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 .
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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 November 18, 2025 has been entered.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed September 30, 2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. The applicant argues that Yapp is silent regarding the additional amended limitations of claims 1 and 14, but does not provide further rationale. The examiner presents an interpretation of Yapp in the 35 U.S.C 102 rejections below that finds these limitations are anticipated by Yapp.
Double Patenting
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a nonstatutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13.
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer.
Claims 1-20 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims of U.S. Patent No. 11,781,549 and 12,168,981 . Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the independent claims of each of the prior patents substantially include all of the limitations of the claims of the instant application as well as having additional limitations. It is noted the examiner finds the amended limitations in claims 1 and 14 of the rotation of the vane cover relative to the static base results in the at least one choke point passing over the plurality of vanes to be implicit to the claims of the prior patents. Additionally, the prior patents also have substantially identical dependent claims (except for the instant application’s claim 2 and 15 with regard to 12,168,981). The prior patents therefore anticipate the instant application’s claims.
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, 5-8, 14, 18-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Yapp et al. (U.S Patent 5,489,186) hereinafter Yapp.
Regarding claim 1, Yapp discloses:
PNG
media_image1.png
651
611
media_image1.png
Greyscale
A device comprising:
a plurality of vanes coupled to a static base {Figure 5A (61) are vanes coupled to a static base (58)/(60)/(65)};
a vane cover rotatably coupled to the static base {Figure 5A (54)/(55)/(56)},
wherein the vane cover comprises:
at least one air inlet {Annotated Figure 1 (I)};
at least one air duct extending from the vane cover {Annotated Figure 1, air ducts are defined between circumferentially spaced instances of (54) starting from (II) and extend from the vane cover},
wherein the at least one air duct comprises an inlet and an outlet {Annotated Figure 1, each air duct defined by the radially inner shroud, radially outer shroud (55), and circumferentially spaced instances of (54) has an inlet (II) and an outlet at the right side of the figure},
wherein the outlet is configured to direct an airflow {Figure 5A, the outlet is the rightmost end of the air duct and directs the flow axially by its geometry that extends in the axial direction}; and
at least one choke point disposed in the vane cover {Figure 5A, the cross sectional area within (55) decreases along the axial direction such that the surface where (III) is has the smallest cross-sectional area. This decreased cross-sectional area region is considered at least one choke point},
wherein the at least one choke point is configured to increase a pressure of the airflow {Figure 5, the choke point described above increases the pressure of the as it part of fan blade (54) which imparts energy to the airflow}
wherein rotation of the vane cover relative to the static base results in the at least one choke point passing over the plurality of vanes {Annotated Figure 1 (III) is considered to pass over the plurality of vanes as the vane cover rotates}.
Regarding claim 5, Yapp further discloses:
wherein: the at least one air inlet comprises three air inlets configured to act as air intakes for the airflow {Figure 5A, each duct defined by circumferentially adjacent blades of (54) and inner and outer shrouds may be considered one of the three air inlets and act as air intakes for airflow; see implicit disclosure MPEP 2112};
the at least one air duct comprises three air ducts extending from the vane cover and configured to direct the airflow {Figure 5A, each duct defined by circumferentially adjacent blades of (54) and inner and outer shrouds extends from the vane cover as it is defined by the vane cover and directs airflow axially}; and
the at least one choke point comprises three choke points disposed in the vane cover adjacent to the vanes and configured to increase the pressure of the airflow {Figure 5A, the choke point discussed in claim 1 is a radial position in which (56) extends radially inward, this radial position continues along a circumferential line such that each of the air ducts discussed above may be considered to have their own respective choke point. Each of these choke points increases the pressure of the airflow as discussed in claim 1}
Regarding claim 6, Yapp further discloses:
wherein the three air ducts comprise a first air duct and a second air duct, each having a first cross-sectional area {Figure 5A, there are numerous blades (54) that are circumferentially spaced forming multiple air ducts with the inner and outer shroud; each air duct has the same cross-sectional area}, and
a third air duct having a second cross-sectional area {Figure 5A, there is a third air duct as described above with the same cross-sectional area. It is noted that the second cross-sectional area does not have to be different than the first cross-sectional area as claimed}.
Regarding claim 7, Yapp further discloses:
wherein the vane cover at least partially encloses the plurality of vanes {Figure 5A, (56) and (54) of the vane cover partially encloses the plurality of vanes (61)}.
Regarding claim 8, Yapp further discloses:
wherein the vane cover is coupled to an electronic spinning assembly and configured to rotate with the electronic spinning assembly {Figure 5A, the vane cover is coupled to the rotor/shaft of the motor (65) to spin. The rotor/shaft of the motor is considered the electronic spinning assembly}.
Regarding claim 14, Yapp discloses:
A system comprising:
a vehicle {Column 2 lines 52-58, automobile}
wherein the static base is mounted to the vehicle {Column 2 lines 52-58, the radiator and associated base of an automobile is mounted to the automobile, the static base is static as it does not rotate}
a vane cover rotatably coupled to the static base {Figure 5A (54)/(55)/(56)},
wherein the vane cover comprises:
at least one air inlet {Annotated Figure 1 (I)};
at least one air duct extending from the vane cover {Annotated Figure 1, air ducts are defined between circumferentially spaced instances of (54) starting from (II) and extend from the vane cover},
wherein the at least one air duct comprises an inlet and an outlet {Annotated Figure 1, each air duct defined by the radially inner shroud, radially outer shroud (55), and circumferentially spaced instances of (54) has an inlet (II) and an outlet at the right side of the figure},
wherein the outlet is configured to direct an airflow {Figure 5A, the outlet is the rightmost end of the air duct and directs the flow axially by its geometry that extends in the axial direction}; and
at least one choke point disposed in the vane cover {Figure 5A, the cross sectional area within (55) decreases along the axial direction such that the surface where (III) is has the smallest cross-sectional area. This decreased cross-sectional area region is considered at least one choke point},
wherein the at least one choke point is configured to increase a pressure of the airflow {Figure 5, the choke point described above increases the pressure of the as it part of fan blade (54) which imparts energy to the airflow}
wherein rotation of the vane cover relative to the static base results in the at least one choke point and at least one inlet of the at least one air duct passing over the plurality of vanes {Annotated Figure 1 (III) and (II) are considered to pass over the plurality of vanes as the vane cover rotates which includes (54) and (56)}.
Claims 18-19 are substantially identical to claims 5 and 6 respectively. For purposes of brevity and clarity, these rejections are not repeated. Please see the rejections of claims 5 and 6 above.
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 12 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yapp et al. (U.S Patent 5,489,186) hereinafter Yapp in view of Takeuchi et al. (U.S Patent 5,947,189).
Regarding claim 12, Yapp discloses the device of claim 8, but is silent regarding:
wherein the electronic spinning assembly comprises at least one sensor.
Takeuchi pertains to fans / airflow generating devices. Takeuchi teaches:
wherein the electronic spinning assembly comprises at least one sensor {Column 5 lines 47-55}.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have used a sensor in the electronic spinning assembly of Yapp as taught by Takeuchi. One of ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to do so as controlling a motor is advantageously done based on the conditions of the system / requirements {Takeuchi Column 5 lines 47-55}.
Claim 20 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yapp et al. (U.S Patent 5,489,186) hereinafter Yapp in view of Loercher et al. (U.S Pre-Grant Publication 20250084867) hereinafter Loercher.
Regarding claim 20, Yapp discloses the system of claim 14, but does not teach:
wherein the plurality of vanes comprise a curved shape.
Loercher pertains to fan which is in the same field of endeavor as the claimed invention as those by add energy to air. Loercher teaches:
wherein the plurality of vanes comprise a curved shape {Figures 8 (3) are vanes / guide blades that are curved, additionally see MPEP 2144.01 as the vane implicitly has some degree of a curved shape}.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have vanes that support the motor of Yapp be curved as taught by Loercher. One of ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to do so as guide blades / vanes are typically curved and can positively influence airflow {Loercher [0032]}.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MICHAEL K. REITZ whose telephone number is (571)272-1387. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 7:30 a.m. -5:30 p.m.
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, Courtney Heinle can be reached at 5712703508. 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 K. REITZ/Examiner, Art Unit 3745