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 .
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 following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitation(s) is/are: “flow guide device” in claim 1.
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
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 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 1-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Iwata et al. (JP2012140884, Applicant’s IDS).
PNG
media_image1.png
303
601
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 1, Iwata teaches a sirocco fan comprising: a scroll housing (21) having an axial suction portion (generally 14) and a radial discharge portion (22) and including a bottom surface (opposite 12b); a fan (14) that is placed on the bottom surface of the scroll housing and includes a plurality of blades (32) arranged in a circumferential direction; a fan motor (18b) including a motor shaft (18a) coupled to the fan; and a flow guide device (45, 46) that is provided in a space between the bottom surface of the scroll housing and the fan and is arranged in a circumferential direction so as to suppress the generation of flow toward the center of the fan in air flowing toward the discharge portion.
Regarding claim 2, Iwata teaches the fan includes a main plate (generally 36) coupled to the motor shaft, and wherein the flow guide device is provided between the main plate of the fan and the bottom surface of the scroll housing.
Regarding claim 3, Iwata teaches the plurality of blades are arranged in a circumferential direction of the main plate, and wherein the flow guide device is provided at a position adjacent to the edge of the main plate or adjacent to the radially outermost end of the plurality of blades (see Fig. 4).
Regarding claim 4, Iwata teaches the flow guide device is provided on the bottom surface of the scroll housing, and includes a rib (45, 46) protruding toward the main plate of the fan, and wherein the rib extends in a circumferential direction along the edge of the fan.
Regarding claim 5, Iwata teaches the rib includes a plurality of ribs (45, 46) extending in a circumferential direction, and wherein at least one rib (46) among the plurality of ribs is provided further outward than the radially outermost end of the fan, and the other rib (45) is provided further inward than the radially outermost end of the fan.
Regarding claim 6, Iwata teaches the plurality of ribs includes a first rib (45) extending in a circumferential direction and a second rib (46) surrounding the first rib and extending in a circumferential direction.
Regarding claim 7, Iwata teaches the flow guide device includes a groove (formed between ribs 45, 46) formed on the bottom surface of the scroll housing and recessed in a direction away from the main plate of the fan, and wherein the groove is formed in a circumferential direction of the fan.
Regarding claim 8, Iwata teaches the groove includes a plurality of grooves (formed between, forward and aft of the ribs 45, 46) formed in a circumferential direction, and wherein at least one groove among the plurality of grooves is formed further outward than a radially outermost end of the fan, and the other groove is formed further inward than a radially outermost end of the fan.
Regarding claim 9, Iwata teaches the plurality of grooves include a first groove (between ribs 45, 46) formed in a circumferential direction and a second groove (outward from rib 46) surrounding the first groove and formed in a circumferential direction.
Regarding claim 10, Iwata teaches the flow guide device comprises: a plurality of ribs (45, 46) provided on the bottom surface of the scroll housing and protruding toward the main plate of the fan; and a plurality of grooves (between, forward and aft of the ribs) recessed from the bottom surface of the scroll housing.
Regarding claim 11, Iwata teaches the plurality of ribs and the plurality of grooves are arranged alternately in the radial direction (see Fig. 4).
Regarding claim 12, Iwata teaches the plurality of ribs include a first rib (45) and a second rib (46) extending in the circumferential direction, and wherein the plurality of grooves include a first groove (located between the ribs) formed in the circumferential direction between the first and second ribs.
Regarding claim 13, Iwata teaches when defining an axial extension line passing through the radially outermost portion of the fan, the axial extension line is configured to pass through the flow guide device (see Fig. 4).
Regarding claim 14, Iwata teaches the extension line is located further radially inward than the rib provided on the outermost part of the flow guide device, and is configured to pass through one among the plurality of grooves (see Fig. 4).
Regarding claim 15, Iwata teaches the scroll housing includes: a scroll inner circumferential portion (21) surrounding the fan; a discharge guide (22) extending from the scroll inner circumferential portion in a tangential direction of the fan; and a cut-off (generally 12c) formed at a portion where the scroll inner circumferential portion and the scroll discharge guide meet and defining a boundary between a discharge and a re- suction of air flow.
Regarding claim 16, Iwata teaches a sirocco fan comprising: a scroll housing (21) having an axial suction portion (24) and a radial discharge portion (22) and including a bottom surface (opposite 12b); a fan (14) including a plurality of blades (32) arranged in a circumferential direction and placed on the bottom surface of the scroll housing; a plurality of ribs (45, 46) provided in a space between the floor surface and the fan and arranged in a circumferential direction so as to suppress the occurrence of a flow toward the center of the fan among air flowing toward the discharge portion; and a groove (located between ribs 45, 46) formed between the plurality of ribs.
Regarding claim 17, Iwata teaches the plurality of ribs protrude axially from the bottom surface of the scroll housing toward the fan (see Fig. 4).
Regarding claim 18, Iwata teaches the plurality of ribs are provided in an edge area of the fan.
Regarding claim 19, Iwata teaches the plurality of ribs include a first rib (45) extending in the circumferential direction of the fan and a second rib (46) surrounding the first rib and extending in the circumferential direction, and wherein the second rib is provided further outward than the radially outermost end of the fan, and the first rib is provided further inward than the radially outermost end of the fan.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 20 is 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.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. See the PTO-892 for a list of references showing state of the art scroll flow guides.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to CAMERON A CORDAY whose telephone number is (571)272-0383. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8-4 EST.
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 (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.
/CAMERON A CORDAY/Examiner, Art Unit 3745
/COURTNEY D HEINLE/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3745
Prosecution Insights