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 .
Preliminary Amendment
Acknowledgement is hereby made to the Preliminary Amendment field 15 January 2025. Claims 2-24 are pending in the application. Claim 1 is cancelled.
Claim Objections
Claims 4-9 are objected to because of the following informalities:
In claim 4, line 1, “a wall” should read --the wall--.
Appropriate correction is required.
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 23 and 24 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.
In claims 23 and 24, line 1, the term “each recess” renders the claims indefinite because only one recess has been claimed in the preceding parent claims. This makes the metes and bounds of the claims subject to uncertainty. For examination, the claims will be interpreted as dependent upon claim 19 which does claim two recesses. It is suggested to amend the dependency of the claims accordingly. Correction is required.
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 2-11, 13 and 14 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 1 of U.S. Patent No. 11,371,515 (‘515) or claim 1 of U.S. Patent No. 12,331,749 (‘749) in view of Herrmann et al. (U. S. Patent Application Publication No. 2013/0209247).
As to claim 2 of the instant application, this is a broader version of claim 1 of issued patent ‘515 and claim 1 of issued patent ‘749, reciting common subject matter having identical limitations with one exception. That is, the issued patents are silent as to the interrupter comprising a recess. To this point, Herrmann et al. teaches a regenerative side channel blower (FIG.’s 1-4, para. 0026) having interrupter 30, 32 (para. 0029) with recess 68, 72, 74 (FIG.’s 2 & 3, para.’s 0036-0041, multiple recesses associated with interruption regions 30, 32 disclosed). With this in mind, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the instant application to modify the issued patents so that the interrupter comprises a recess in order to minimize undesirable vortices and pressure peaks, inter alia, as taught by Herrmann (para.’s 0018-0021).
As to claim 3, once modified, Herrmann further teaches the airflow channel 12, 14 comprises an arcuate channel connecting the first port 8 and the second port 22 (FIG.1 ducts form arcuate channel as shown in cross-section), the first port 8 is in fluid communication with a first end of the arcuate channel (FIG. 3, as shown, channel ends at inlet port 8 proximate wall 80), the second port 22 is in fluid communication with a second end of the arcuate channel (FIG. 2, channel ends proximate outlet 22), and the interrupter 30, 32 comprises a wall (FIG.’s 2 & 3, interrupter regions 30, 32 formed as walls) formed between the first end and the second end of the arcuate channel (as shown). It would further have been obvious to modify the issued patents the the associated airflow channel, port and wall features arranged in the manner claimed in order to allow the air flow to circulate efficiently through the channels from the first port to the second port as demonstrated by Herrmann.
As to claim 4, once modified, Herrmann further teaches a wall has a leading face 36, 66 (FIG. 2 para. 0035, limiting wall 36 and edge 66 of indicated surface formed recited leading face) facing towards the second end of the arcuate channel (as shown) and the leading face 36, 66 is curved (as shown, by virtue of its location at the edge of a circular channel).1
As to claim 5, once modified, Herrmann further teaches one or more blades 24 (para. 0042) of the impeller 6 are adapted to rotate in use and to transit the interrupter 30, 31 by first transiting a leading edge 66 of the leading face 66 (surface 66 includes an edge).
As to claim 6, once modified, Herrmann further teaches the wall includes a trailing face 80 facing towards the first end of the arcuate channel (FIG. 2, wall 80 and surrounding structure formed recited trailing face) and the trailing face 80 is curved (shown where face 80 joins side surface of circular channel proximate outlet 222).
As to claim 7, once modified, Herrmann further teaches one or more blades 24 of the impeller 6 are adapted to rotate in use and transit the interrupter 30, 31 by transiting the leading face 36, 66 transiting a central portion of the wall (as shown), and then transiting a trailing edge (side edge of wall 80) of the trailing face 80 (as shown and described, the impeller blades 24 transit subject edges of leading and trailing faces accordingly).
As to claim 8, once modified, Herrmann further teaches the leading edge 66 is configured such that a portion of each blade 24 passes a portion of the leading edge 66 at an angle during transit of that blade past the interrupter 30, 31 (FIG. 4, note angles that blades 24 make with recited edges of face).
As to claim 9, once modified, Herrmann further teaches the trailing edge 80 is configured such that a portion of each blade 24 passes a portion of the trailing edge (side edge of wall 80) at an angle during transit of that blade 24 past the interrupter 30, 31 (FIG. 4, note angles that blades 24 make with recited edges of face).
As to claim 10, once modified, Herrmann further teaches the wall 36 has a first side face 76 proximate the first end of the arcuate channel (FIG. 3, shown), one or more blades 24 of the impeller 6 are adapted in use to rotate away from and pass the first side face 76, wherein the first side face comprises the recess 74 (as shown).
As to claim 11, once modified, Herrmann further teaches the recess 74 on the first side face 76 extends along the first side face (as shown).
As to claim 13, once modified, Herrmann further teaches the wall (shown) has a second side face 64, 68 proximate the second end of the arcuate channel (FIG. 2, para. 0036, as shown), one or more blades 24 of the impeller 6 are adapted in use to rotate towards and pass the second side face 64, 68 (during normal rotation of impeller 6), wherein the second side face comprises the recess 72 (as shown).
As to claim 14, once modified, Herrmann further teaches the recess 72 on the second side face extends along the second side face 64, 68 (as shown).
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 2-11, 13 and 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Herrmann et al. (U. S. Patent Application Publication No. 2013/0209247).
As to claim 2, Herrmann et al. discloses a regenerative blower (FIG.’s 1-4, Abstract) comprising:
a housing 2, 10 (FIG. 1, para. 0026);
the housing 2, 10 comprising a first port 8, and a second port 22 (para.’s 0026 & 0027, inlet 8 and outlet 22, each having respective ports);
an airflow channel 12, 14 (FIG.’s 2 & 4, conveyance ducts 12,14 form recited airflow channel) extending between the first port 8 and the second port 22 configured to carry airflow between the first port 8 and the second port 22 (as shown and described);
an impeller 6 (para. 0028) rotatable in an impeller channel (surrounding impeller 6 proximate airflow channel 12, 14, impeller rotates therein, shown best in FIG. 1), the impeller 6 configured to promote airflow in the airflow channel 12, 13 from the first port 8 to the second port 22 (para. 0028, describing airflow increasing pressure from inlet 8 to outlet 22);
a motor 4 (FIG. 1, para. 0026, drive unit 4 depicted as a motor) drivingly engaged with the impeller 6; and
an interrupter 30, 31 disposed between the first port 8 and the second port 22 (FIG.’s 2 & 3, interrupter regions 30, 31 disposed in the manner claimed), the interrupter 30, 31 comprising a recess 72, 74 (FIG.’s 2 & 3, para.’s 0036-0041, multiple recesses 72, 74 associated with interruption regions 30, 32 disclosed), and
the interrupter 30, 31 configured to limit airflow from the second port 22 to the first port 8 (para. 0029, by virtue of its location between the ports, structure limits airflow therebetween accordingly).
As to claim 3, Herrmann et al. further discloses the airflow channel 12, 14 comprises an arcuate channel connecting the first port 8 and the second port 22 (FIG.1 ducts form arcuate channel as shown in cross-section), the first port 8 is in fluid communication with a first end of the arcuate channel (FIG. 3, as shown, channel ends at inlet port 8 proximate wall 80), the second port 22 is in fluid communication with a second end of the arcuate channel (FIG. 2, channel ends proximate outlet 22), and the interrupter 30, 32 comprises a wall (FIG.’s 2 & 3, interrupter regions 30, 32 formed as walls) formed between the first end and the second end of the arcuate channel (as shown).
As to claim 4, Herrmann further discloses a wall has a leading face 36, 66 (FIG. 2 para. 0035, limiting wall 36 and edge 66 of indicated surface formed recited leading face) facing towards the second end of the arcuate channel (as shown) and the leading face 36, 66 is curved (as shown by virtue of its location at the edge of a circular channel).3
As to claim 5, Herrmann further discloses one or more blades 24 (para. 0042) of the impeller 6 are adapted to rotate in use and to transit the interrupter 30, 31 by first transiting a leading edge 66 of the leading face 66 (surface 66 includes an edge).
As to claim 6, Herrmann further discloses the wall includes a trailing face 80 facing towards the first end of the arcuate channel (FIG. 2, wall 80 and surrounding structure formed recited trailing face) and the trailing face 80 is curved (shown where face 80 joins side surface of circular channel proximate outlet 224).
As to claim 7, Herrmann further discloses one or more blades 24 of the impeller 6 are adapted to rotate in use and transit the interrupter 30, 31 by transiting the leading face 36, 66 transiting a central portion of the wall (as shown), and then transiting a trailing edge (side edge of wall 80) of the trailing face 80 (as shown and described, the impeller blades 24 transit subject edges of leading and trailing faces accordingly).
As to claim 8, Herrmann further discloses the leading edge 66 is configured such that a portion of each blade 24 passes a portion of the leading edge 66 at an angle during transit of that blade past the interrupter 30, 31 (FIG. 4, note angles that blades 24 make with recited edges of its face).
As to claim 9, Herrmann further discloses the trailing edge 80 is configured such that a portion of each blade 24 passes a portion of the trailing edge (side edge of wall 80) at an angle during transit of that blade 24 past the interrupter 30, 31 (FIG. 4, note angles that blades 24 make with recited edges of face).
As to claim 10, Herrmann further discloses the wall 36 has a first side face 76 proximate the first end of the arcuate channel (FIG. 3, shown), one or more blades 24 of the impeller 6 are adapted in use to rotate away from and pass the first side face 76, wherein the first side face comprises the recess 74 (as shown).
As to claim 11, Herrmann further discloses the recess 74 on the first side face 76 extends along the first side face (as shown).
As to claim 13, Herrmann further discloses the wall 36 has a second side face 64, 68 (FIG. 2, para. 0036) proximate the second end of the arcuate channel (FIG. 2, para. 0036, as shown), one or more blades 24 of the impeller 6 are adapted in use to rotate towards and pass the second side face 64, 68 (during normal rotation of impeller 6, blades 24 rotate past all of the surface associated with the airflow channel 12, 14), wherein the second side face comprises the recess 72 (as shown).
As to claim 14, Herrmann further discloses the recess 72 on the second side face extends along the second side face 64, 68 (as shown).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 12 and 15-22 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 23 and 24 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:
With respect to claim 12, the prior art of record either alone or in combination does not teach or fairly suggest the regenerative blower of claim 2 including the limitations of at least intervening claim 3, 10 and 11 further wherein the recess on the first side face comprises: a) curves inwards from a back edge to a front edge along a centre axis, and b) curves inwards from top and bottom edges towards a centre axis between the top and bottom edges.
With respect to claim 15, the prior art of record either alone or in combination does not teach or fairly suggest the regenerative blower of claim 2 including the limitations of at least intervening claim 3 and 13 further wherein the recess is a "V" shape in cross-section.
With respect to claim 17 and dependents, the prior art of record either alone or in combination does not teach or fairly suggest the regenerative blower of claim 2 including the limitations of at least intervening claim 3 further wherein the wall comprises a first side face proximate the first end of the arcuate channel, the wall comprises a second side face proximate the second end of the arcuate channel, and the wall comprises a transverse face located between the first end and the second end of the arcuate channel, one or more blades of the impeller are adapted in use to rotate past the transverse face, wherein the transverse face comprises the recess.
The novel interrupter 325, recess 385, 386, face 331A, 33B and wall features are shown in Applicant’s FIG.’s 44-52. These features are neither contemplated nor reasonably foreseeable in light of the teachings of the available prior art without benefit of the disclosure of the instant invention. Essentially, there is no evidence on the record to suggest how one would modify Herrmann with the recited interrupter, recess and/or associated wall configurations.5
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Paffrath (U. S. Patent Application Publication No. 2014/0170000) discloses a regenerative side channel blower having a noteworthy interrupter 28 representing the general state of the art (FIG.’s 2 & 3, para. 0022).
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to KENNETH J HANSEN whose telephone number is (571)272-6780. The examiner can normally be reached Monday Friday 7:00 AM to 4:00 PM (MT).
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, Mark Laurenzi can be reached at (571) 270-7878. 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.
/KENNETH J HANSEN/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3746
1 Note the aforesaid 35 U.S.C.112(b) issues, supra.
2 Although not shown clearly in the drawings.
3 Note the aforesaid 35 U.S.C.112(b) issues, supra.
4 Although not shown clearly in the drawings.
5 The shape and configuration of the airflow channels and flow-interacting surfaces in regenerative pumps or blowers critically affects the complex 3-dimenionsal fluid dynamics, pressure profiles and vortex properties of the fluid circulating therein.