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 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, 3-5, and 11-13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Zhang et al. (U. S. Patent Application Publication No. 2018/0291924).
Regarding claim 1, Zhang et al. discloses an axial fan (FIG.’s 1-5, Abstract) comprising:
a fan frame 13 (FIG. 4, para. 0029, base forms recited fan frame) comprising an outer frame body 111 and a mounting portion (proximate 132), wherein the outer frame body 111 and the mounting portion 131 (para. 0023) are connected by a plurality of ribs 14 (para.0029, connecting components 14 form ribs);
a motor (FIG. 5, para. 0037, “axial flow fan further includes a motor … received in third hosing space 215”, not shown separately) disposed on the mounting portion 132, and having an electrical connection cable (para. 0029, guide the power wires (not shown)) spanning between the outer frame body 111 and the mounting portion 132,
wherein a first rib 14 of the ribs closest to the electrical connection cable has an airflow mitigation structure 141 (Id., refer to an Annotated copy of Zhang FIG. 4 attached below, as shown in shared area in the indicated box; guiding structure 141 and surrounding internal surfaces shown in the annotation forms recited airflow mitigation structure within broadest reasonable interpretation of the terms due to its location and proximity to rib 14, in the flow path that resuls in airflow and acoustic effects accordingly); and
an impeller 20 (para. 0013) pivotally connected to the motor (as described).
PNG
media_image1.png
803
631
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Annotated Zhang FIG. 4
Re. claim 3, Zhang further discloses the airflow mitigation structure 131 is located at a side of the first rib 14 closer to the electrical connection cable (para. 0029, cable/power wire runs along rib as described meeting the claim under the broadest reasonable interpretation of the term, note the intended location of the power wire, connection cable shown in Annotated FIG. 4).
Re. claim 4, Zhang further discloses two sides of a connection between each of the ribs 14 and the outer frame body 111 have arc-shaped chamfers (Annotated Zhang FIG. 4, as shown and indicated, under broadest reasonable interpretation of the terms since a chamfered surface is shown and/or implied at the connection point between the ribs and frame).
Re. claim 5, Zhang further discloses the ribs 14, except for the first rib, comprises a plurality of second ribs 14 having airflow guiding inclined surfaces (Annotated Zhang FIG. 4, as shown and indicated, note that the ribs are inclined in this view as noted by beveled connections to frame clearly showing an angle).
Regarding claim 11, Zhang et al. discloses an axial fan (FIG.’s 1-5, Abstract) comprising:
a fan frame 13 (FIG. 4, para. 0029, base forms recited fan frame) comprising an outer frame body 111 and a mounting portion (proximate 132), wherein the outer frame body 111 and the mounting portion 131 (para. 0023) are connected by a plurality of ribs 14 (para.0029, connecting components 14 form ribs);
a motor (FIG. 5, para. 0037, “axial flow fan further includes a motor … received in third hosing space 215”, not shown separately) disposed on the mounting portion 132, and having an electrical connection cable (para. 0029, guide the power wires, (not shown)) overlapping a first rib 14 of the ribs 14 (Annotated Zhang FIG. 4, as shown and indicated, location of cable interpreted as overlapping the first rib according to the broadest reasonable interpretation of the term since the cable/power wire runs along the rib accordingly); and
an impeller 20 (para. 0013) pivotally connected to the motor (as described).
Re. claim 12, Zhang further discloses the first rib 14 has a greater width than that of the other ribs of the ribs 14 (shown best in FIG. 4, rib 13 with guiding portion 131 forms a portion of the rib with a greater width than the other ribs).
Re. claim 13, Zhang further discloses the ribs 14, except for the first rib, comprises a plurality of second ribs 14 having airflow guiding inclined surfaces (Annotated Zhang FIG. 4, as shown and indicated, note that the ribs are inclined in this view as noted by beveled connection to frame clearly showing an angle).
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.
Claim 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zhang et al. (U. S. Patent Application Publication No. 2018/0291924) in view of Yamasaki et al. (U. S. Patent Application Publication No. 2018/0252223).
As to claim 6, Zhang is discussed above but is silent as to the electrical connection cable comprises a flexible printed circuit board. Yamasaki teaches a fan having an electrical connection 9 that can be formed as a cable or a flexible circuit board (para. 0061) indicating that the two choices are functionally equivalent. To this point, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the instant application to replace the electrical connection cable with a flexible circuit board__an electrical connection element known to provide predictable power conduction for the motor of the fan having expected results as shown by Yamasaki. The use of the flexible printed circuit board of Yamasaki in the combination of Zhang is considered a simple substitution of one known electrical connection for that of another. Where a claimed improvement on a device or apparatus is no more than "the simple substitution of one known element for another or the mere application of a known technique to a piece of prior art ready for improvement," the claim is unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. 103(a). MPEP 2143(I)B.1
Claim 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zhang et al. (U. S. Patent Application Publication No. 2018/0291924) in view of Huang et al. (U. S. Patent Application Publication No. 2010/0183437).
As to claim 7, Zhang is discussed above and further discloses an axial flow channel is defined among the outer frame body 111, the mounting portion and the ribs 14 (as shown) but is silent as to the outer frame body has a chamfered peripheral edge at an inner edge of the air outlet side facing the axial flow channel. To this point, Zhang teaches a fan having an axial airflow channel with chamfered peripheral edge in the form of flow conducing portion 221 at in inner edge of the outlet side configured as claimed (FIG. 4, para. 0048, as shown and described). 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 Zhang so that its airflow channel has a chamfered peripheral edge configured in as claimed in order to improve the smoothness of the air flow sucked in or discharged from the housing 22, reducing noise and increasing the flow rate of the fan during operation as taught by Zhang (para. 0048).
Claim 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zhang et al. (U. S. Patent Application Publication No. 2018/0291924) in view of Chen et al. (U. S. Patent Application Publication No. 2011/0150638).
As to claim 9, Zhang is discussed above and further discloses the impeller includes a plurality of blades 22, but is silent as to the gap widths between free ends of the blades have three different sizes. Varying the gap widths between blade ends in order to lower acoustic noise levels is generally well known. To this point, Chen teaches a fan having blades with different angular distances or gap widths between blade ends (FIG. 7, para. 0028). 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 Zhang so that the gap widths are different between blades thereby resulting in different sizes in the manner claimed in order to lower acoustic noise levels of the fan in operation as taught by Chen (para. 0005).
Once it was known to provide different gap widths or angular distances between two blades ends, providing additional gap widths or distances is simply duplicating known working elements. It has been held that the mere duplication of parts has no patentable significance unless a new and unexpected result is produced. Since the having different gap widths or angular distances between blade ends is used to lower acoustic noise levels, having additional gap widths would only produce an expected redundancy. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the filing of the claimed invention to duplicate the gap widths providing three different sizes between blade ends in order to provide lower noise levels for the fan in operation. See MPEP § 2144.04 (VI)(B).
Claims 10 and 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zhang et al. (U. S. Patent Application Publication No. 2018/0291924) in view of Yuan et al. (U. S. Patent Application Publication No. 2021/0317841).
As to claim 10, Zhang is discussed above a windward side of each blade has a plurality of convex flow-guiding structures. To this point, Zhang teaches an axial flow fan blade with convex flow-guiding structures 222 arranged on the leading edge of the blade (FIG. 2, para. 0034-0036, “[a] projection of the leading edge 222 of the blade 112 on the normal plane in the direction of the rotation axis X is a first curve, wherein the first curve has two inflection points a and b … inflection points are demarcation points between concave arcs and convex arcs”). 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 Zhang so that its impeller blades having a plurality of convex flow-guiding structures in order to forcibly split a large shed vortex that originally gathered on the upper surface of the blade near the leading edge into multiple small vortices effectively reducing turbulence and dissipation losses as taught by Yuan (para. 0039).
Claim 14 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zhang et al. (U. S. Patent Application Publication No. 2018/0291924).
As to claim 14, Zhang is discussed above but is silent as to the first rib has a greater width than that of the electrical connection cable. The cable is fitted along the guiding part 141 indicating that it essentially contains the cable, although it is not shown. With this mind, the Examiner takes Official Notice that it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the instant application to make the first rib wider than the cable so as to contain and guide the cable running along it as contemplated by Zhang.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 2 and 8 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.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
With respect to the aforesaid objected claims 2 and 8, the available prior art neither contemplates nor reasonably suggests the claimed location of the airflow mitigation structure on the air inlet side; and/or and, with regard to the ribs, three central angles, formed by lines connecting the three ribs and a center of the mounting portion, are not equal.
Conclusion
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 Applicant claims a combination that only unites old elements with no change in the respective functions of those old elements, and the combination of those elements yields predictable results; absent evidence that the modifications necessary to effect the combination of elements is uniquely challenging or difficult for one of ordinary skill in the art, the claim is unpatentable as obvious under 35 U.S.C. 103(a). Ex Parte Smith, 83 USPQ.2d at 1518-19 (BPAI, 2007) (citing KSR, 127 S.Ct. at 1740, 82 USPQ2d at 1396. Accordingly, since the applicant[s] have submitted no persuasive evidence that the combination of the above elements is uniquely challenging or difficult for one of ordinary skill in the art, the claim is unpatentable as obvious under 35 U.S.C. 103(a) because it is no more than the predictable use of prior art elements according to their established functions resulting in the simple substitution of one known element for another or the mere application of a known technique to a piece of prior art ready for improvement.