Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election without traverse of Species I (FIG. 1-16) in the reply filed on 15 December 2025 is acknowledged.
It is noted no claims are withdrawn as a result of the restriction/election.
DETAILED ACTION
Status of Claims
This action is in reply to the communication(s) filed on 15 December 2025.
Claims 1-20 are currently pending.
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 .
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement(s) (IDS) submitted was/were considered by the Examiner.
Claim Interpretation
The claim language, “a blowing force to be greater than or equal to 2500 g,” (emphasis on “g”) is interpreted to be a measure of 1g = 9.8 m/s², as best understood.
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.
Examiner note: no 112(f) invocations have been identified by the Office.
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 2 is/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 pre-AIA the applicant regards as the invention.
Regarding Claim 2:
Where applicant acts as his or her own lexicographer to specifically define a term of a claim contrary to its ordinary meaning, the written description must clearly redefine the claim term and set forth the uncommon definition so as to put one reasonably skilled in the art on notice that the applicant intended to so redefine that claim term. Process Control Corp. v. HydReclaim Corp., 190 F.3d 1350, 1357, 52 USPQ2d 1029, 1033 (Fed. Cir. 1999). The term “mg” in claim 2 is used by the claim to mean “g·mm/kg (as best understood),” while the accepted meaning is “milligrams.” The term is indefinite because the specification does not clearly redefine the term.
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.
Claims 1-2 and 5-8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yang et al (CN 112343847) machine translation, hereafter referred to as Yang, in view of Liu et al (US 20220183241), hereafter referred to as Liu.
Regarding Claim 1, Yang discloses the following:
An axial flow blower (100; FIG. 1), comprising:
a housing assembly (10; FIG. 1, 3);
an air inlet assembly (30, FIG. 1, [0035]), the air inlet assembly (30, FIG. 1, [0035]) assembled with the housing assembly (10; FIG. 1, 3);
an air outlet assembly (40, FIG. 1); and
a motor duct assembly (51 in combination with 61, 62; FIG. 7), the motor duct assembly (51 in combination with 61, 62; FIG. 7) connected between the air inlet assembly (30, FIG. 1, [0035]) and the air outlet assembly (40, FIG. 1),
wherein, the motor duct assembly (51 in combination with 61, 62; FIG. 7) comprises a duct body (51 in combination with 61, 62; FIG. 7), a motor (52, FIG. 7) fixed inside the duct body (51 in combination with 61, 62; FIG. 7),
a guiding cone (53, FIG. 7) mounted and matched with a first end of the duct body (51 in combination with 61, 62; FIG. 7), a fan blade (54, FIG. 7) mounted and matched with a second end of the duct body (51 in combination with 61, 62; FIG. 7),
the fan blade (blades of 54; FIG. 7) is fixed on a motor shaft (as seen in FIG. 7) of the motor (52, FIG. 7), and
Yang does not explicitly disclose the following:
the fan blade is fixed on a motor shaft of the motor, and a diameter of the fan blade is from 64 mm to 100 mm, and a diameter of the motor is from 30 mm to 50 mm,
so as to enable a power of the axial flow blower to be greater than or equal to 2000 W and a blowing force to be greater than or equal to 2500 g.
However Liu teaches the following:
a diameter of the fan blade (2022; FIG. 5; [0106]) is from 64 mm to 100 mm, and a diameter of the motor is from 30 mm to 50 mm,
so as to enable a power of the axial flow blower (100; FIG. 1) to be greater than or equal to 2000 W and a blowing force to be greater than or equal to 2500 g (It is noted, since the Liu reference discloses motor and fan diameters in the claimed range, the blower is enabled to have a power greater than or equal to 2000 W and a blowing force greater than or equal to 2500 g in as much as the Instant Application.).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to substitute the undisclosed fan diameter and material, motor diameter, and the motor power and RPM output as disclosed by Yang, with the known fan diameter and material, motor diameter, and the motor power and RPM output as disclosed by Liu, with the reasonable expectation of successfully providing a known fan powered by a motor for the blower. The Examiner notes, the simple substitution of unknown fan diameter and material, motor diameter, and the motor power and RPM output of Yang with the known fan diameter and material, motor diameter, and the motor power and RPM output of Liu yields the predictable result of providing a fan powered by a motor for a blower (i.e. substituting the unknown fan diameter and material, motor diameter, and the motor power and RPM output for another known fan diameter and material, motor diameter, and the motor power and RPM output). This rationale further supports a conclusion of obviousness to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention (see MPEP 2143, I, B).
Regarding Claim 2, Yang as modified by Liu continues to teach the following:
The axial flow blower (100; FIG. 1) according to claim 1,
Liu continues to teach the following:
wherein, the fan blade (2022; FIG. 5; [0106]) is a metal fan blade (2022; FIG. 5; [0106]), and a density of the metal fan blade (2022; FIG. 5; [0106]) is less than or equal to 6.8 g/cm3 (Lin discloses aluminum and the density of aluminum is 2.7 g/cm3), so as to enable a dynamic balance value of the fan blade (2022; FIG. 5; [0106]) is from 2 mg to 20 mg (It is noted, since the Liu reference discloses a fan blade density in the claimed range, the blower is enabled to have a dynamic balance value of the fan blade is from 2 mg to 20 mg in as much as the Instant Application.).
Regarding Claim 5, Yang as modified by Liu continues to teach the following:
The axial flow blower (100; FIG. 1) according to claim 1,
wherein, the fan blade (blades of 54 as modified by Liu) is accommodated in the duct body (51 in combination with 61, 62; FIG. 7), and a gap (if a gap weren't present the fan would not spin correctly) is left between a tail end of the fan blade (blades of 54 as modified by Liu) and an inner wall surface of the duct body (51 in combination with 61, 62; FIG. 7) in a radial direction of the fan blade (2022; FIG. 5; [0106]).
Regarding Claim 6, Yang as modified by Liu continues to teach the following:
The axial flow blower (100; FIG. 1) according to claim 5,
Yang as modified by Liu does not teach the following:
wherein, the gap is less than or equal to 1.2 mm.
However the Examiner notes the following:
Yang as modified by Liu discloses the same structure as the Instant Application, except for the gap between the fan blade tail end being less than or equal to 1.2mm. The Instant Application has not disclosed the limitation(s) of: provides any criticality. Note that the mere existence of these limitation(s) cannot impart criticality as any gap could be described in such a way. Therefore without explicit support for the gap being less than or equal to 1.2 mm providing a critical result. Therefore without explicit support for the relative dimensions of the claim(s) providing a critical result, it appears Yang as modified by Liu would perform equally well with the relative values as claimed by Applicant. Since the courts have held that, “where the only difference between the prior art and the claims was a recitation of relative dimensions of the claimed device and a device having the claimed relative dimensions would not perform differently than the prior art device, the claimed device was not patentably distinct from the prior art device,” it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the size of the gap, as disclosed by Yang as modified by Liu, by utilizing the specific value(s) (relative dimensions) as described above, with the reasonable expectation of successfully specifically providing a gap (i.e. tip clearance) dimension. (see MPEP 2144.04, IV, A).
Regarding Claim 7, Yang as modified by Liu continues to teach the following:
The axial flow blower (100; FIG. 1) according to claim 1,
wherein, a second air inlet (inlet to 60 or alternatively inlet to 51; Fig 3, 7) is arranged on a side of the duct body (51 in combination with 61, 62; FIG. 7) close to the fan blade (2022; FIG. 5; [0106]), a first air outlet (outlet of 60 or alternatively outlet of 51; Fig 3, 7) is arranged on a side of the guiding cone (2064; FIG. 6; [0108]; claim 12) away from the fan blade (2022; FIG. 5; [0106]), and the second air inlet (inlet to 60 or alternatively inlet to 51; Fig 3, 7) is communicated with the first air outlet (outlet of 60 or alternatively outlet of 51; Fig 3, 7) to form an air flow passage in the duct body (51 in combination with 61, 62; FIG. 7).
Regarding Claim 8, Yang as modified by Liu continues to teach the following:
The axial flow blower (100; FIG. 1) according to claim 7,
wherein, the duct body (51 in combination with 61, 62; FIG. 7) is provided with an accommodating part (51) to accommodate the motor, an accommodating cavity (center cavity portion of 51 that holds motor 52; FIG. 7) is formed in the accommodating part (51), the motor is accommodated in the accommodating cavity (center cavity portion of 51 that holds motor 52; FIG. 7), the second air inlet (inlet to 60 or alternatively inlet to 51; Fig 3, 7) is arranged on a side of the accommodating part (51) close to the fan blade (2022; FIG. 5; [0106]), and the air flow passage passes through the motor and the accommodating cavity (center cavity portion of 51 that holds motor 52; FIG. 7) from the second air inlet (inlet to 60 or alternatively inlet to 51; Fig 3, 7) to reach the first air outlet (outlet of 60 or alternatively outlet of 51; Fig 3, 7).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 3-4 are 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.
Claims 9-20 are allowable.
The following is an examiner’s statement of reasons for allowance:
In combination with the other structures required by the independent claims, the inclusion of:
Regarding Claim 3:
a power P of the motor is greater than or equal to 1500 W, a maximum rotating speed n is greater than or equal to 30000 RPM, the diameter d of the fan blade is greater than or equal to 84 mm,
Regarding Claim 4:
the power P of the motor is 1500 W or 2000 W, when the power P of the motor is 1500 W, the diameter d of the fan blade is 84 mm, and when the power P of the motor is 2000 W, the diameter d of the fan blade is 96 mm
Regarding Claim 9:
the motor duct assembly comprises a duct body, a motor fixed inside the duct body, and a guiding cone mounted and matched with an end of the duct body, the air inlet assembly comprises a first air inlet and a first air inlet tube connected with the first air inlet, the first air inlet tube is connected with the duct body, the air outlet assembly comprises a bent tube, a bellow tube fixedly connected with the bent tube, and an air outlet tube fixedly connected with the bellow tube, the guiding cone extends into the bent tube, and a distance between a tail end port of the guiding cone and a central axis of a second air outlet of the bent tube is greater than or equal to 75 mm; (emphasis added)
was not found or fairly taught by prior art and differentiated the claims from the closest prior art to Yang et al (CN 112343847), Liu et al (US 20220183241) and Tang et al (CN 112900334).
The Examiner notes Yang et al is considered the closest prior art and does not teach the limitations described above. It is noted, criticality for the emphasized limitation can be found in paragraph [0109]. Further, it appears there would be no reason to modify the prior art without the benefit of Applicant's disclosure and impermissible hindsight.
Any comments considered necessary by applicant must be submitted no later than the payment of the issue fee and, to avoid processing delays, should preferably accompany the issue fee. Such submissions should be clearly labeled “Comments on Statement of Reasons for Allowance.”
Conclusion
See form No. 892 for other references pertinent to the application that may not have been cited within the Office Action.
For references which show similar blower arrangements see Pages 1-3.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to BRIAN C DELRUE whose telephone number is (313)446-6567. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday; 9:00 AM - 5:00 PM (Eastern).
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, Nathaniel E. Wiehe can be reached at (571) 272-8648. 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.
/BRIAN CHRISTOPHER DELRUE/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3745