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 .
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 01/22/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Examiner holds prior art US 3335960 A Alderson Edgar D teaches elements of independent claim 1.
Regarding arguments of page 7, paragraph 2, moveable bars 64 and 72 of Alderson is equal to linkage bar and beam of instant application. Examiner interprets “span” under broadest reasonable interpretation and is not limited to contacting outside walls of duct.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to because inner walls of the beam. 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 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.
Claim 21 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 21 recites limitation “inner walls”. It is unclear what element is inner walls of the beam. Appropriate correction is required.
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.
Claim(s) 1, 2, 7 and 21 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Alderson.
Regarding claim 1, Alderson teaches, a fan apparatus, comprising an airfoil structure (col. 2, lines 13-14 “wing”) including a duct having a duct opening (element 10); a lift fan mounted in the duct (element 37); and plurality of louvers positioned at the duct opening (element 60), each louver being configured to move between an open position and a closed position (col. 3, lines 4-8 “closed flush condition and an open position”), wherein the closed position is rotationally offset and translationally offset from the open position (fig. 3) a beam (element 72) spanning the duct (fig. 1), wherein each of the louvers is coupled to the beam with a respective louver link (element 65 is coupled to the link and the louver) that is pivotably coupled to the beam at a first end of the respective louver link (element 73) and pivotably coupled to the louver at a second end of the respective louver link (elements 70 and 71); and a linkage bar (element 64) pivotably coupled to each of the louvers (element 63 is pivot point for coupling), wherein movement of the linkage bar is guided by the beam to cause each of the louvers to translate and pivot between the open and closed positions (figs. 2 and show translation and pivot of element 62 with movement of element 75 and actuator rod element 76).
Regarding claim 2, Alderson teaches, the fan apparatus of claim 1, wherein the beam fixed to duct (element 72).
Regarding claim 7, Alderson teaches, the fan apparatus of claim 1, further comprising an actuation assembly configured to drive each louver between the open position and the closed position, wherein the actuation assembly includes an actuator (element 76) and a linkage assembly that couples the actuator to each louver (element 75), and wherein the linkage assembly is configured to maintain the louvers in the closed positions without active assistance from the actuator.
Regarding claim 21, Alderson teaches, the fan apparatus of claim 1, wherein the beam includes inner walls to contact and guide movement of the linkage bar along a longitudinal direction of the beam (figs. 2 and 3 element 64).
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.
Claim(s) 5 and 6 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Alderson as applied to claims above, and further in view of US 20230174253 A1 Chew; Guan et al.
Regarding claim 5, Alderson teaches, the fan apparatus of claim 1, further comprising a linkage bar pivotably coupled to each of the louvers (element 64), and an actuator configured to drive travel of the linkage bar (element 76), to move the plurality of louvers between the open and closed positions, but fails to teach, wherein the actuator is coupled to the linkage bar by a crank that is rotated by the actuator.
However, Chew teaches, wherein the actuator is coupled to the linkage bar by a crank (fig. 16, element 35) that is rotated by the actuator.
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 the fan taught by Alderson with the actuator taught by Chew with a reasonable expectation of success. The motivation to combine is allow the actuator to operate more than one pushrod at a time.
Regarding claim 6, Alderson as modifies teaches, the fan apparatus of claim 5, Chew teaches, wherein the crank is coupled to the linkage bar using a crank link that is pivotably coupled to the crank at a first end of the crank link and pivotably coupled to the linkage bar at a second end of the crank link (fig. 16).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 3, 4 and 8-14 objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including 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: Prior art Alderson teaches a fan with beam and links, Chew teaches an actuator with a crank, but they fail to teach a beam defining a guide channel, or “a linkage bar substantially enclosed by the beam”.
It would have not been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to add the link enclosed within the beam without the benefit of the present disclosure.
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 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 CINDI M. CURRY whose telephone number is (469)295-9296. The examiner can normally be reached 7:30-4:30 M-F.
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, Joshua J. Michener can be reached at 571-272-1467. 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.
/C.M.C/
Examiner
Art Unit 3642
/JOSHUA J MICHENER/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3642