion; an impeller (Figure 2, No. 10) disposed in the main body portion to generate a suction force while being rotated by a motor (20) (Paragraph [0027], last four lines; Paragraph [0035], Lines 7-9); wherein the impeller comprises a boss portion (11a), wherein the boss portion is connected to a shaft (27) of the motor (Figure 4; Paragraph [0047], Lines 6-8); a base portion (11) that slopes downward from an upstream side of the air passage toward a downstream side of the air passage based on the boss portion and which has a diameter that gradually increases from the upstream side of the air passage toward the downstream side of the air passage (Figures 3-4); and a plurality of blades (12) disposed radially on the base portion to generate the suction force within the air passage (Figures 2-4), wherein each of the plurality of blades has a pressure surface (Figure 7, No. 12p), which is a front surface of each of the plurality of blades with respect to a rotational direction of the impeller, and wherein the pressure surface is curved concavely toward the rotational direction (Figure 7). Hayamitsu, however, fails to disclose the main body portion including a filtration chamber and an exhaust chamber.
Hyun teaches a cleaner (Figure 1, No. 100) with a main body comprising a filtration chamber (Figure 6, No. 81 & 82) and an exhaust chamber (153).
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to make the main body of the cleaner of Hayamitsu with filtration and exhaust chambers, as taught by Hyun, for the purpose of filtering particles, thus minimizing the amount of fine dust discharged to an indoor space (Column 7, Lines 35-37 & 50-51), and discharging air from inside the main body to the outside (Column 4, Lines 55-57).
Claim(s) 2 and 17-18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hayamitsu and Hyun as applied to claims 1 and 16 above, and further in view of Cartellone.
Regarding Claim 2: Hayamitsu, as modified by Hyun, discloses the cleaner of Claim 1, wherein a length of a blade of the plurality of blades is expressed as a percentage, wherein an end of the blade located adjacent to the boss portion is set to about 0% and an end of the blade located on an outside portion of the base portion in a diameter direction is set to about 100%; however, Hayamitsu fails to disclose a minimum radius of curvature of a cross-sectional shape of the pressure surface becoming minimum at between about 60% and about 95% of a lengthwise direction of the blade.
Cartellone teaches a cleaner (Figure 1, No. 10) with an impeller (114) having a plurality of blades (115) with lengths, wherein a minimum radius of curvature of a cross-sectional shape of a pressure surface of the blade becomes minimum at between about 60% and about 95% of a lengthwise direction of the blade (Figure 6; Column 14, Lines 57-62).
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to make the blade of Hayamitsu, as modified by Hyun, with a minimum radius of curvature of the pressure surface as claimed, as taught by Cartellone, for the purpose of accommodating different air cleaner designs (Column 14, Lines 62-64) and countering any harmonic vibration of the blades during operation of the cleaner (Column 15, Lines 47-49).
Regarding Claim 17: Hayamitsu, as modified by Hyun, discloses the cleaner of Claim 16, wherein a length of a blade of the plurality of blades is expressed as a percentage so that an end of the blade located adjacent to the boss portion is set to about 0% and an end of the blade located on outside portion of the blade in a diameter direction is set to about 100%; however, Hayamitsu fails to disclose a minimum radius of curvature of a cross-sectional shape of the pressure surface becoming minimum at between about 60% and about 95% of a lengthwise direction of the blade.
Cartellone teaches a cleaner (Figure 1, No. 10) with an impeller (114) having a plurality of blades (115) with lengths, wherein a minimum radius of curvature of a cross-sectional shape of a pressure surface of the blade becomes minimum at between about 60% and about 95% of a lengthwise direction of the blade (Figure 6; Column 14, Lines 57-62).
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to make the blade of Hayamitsu, as modified by Hyun, with a minimum radius of curvature of the pressure surface as claimed, as taught by Cartellone, for the purpose of accommodating different air cleaner designs (Column 14, Lines 62-64) and countering any harmonic vibration of the blades during operation of the cleaner (Column 15, Lines 47-49).
Regarding Claim 18: Hayamitsu, as modified by Hyun and Cartellone, discloses the cleaner of Claim 17, wherein the base portion includes an inclined surface that slopes downward from the upstream side of the air passage toward the downstream side of the air passage and has a diameter that gradually increases from the upstream side of the air passage toward the downstream side of the air passage (Hayamitsu: Figures 2-4), and the plurality of blades protrude from the inclined surface and extend to be shifted in a backward direction with respect to the rotational direction in a radial direction from the boss portion (Hayamitsu: Figures 3 & 7-8).
Claim(s) 4-7, 10, and 19-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hayamitsu and Hyun as applied to claims 1 and 16 above, and further in view of Dries.
Regarding Claim 4: Hayamitsu, as modified by Hyun, discloses the cleaner of Claim 1, wherein each of the plurality of blades includes a wind-cutting edge disposed close to the boss portion, wherein the wind-cutting edge includes a proximal end disposed on a side of the base portion and a protruding end spaced apart from the base portion (Figures 7-8 & 10-11); however, Hayamitsu fails to disclose each of the plurality of blades having a swept-back wing shape in which the protruding end is located behind the proximal end with respect to the rotational direction.
Dries teaches a cleaner (Figure 1, No. 100) comprising an impeller (Figure 5, No. 182) with a plurality of blades (222), wherein the plurality of blades have a swept-back wing shape in which the protruding end is located behind the proximal end with respect to the rotational direction (Figures 5-6; Paragraph [0055], Lines 6-7).
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to make the plurality of blades of Hayamitsu with a swept-back wing shape, as taught by Dries, for the purpose of improving the flow characteristics of the impeller (Paragraph [0055], Lines 6-8).
Regarding Claim 5: Hayamitsu, as modified by Hyun and Dries, discloses the cleaner of Claim 4; however, Hayamitsu fails to disclose a swept-back angle of the wind-cutting edge being about 30-50°.
Since the applicant has not disclosed that having the swept-back angle of the wind-cutting edge be in this specific range solves any stated problem or is for any particular purpose above the fact that the swept-back angle reduces air resistance of the plurality of blades, and since it appears that the cleaner of Hayamitsu, as modified by Hyun and Dries, would perform equally well with a swept-back angle in the range claimed by the applicant, it would have been an obvious matter of design choice to modify the cleaner of Hayamitsu, as modified by Hyun and Dries, by utilizing the specific range as claimed for the purpose of reducing air resistance of the plurality of blades.
Regarding Claim 6: Hayamitsu, as modified by Hyun and Dries, discloses the cleaner of Claim 5, wherein the wind-cutting edge is inclined to protrude toward the upstream side of the air passage in a direction from the proximal end to the protruding end (Hayamitsu: Figures 7-8).
Regarding Claim 7: Hayamitsu, as modified by Hyun and Dries, discloses the cleaner of Claim 6. Hayamitsu, however, fails to disclose an inclination angle of the wind-cutting edge is about 10° to about 30°.
Since the applicant has not disclosed that having the inclination angle of the wind-cutting edge be in this specific range solves any stated problem or is for any particular purpose above the fact that the inclination angle reduces blade load and leakage flow of the plurality of blades, and since it appears that the cleaner of Hayamitsu, as modified by Hyun and Dries, would perform equally well with an inclination angle in the range claimed by the applicant, it would have been an obvious matter of design choice to modify the cleaner of Hayamitsu, as modified by Hyun and Dries, by utilizing the specific range as claimed for the purpose of reducing blade load and leakage flow of the plurality of blades.
Regarding Claim 10: Hayamitsu, as modified by Hyun, discloses the cleaner of Claim 1; however, Hayamitsu fails to disclose a controller for controlling the motor, wherein the motor is disposed within the air passage to be located on an upstream side of the impeller, and the controller is disposed within the air passage to be located on an upstream side of the motor.
Dries teaches a cleaner (Figure 1, No. 100) comprising a controller (Figure 2, No. 160) for controlling a motor (170) (Paragraph [0037], Lines 9-13), wherein the motor is disposed within the air passage to be located on an upstream side of an impeller (202) (Figure 4), and the controller is disposed within the air passage to be located on an upstream side of the motor (Figure 2).
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to make the cleaner of Hayamitsu, as modified by Hyun, with a controller, as taught by Dries, for the purpose of regulating the operation of the cleaner (Paragraph [0034], Lines 1-2).
Regarding Claim 19: Hayamitsu, as modified by Hyun, discloses the cleaner of Claim 16, wherein each of the plurality of blades includes a wind-cutting edge disposed close to the boss portion, wherein the wind-cutting edge includes a proximal end disposed on a side of the base portion and a protruding end spaced apart from the base portion (Figures 7-8 & 10-11); however, Hayamitsu fails to disclose each of the plurality of blades having a swept-back wing shape in which the protruding end is located behind the proximal end with respect to the rotational direction.
Dries teaches a cleaner (Figure 1, No. 100) comprising an impeller (Figure 5, No. 182) with a plurality of blades (222), wherein the plurality of blades have a swept-back wing shape in which the protruding end is located behind the proximal end with respect to the rotational direction (Figures 5-6; Paragraph [0055], Lines 6-7).
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to make the plurality of blades of Hayamitsu, as modified by Hyun, with a swept-back wing shape, as taught by Dries, for the purpose of improving the flow characteristics of the impeller (Paragraph [0055], Lines 6-8).
Regarding Claim 20: Hayamitsu, as modified by Hyun and Dries, discloses the cleaner of Claim 19, wherein the wind-cutting edge is inclined to protrude toward the upstream side of the air passage in a direction from the proximal end to the protruding end (Hayamitsu: Figures 7-8).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 8-9 would be allowable if rewritten to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 2nd paragraph, set forth in this Office action and to include all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims. The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter: The prior art fails to disclose a cleaner as claimed in Claim 7, further including a shroud for forming the air passage, wherein the shroud comprises a moving blade portion having an inner diameter gradually increasing in a direction from an upstream side of the shroud to a downstream side of the shroud, in which the impeller is accommodated such that each of the plurality of blades faces an inner surface of the moving blade portion with a tip clearance disposed therebetween; a suction portion extending from the moving blade portion to the upstream side of the shroud, and a static blade portion extending from the moving blade portion to the downstream side of the shroud, and the motor, wherein the motor is disposed within the suction portion.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MICHAEL L SEHN whose telephone number is (571)270-3564. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8:30 AM-6 PM, every other Friday off.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Courtney Heinle can be reached at 571-270-3508. 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.
/MICHAEL L SEHN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3745
Prosecution Insights