DETAILED ACTION
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Internet/E-mail Communication
In order to permit communication regarding the instant application via email, Applicant is invited to file form PTO/SB/439 (Authorization for Internet Communications) or include the following statement in a filed document or remarks of a filed response (see MPEP 502.03 II):
Recognizing that Internet communications are not secure, I hereby authorize the USPTO to communicate with the undersigned and practitioners in accordance with 37 CFR 1.33 and 37 CFR 1.34 concerning any subject matter of this application by video conferencing, instant messaging, or electronic mail. I understand that a copy of these communications will be made of record in the application file.
If such authorization is provided, please include an email address in the remarks of a filed response. The examiner’s e-mail address is CHRISTOPHER.LEGENDRE@USPTO.GOV.
Response to Amendment
Applicant’s amendments filed 26 August 2025 with respect to the drawings have been fully considered and are deemed to overcome the previous objection(s).
Applicant’s amendments filed 26 August 2025 with respect to the claims have been fully considered. Any claim objections and/or 35 U.S.C. 112 rejections not repeated herein are considered to be overcome by the amendments.
Response to Remarks/Arguments
Applicant's remarks/arguments filed 26 August 2025 stating “With respect to Figure 9, Applicant respectfully submits that a person having ordinary skill in the art would understand the structural relationships represented by the first and second angles. For instance, it is clear from the specification and Figure 9 that the axial to radial direction is as follows:” (note: see annotated Figure 9 on page 8 of the Remarks filed 26 August 2025) have been fully considered. The Office acknowledges the dimensions as depicted in the annotated Figure 9 and, thus, that the drawing is clear in depicting the angles A1 and A2. However, it is respectfully noted that first virtual line L1, which is involved in A1 and A2, only has one defined end point and, thus, is not sufficiently defined. Accordingly, the previous corresponding 35 U.S.C. 112(a) rejection is maintained.
Applicant’s remarks/arguments filed 26 August 2025 stating “Applicant respectfully submits that claims 4 and 15 meet the written description requirements of 35 U.S.C. § 112(a) for at least the above stated reasons” have been fully considered. The Office respectfully notes that the previous corresponding 35 U.S.C. 112(a) rejection of claim 4 was not made on the basis of Figure 9. Furthermore, the amendments to claim 4 are grammatically/semantically unclear (see below 35 U.S.C. 112 rejections) and/or do not appear to accurately describe a feature of the disclosed invention.
Applicant’s remarks/arguments filed 26 August 2025 stating “By comparison, Blumenberg fails to disclose or suggest a > b. Rather, Blumenberg discloses a= b. This is illustrated in Figure 1 of Blumenberg (annotations added by Applicant for explanatory purposes):” (note: see annotated Figure 9 on page 8 of the Remarks filed 26 August 2025) have been fully considered. The Office respectfully notes that the claim limitations “flat portion” and “inclined portion” are non-specific/broad and/or do not have clearly established radial boundaries (note: there are various 112(b) issues associated with the claimed relative locations of “flat portion”, “inclined portion”, and “bent portion”), and, thus, the depicted “a” and “b” of Blumenberg (as annotated by Applicant) do not necessarily represent the only possible radial boundaries of “flat portion” and “inclined portion”, respectively - i.e., “flat portion” can correspond with only a portion of dimension “a” and “inclined portion” can correspond with only a portion of dimension “b”, in accordance with the inequality of amended claim 1. New prior art rejections necessitated by the amendments are set forth below.
Applicant’s remarks/arguments filed 26 August 2025 addressing the remaining anticipation rejections over Nagano, Sakai, and Noda repeat the above arguments provided for Blumenberg. The Office respectfully notes that the above response to the anticipation rejections over Blumenberg apply identically to the anticipation rejections over Nagano, Sakai, and Noda. New prior art rejections necessitated by the amendments are set forth below.
Specification
The disclosure is objected to because of the following informalities:
In the Abstract, line 1, “is disclosed” should be deleted (note: the language of the Abstract should avoid using phrases which can be implied, such as, "This disclosure concerns," "The disclosure defined by this invention," "This disclosure describes," etc - see MPEP 608.01(b)).
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Objections
Claims 1, 8, and 11-13 are objected to because of the following informalities:
In claim 1, line 8, “the other” should be deleted.
In claim 1, last line, “wider” should be changed to --greater--.
In claim 8, line 2, “the other” should be deleted.
In claim 11, line 2, “outward of” should be changed to --away from--.
In claim 11, line 3, “inward of” should be deleted.
In claim 12, line 3, --the-- should be added before “side surface”.
In claim 13, line 2, --the-- should be added before “side surface”.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
Claims 4 and 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) for failing the written description requirement.
In claim 4, the limitation recited as “the bent portion is formed between the opening of the outer housing of the motor and the body protrusion located farther from the opening than the motor’s rotational axis, but is provided at a position closer to the motor’s rotational axis than the body protruding portion” was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that Applicant, at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention. Initially, it is noted that the instant language is unclear as to:
(1) if “located farther from the opening than the motor’s rotational axis, but is provided at a position closer to the motor’s rotational axis than the bod protruding portion” applies to “the bent portion” or “body protrusion”, or
(2) “body protruding portion” is intended to be “body protrusion” or is intended as establishing a part of “body protrusion”;
If (1) above, then the originally filed disclosure does not support this limitation since the disclosed/depicted distance between “body protrusion” and “opening” is clearly less than (and, thus, not “farther”) than the disclosed/depicted distance between “body protrusion” and “motor’s rotational axis”.
If (2) above, then the originally filed disclosure cannot / does not support the depicted/disclosed distance (i.e., there would be no distance between “body protruding portion” and “body protrusion” since they are the same or since the former constitutes part of the latter).
In claim 15, the limitation recited as “a first angle formed by a first virtual line passing the center point of the ring member” and/or “a second angle formed by the first virtual line and a third virtual line” was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that Applicant, at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention. According to MPEP 2163 (I), a patent specification must describe the claimed invention in sufficient detail that one skilled in the art can reasonably conclude that the inventor had possession of the claimed invention. In the instant case, Figure 9 shows the first virtual line L1, but there is no indication as to what location and/or endpoint defines its orientation and/or how it is oriented in three-dimensional space (note: as best understood, Figure 9 appears to be a top view, in which case there is no indication as to the height at which L1 extends and/or intersects with CP). Accordingly, the structural relationships represented by “first angle” and “second angle” are insufficiently defined.
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.
Claims 1-5 and 7-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
In claim 1, the limitation recited as “a fixed portion coupled to the driving shaft of the motor” renders the claim indefinite. According to MPEP 2173.04, a claim is indefinite when the boundaries of the protected subject matter are not clearly delineated and the scope is unclear. In this instance, “driving shaft”/”motor” is established/defined as outside the scope of the claimed invention characterized as “A blower unit fixed to a driving shaft of a motor…, the blower unit comprising”. To overcome this rejection, the Office suggests changing the first two lines of claim 1 to --A blower system comprising: a motor and a driving shaft provided at one side of the motor;--. Due to dependency, this rejection also applies to claims 2-5 and 7-15.
In claim 1, the limitation recited as “a direction toward the motor from an outside to an inside of the motor in the radial direction” renders the claim indefinite since it is unclear what direction is established by “toward the motor from an outside to an inside of the motor in the radial direction” since it appears to assign multiple different directions to “a direction”. Alternatively, “toward the motor from an outside to an inside” appears to be redundant to “toward the motor… in the radial direction”. To overcome this rejection, the Office suggests deleting one of the redundancies. Due to dependency, this rejection also applies to claims 2-5 and 7-15.
In claim 1, the limitation recited as “a direction toward the motor from an outside to an inside of the motor in the radial direction” renders the claim indefinite. According to MPEP 2173.04, a claim is indefinite when the boundaries of the protected subject matter are not clearly delineated and the scope is unclear. In this instance, “motor” is established/defined as outside the scope of the claimed invention characterized as “A blower unit fixed to a driving shaft of a motor…, the blower unit comprising”. To overcome this rejection, the Office suggests changing the first two lines of claim 1 to --A blower system comprising: a motor and a driving shaft provided at one side of the motor;--. Due to dependency, this rejection also applies to claims 2-5 and 7-15.
In claim 1, the limitation recited as “the flat portion” (line 9) renders the claim indefinite since it lacks antecedent basis (see MPEP 2173.05(e)). Due to dependency, this rejection also applies to claims 2-5 and 7-15.
In claim 1, the limitation recited as “the above-mentioned bending portion” (line 14) renders the claim indefinite since it lacks antecedent basis (see MPEP 2173.05(e)). Due to dependency, this rejection also applies to claims 2-5 and 7-15.
In claim 1, the limitation recited as “the bent portion… based on the above-mentioned bending portion is formed differently” renders the claim indefinite since it is grammatically/semantically unclear. Due to dependency, this rejection also applies to claims 2-5 and 7-15.
In claim 1, the limitation recited as “the bent portion… between the flat portion and the inclined portion” renders the claim indefinite since it is contradictory to the antecedent limitation “an inclined portion formed to extend radially outward from the flat portion”. Due to dependency, this rejection also applies to claims 2-5 and 7-15.
In claim 2, the limitation recited as “a center line of the driving shaft of the motor” renders the claim indefinite. According to MPEP 2173.04, a claim is indefinite when the boundaries of the protected subject matter are not clearly delineated and the scope is unclear. In this instance, “driving shaft”/“motor” is established/defined as outside the scope of the claimed invention characterized as “A blower unit fixed to a driving shaft of a motor…, the blower unit comprising”. To overcome this rejection, the Office suggests changing the first two lines of claim 1 to --A blower system comprising: a motor and a driving shaft provided at one side of the motor;--.
In claim 3, the limitation recited as “provided outside the motor to protect the motor” renders the claim indefinite. According to MPEP 2173.04, a claim is indefinite when the boundaries of the protected subject matter are not clearly delineated and the scope is unclear. In this instance, “motor” is established/defined as outside the scope of the claimed invention characterized as “A blower unit fixed to a driving shaft of a motor…, the blower unit comprising”. To overcome this rejection, the Office suggests changing the first two lines of claim 1 to --A blower system comprising: a motor and a driving shaft provided at one side of the motor;--.
In claim 4, the limitation recited as “a predetermined height… of the motor” and/or “outer housing of the motor” renders the claim indefinite. According to MPEP 2173.04, a claim is indefinite when the boundaries of the protected subject matter are not clearly delineated and the scope is unclear. In this instance, “motor” is established/defined as outside the scope of the claimed invention characterized as “A blower unit fixed to a driving shaft of a motor…, the blower unit comprising”. To overcome this rejection, the Office suggests changing the first two lines of claim 1 to --A blower system comprising: a motor and a driving shaft provided at one side of the motor;--.
In claim 4, the limitation recited as “the outer housing of the motor” renders the claim indefinite since parent claim 3 establishes “outer housing” as separate from “motor”.
In claim 4, the limitation recited as “the bent portion is formed between the opening of the outer housing of the motor and the body protrusion” renders the claim indefinite since, from inspection of the figures, there does not appear to be any way that the instant spatial relationships can be present in the disclosed invention (note: the subsequent limitation “located farther from the opening than the motor’s rotational axis” does not clarify the instant limitation). Accordingly, the meaning of this recitation and/or the structural relationship resulting from this recitation is unclear.
In claim 4, the limitation recited as “the body protruding portion” renders the claim indefinite since it lacks antecedent basis (see MPEP 2173.05(e)).
In claim 4, the limitation recited as “the bent portion is formed between the opening of the outer housing of the motor and the body protrusion located farther from the opening than the motor’s rotational axis, but is provided at a position closer to the motor’s rotational axis than the body protruding portion” renders the claim indefinite since it is grammatically/semantically unclear - i.e.,
(1) it is unclear if “located farther from the opening than the motor’s rotational axis, but is provided at a position closer to the motor’s rotational axis than the body protruding portion” applies to “the bent portion” or “body protrusion” - if so, then this limitation is further unclear due to an apparent conflict or inconsistency with the disclosure since the disclosed/depicted distance between “body protrusion” and “opening” is clearly less than (and, thus, not “farther”) than the disclosed/depicted distance between “body protrusion” and “motor’s rotational axis”,
(2) it is unclear if “body protruding portion” is intended to be “body protrusion” or is intended as establishing a part of “body protrusion” - if so, then this limitation is further unclear due to an apparent conflict or inconsistency with the disclosure since there would be no distance between these two elements.
In claim 5, the limitation recited as “an axial height of the protection part is 10 mm or more and less than 20 mm” renders the claim indefinite. According to MPEP 2173.03, a claim, although clear on its face, may also be indefinite when a conflict or inconsistency between the claimed subject matter and the specification disclosure renders the scope of the claim uncertain as inconsistency with the specification disclosure or prior art teachings may make an otherwise definite claim take on an unreasonable degree of uncertainty. In this instance, Figure 2 indicates that the height h associated with protection part 112 is a height of a portion of protection part 112 relative to a portion of the motor 200, not merely a dimension of protection part 112 (as required by the instant language). To overcome this rejection, the Office suggests adding --relative to the motor-- after “protection part”.
In claim 7, the limitation recited as “the flat portion… [has] a curved surface” renders the claim indefinite since flat is necessarily exclusive of curved. Due to dependency, this rejection also applies to claim 10.
In claim 10, the limitation recited as “a connecting portion, which connects the flat portion with the inclined portion, between the flat portion and the inclined portion” renders the claim indefinite since it is contradictory to the antecedent limitation “an inclined portion formed to extend radially outward from the flat portion” and/or “the bent portion… between the flat portion and the inclined portion”.
In claim 10, the limitation recited as “the protection part further includes a connecting portion, which connects the flat portion with the inclined portion, between the flat portion and the inclined portion, the connecting portion is formed to have a curved surface having a predetermined radius of curvature” in combination with the antecedent limitation “a bent portion of which inclination changes” (claim 1) renders the claim indefinite since the disclosure is unclear as to the distinction between connecting portion 112c and bent portion 140 - i.e., Figure 5 shows connecting portion 112c and bent portion 140 as corresponding with the same structure/location (note: the only way in which bent portion 140 can be bent is if it includes and/or corresponds to the radius of curvature associated with connecting portion 112c).
In claim 11, the limitation recited as “outward of the motor” and/or “inward of the motor” renders the claim indefinite. According to MPEP 2173.04, a claim is indefinite when the boundaries of the protected subject matter are not clearly delineated and the scope is unclear. In this instance, “motor” is established/defined as outside the scope of the claimed invention characterized as “A blower unit fixed to a driving shaft of a motor…, the blower unit comprising”. To overcome this rejection, the Office suggests changing the first two lines of claim 1 to --A blower system comprising: a motor and a driving shaft provided at one side of the motor;--.
In claim 12, the limitation recited as “shapes of one surface and the other surface of the motor” renders the claim indefinite. According to MPEP 2173.04, a claim is indefinite when the boundaries of the protected subject matter are not clearly delineated and the scope is unclear. In this instance, “motor” is established/defined as outside the scope of the claimed invention characterized as “A blower unit fixed to a driving shaft of a motor…, the blower unit comprising”. To overcome this rejection, the Office suggests changing the first two lines of claim 1 to --A blower system comprising: a motor and a driving shaft provided at one side of the motor;--. Due to dependency, this rejection also applies to claim 13.
In claim 12, the limitation recited as “one surface… of the motor” (line 2) renders the claim indefinite since it is unclear if it is referring to the antecedent limitation “one surface of the motor” (claim 1) or introducing a new limitation. Due to dependency, this rejection also applies to claim 13.
In claim 12, the limitation recited as “the other surface of the motor” renders the claim indefinite since it lacks antecedent basis (see MPEP 2173.05(e)). Due to dependency, this rejection also applies to claim 13.
In claim 12, the limitation recited as “[the] side surface of the motor” renders the claim indefinite since it lacks antecedent basis (see MPEP 2173.05(e)). Due to dependency, this rejection also applies to claim 13.
In claim 13, the limitation recited as “a spacing distance between the protecting part and the one surface and side surface of the motor” renders the claim indefinite. According to MPEP 2173.04, a claim is indefinite when the boundaries of the protected subject matter are not clearly delineated and the scope is unclear. In this instance, “motor” is established/defined as outside the scope of the claimed invention characterized as “A blower unit fixed to a driving shaft of a motor…, the blower unit comprising”. To overcome this rejection, the Office suggests changing the first two lines of claim 1 to --A blower system comprising: a motor and a driving shaft provided at one side of the motor;--.
In claim 15, the limitation recited as “a first angle formed by a first virtual line passing the center point of the ring member and an arbitrary point located on the outer side of the blade based on the first surface where the blade and the ring member are in contact through a center point of the ring member and second virtual line connecting the center point of the ring member with a center of a first end portion at a second surface side coming into contact with the blower hub” renders the claim indefinite since:
it is a run-on sentence fragment and, thus, grammatically/semantically unclear;
it is unclear what is meant by “passing the center point” (i.e., does this mean passing through the center point?);
there is no antecedent basis for “the center point of the ring member”;
there is no antecedent basis for “the outer side of the blade”, thereby rendering indefinite the dimension described by “first angle”;
there is no antecedent basis for “the first surface”, thereby rendering indefinite the dimension described by “first angle”;
the recitation “through a center point of the ring member” (line 4) is unclear in light of the antecedent limitation “passing the center point of the ring member” (line 2).
In claim 15, the limitation recited as “a first angle formed by a first virtual line passing the center point of the ring member” and/or “a second angle formed by the first virtual line and a third virtual line” renders the claim indefinite since the disclosure is unclear in describing the structure resulting therefrom - i.e., Figure 9 shows the first virtual line L1 but one of its end points is not tied to a structural element and the specification is silent on this aspect (i.e., it is unclear how first virtual line L1 is oriented in three-dimensional space).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1-3, 7, 8, and 12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Blumenberg et al. (EP 0780579 - hereafter referred to as Blumenberg; previously cited).
In reference to claim 1 (as far as it is clear and definite)
Blumenberg discloses:
A blower unit fixed to a driving shaft (7) of a motor (1) and provided at one side of the motor, the blower unit comprising:
a blower hub including a fixed portion (9) coupled to the driving shaft (7) of the motor and a protection part (11) formed to extend radially with respect to the fixed portion and protect one side of the motor;
a ring member (see the figure showing a horizontal line connecting the diametrically-opposed blades) provided at one side of the blower hub and formed in a ring shape; and
a plurality of blades (13) each having one side (i.e., top side) connected to the ring member along a circumference of the ring member and the other another side (i.e., bottom side) connected to the blower hub,
an inclined portion (i.e., at least a portion, in a radial sense, of the inclined portion identified in annotated figure below) formed to extend radially outward from the flat portion (note: formed to extend radially outward from the flat portion is considered to mean “formed to extend radially outward of the flat portion” in light of the disclosure showing bent portion 140 and/or connecting portion 112c interposing flat portion 112a and inclined portion 112b, thereby precluding a direct attachment between flat portion 112a and inclined portion 112b) and cover and protect a side surface of the motor,
wherein the protection part includes a bent portion (i.e., at least a portion of support disk 11 apart from wheel 35, which is arcuate/curved - see the figure) of which inclination changes in a direction toward the motor from an outside to an inside of the motor in the radial direction,
wherein the bent portion provided on inner and outer sides of the motor in the radial direction (i.e., the identified bent portion extends radially and, thus, across a relatively inner side of the motor to a relatively outer side of the motor) based on the above-mentioned bending portion is formed differently (note: the clause based on the above-mentioned bending portion is formed differently is indefinite - see corresponding indefiniteness rejection),
wherein the protection part includes a flat portion (i.e., at least a portion, in a radial sense, of the flat portion identified below in the annotated figure)(note: Applicant’s disclosure indicates that flat can mean curved) formed to extend radially from the fixed portion (9) and cover and protect one surface of the motor (1);
wherein the bent portion is a curved portion (see the below annotated figure) between the flat portion and the inclined portion, and
wherein a radial width of the flat portion is wider than a radial width of the inclined portion (note: the lengths and/or limits, in a radial sense, of the identified flat portion and the identified inclined portion can be chosen such that the instant inequality is met).
PNG
media_image1.png
256
388
media_image1.png
Greyscale
In reference to claim 2 (as far as it is clear and definite)
Blumenberg discloses:
The blower unit of claim 1, wherein the bent portion is formed in a circumferential direction (i.e., the support disk 11 is annular) with respect to a center line of the driving shaft of the motor.
In reference to claim 3 (as far as it is clear and definite)
Blumenberg discloses:
The blower unit of claim 1, wherein an outer housing (i.e., the assembly of body protrusion and the casing element identified below in the annotated figure) provided outside the motor (1) to protect the motor has an open side facing (i.e., in the radial direction) the blower hub to form an opening (see annotated figure below), and the bent portion is formed radially outward more than the opening of the outer housing.
PNG
media_image2.png
278
396
media_image2.png
Greyscale
In reference to claim 7 (as far as it is clear and definite)
Blumenberg discloses:
The blower unit of claim 1, wherein the flat portion and the inclined portion are formed to have a curved surface (see the figure) having a predetermined radius of curvature (see the figure), and the radius of curvature of the flat portion is greater than (see the figure) the radius of curvature of the inclined portion.
In reference to claim 8
Blumenberg discloses:
The blower unit of claim 1, wherein the flat portion has one end coming into contact with the inclined portion and the other another end coming into contact with the fixed portion, and an inclination between the one end and the another end of the flat portion is 45 degrees or less (note: the boundaries of flat portion, bent portion, and inclined portion can be drawn such that the claimed inclination is clearly 45 degrees or less - see below annotation as an example).
PNG
media_image3.png
256
388
media_image3.png
Greyscale
In reference to claim 12 (as far as it is clear and definite)
Blumenberg discloses:
The blower unit of claim 1, wherein the protection part (11) is formed to correspond to (note: correspond to is broad and/or non-specific) shapes of one surface and the other surface of the motor, and formed in a shape spaced a predetermined distance from the one surface and side surface of the motor.
Claims 1, 2, 7, and 10-12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Nagano (WO 2021137296 A1; previously cited).
In reference to claim 1 (as far as it is clear and definite)
Nagano discloses:
A blower unit (see Figure 8) fixed to a driving shaft (81) of a motor (80) and provided at one side of the motor, the blower unit comprising:
a blower hub (see annotated Figure 8 below) including a fixed portion (see annotated Figure 8 below) coupled to the driving shaft (81) of the motor and a protection part (i.e., the portion of the identified hub apart from fixed portion) formed to extend radially with respect to the fixed portion and protect one side of the motor;
a ring member (see the figure showing a horizontal line connecting the blades 72; also see Figure 6) provided at one side of the blower hub and formed in a ring shape; and
a plurality of blades (72) each having one side (i.e., top side) connected to the ring member along a circumference of the ring member and the another other side (i.e., bottom side) connected to the blower hub,
an inclined portion (i.e., at least a portion, in a radial sense, of the identified hub to the left of the left-most dashed-line in annotated Figure 8 below) formed to extend radially outward from the flat portion (note: formed to extend radially outward from the flat portion is considered to mean “formed to extend radially outward of the flat portion” in light of the disclosure showing bent portion 140 and/or connecting portion 112c interposing flat portion 112a and inclined portion 112b, thereby precluding a direct attachment between flat portion 112a and inclined portion 112b) and cover and protect a side surface of the motor,
wherein the protection part includes a bent portion (i.e., the portion of the identified hub between the dashed-lines in annotated Figure 8 below) of which inclination changes in a direction toward the motor from an outside to an inside of the motor in the radial direction,
wherein the bent portion provided on inner and outer sides of the motor in the radial direction (i.e., the identified bent portion extends radially and, thus, across a relatively inner side of the motor to a relatively outer side of the motor) based on the above-mentioned bending portion is formed differently (note: the clause based on the above-mentioned bending portion is formed differently is indefinite - see corresponding indefiniteness rejection),
wherein the protection part includes a flat portion (i.e., at least a portion, in a radial sense, of the identified hub between the dotted-lines in annotated Figure 8 below)(note: Applicant’s disclosure indicates that flat can mean either flat or curved) formed to extend radially from the fixed portion and cover and protect one surface of the motor;
wherein a radial width of the flat portion is wider than a radial width of the inclined portion (note: the lengths and/or limits, in a radial sense, of the identified flat portion and the identified inclined portion can be chosen such that the instant inequality is met).
PNG
media_image4.png
442
431
media_image4.png
Greyscale
In reference to claim 2 (as far as it is clear and definite)
Nagano discloses:
The blower unit of claim 1, wherein the bent portion is formed in a circumferential direction (i.e., the identified hub is annular) with respect to a center line of the driving shaft of the motor.
In reference to claim 7 (as far as it is clear and definite)
Nagano discloses:
The blower unit of claim 1, wherein the flat portion and the inclined portion are formed to have a curved surface (i.e., the top surface thereof - see annotated Figure 8 below) having a predetermined radius of curvature (see Figure 8), and the radius of curvature of the flat portion is greater than (see annotated Figure 8 below) the radius of curvature of the inclined portion.
PNG
media_image5.png
456
512
media_image5.png
Greyscale
In reference to claim 10 (as far as it is clear and definite)
Nagano discloses:
The blower unit of claim 7, wherein the protection part further includes a connecting portion (i.e., the portion of the identified hub between the left-most dotted line and the right-most dashed-line in annotated Figure 8 above (see claim 1)), which connects the flat portion with the inclined portion, between the flat portion and the inclined portion, the connecting portion is formed to have a curved surface (i.e., the top surface of the identified connecting portion - see annotated Figure 8 above in claim 7) having a predetermined radius of curvature, and the radius of curvature of the connecting portion is smaller than (see annotated Figure 8 above) the radius of curvature of the flat portion and equal to or smaller than (see annotated Figure 8 above) the radius of curvature of the inclined portion.
In reference to claim 11 (as far as it is clear and definite)
Nagano discloses:
The blower unit of claim 7, wherein the flat portion is formed to be curved convexly outward of the motor (i.e., the identified flat portion has a convex shape facing away from the identified motor), and the inclined portion is formed to be curved convexly inward of toward the motor (i.e., the identified inclined portion has a convex shape facing toward the identified motor).
In reference to claim 12 (as far as it is clear and definite)
Nagano discloses:
The blower unit of claim 1, wherein the protection part is formed to correspond to (note: correspond to is broad and/or non-specific) shapes of one surface (i.e., a portion of the outer surface of element 92) and the other surface (i.e., another portion of the outer surface of element 92) of the motor, and formed in a shape spaced a predetermined distance from the one surface and side surface of the motor.
Claims 1, 2, 7, and 10-12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Sakai et al. (US 20150192143 A1 - hereafter referred to as Sakai; previously cited).
In reference to claim 1 (as far as it is clear and definite)
Sakai discloses:
A blower unit (see Figure 8) fixed to a driving shaft (70) of a motor (7c) and provided at one side of the motor, the blower unit comprising:
a blower hub (73) including a fixed portion (see annotated Figure 8 below) coupled to the driving shaft (70) of the motor and a protection part (i.e., the portion of the identified hub apart from fixed portion) formed to extend radially with respect to the fixed portion and protect one side of the motor;
a ring member (72) provided at one side of the blower hub and formed in a ring shape; and
a plurality of blades (71) each having one side (i.e., top side) connected to the ring member along a circumference of the ring member and the another other side (i.e., bottom side) connected to the blower hub,
an inclined portion (i.e., at least a portion, in a radial sense, of the identified hub that is to the left of the left-most dashed-line in annotated Figure 8 below) formed to extend radially outward from the flat portion (note: formed to extend radially outward from the flat portion is considered to mean “formed to extend radially outward of the flat portion” in light of the disclosure showing bent portion 140 and/or connecting portion 112c interposing flat portion 112a and inclined portion 112b, thereby precluding a direct attachment between flat portion 112a and inclined portion 112b) and cover and protect a side surface of the motor,
wherein the protection part includes a bent portion (i.e., the portion of the identified hub between the dashed-lines in annotated Figure 8 below) of which inclination changes in a direction toward the motor from an outside to an inside of the motor in the radial direction
wherein the bent portion provided on inner and outer sides of the motor in the radial direction (i.e., the identified bent portion extends radially and, thus, across a relatively inner side of the motor to a relatively outer side of the motor) based on the above-mentioned bending portion is formed differently (note: the clause based on the above-mentioned bending portion is formed differently is indefinite - see corresponding indefiniteness rejection),
wherein the protection part includes a flat portion (i.e., at least a portion, in a radial sense, of the identified hub between the dotted-lines in annotated Figure 8 below)(note: Applicant’s disclosure indicates that flat can mean either flat or curved) formed to extend radially from the fixed portion and cover and protect one surface of the motor,
wherein the bent portion is a curved portion (see the below annotated figure) between the flat portion and the inclined portion, and
wherein a radial width of the flat portion is wider than a radial width of the inclined portion (note: the lengths and/or limits, in a radial sense, of the identified flat portion and the identified inclined portion can be chosen such that the instant inequality is met).
PNG
media_image6.png
440
628
media_image6.png
Greyscale
In reference to claim 2 (as far as it is clear and definite)
Sakai discloses:
The blower unit of claim 1, wherein the bent portion is formed in a circumferential direction (i.e., the identified hub is annular) with respect to a center line of the driving shaft of the motor.
In reference to claim 7 (as far as it is clear and definite)
Sakai discloses:
The blower unit of claim 1, wherein the flat portion and the inclined portion are formed to have a curved surface (i.e., the top surface thereof - see annotated Figure 8 above) having a predetermined radius of curvature (see Figure 8), and the radius of curvature of the flat portion is greater than (see Figure 8) the radius of curvature of the inclined portion.
In reference to claim 10 (as far as it is clear and definite)
Sakai discloses:
The blower unit of claim 7, wherein the protection part further includes a connecting portion (i.e., the portion of the identified hub between the left-most dotted line and the right-most dashed-line in annotated Figure 8 above (see claim 1)), which connects the flat portion with the inclined portion, between the flat portion and the inclined portion, the connecting portion is formed to have a curved surface (i.e., the top surface of the identified connecting portion) having a predetermined radius of curvature, and the radius of curvature of the connecting portion is smaller than (see Figure 8) the radius of curvature of the flat portion and equal to or smaller than (see Figure 8) the radius of curvature of the inclined portion.
In reference to claim 11 (as far as it is clear and definite)
Sakai discloses:
The blower unit of claim 7, wherein the flat portion is formed to be curved convexly outward of the motor (i.e., the identified flat portion has a convex shape facing away from the identified motor), and the inclined portion is formed to be curved convexly inward of toward the motor (i.e., the identified inclined portion has a section with a convex shape facing toward the identified motor).
In reference to claim 12 (as far as it is clear and definite)
Sakai discloses:
The blower unit of claim 1, wherein the protection part is formed to correspond to (note: correspond to is broad and/or non-specific) shapes of one surface and the other surface of the motor, and formed in a shape spaced a predetermined distance from the one surface and side surface of the motor.
Claims 1 and 9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Noda et al. (US 20060192449 A1 - hereafter referred to as Noda; previously cited).
In reference to claim 1 (as far as it is clear and definite)
Noda discloses:
A blower unit (see Figure 1) fixed to a driving shaft (6) of a motor (1) and provided at one side of the motor, the blower unit comprising:
a blower hub including a fixed portion (9a) coupled to the driving shaft of the motor and a protection part (9b & 9c) formed to extend radially with respect to the fixed portion and protect one side of the motor;
a ring member (9e) provided at one side of the blower hub and formed in a ring shape; and
a plurality of blades (9d) each having one side (i.e., top side) connected to the ring member along a circumference of the ring member and the another other side (i.e., bottom side) connected to the blower hub,
an inclined portion (i.e., at least a portion, in a radial sense, of the identified hub to the right of the dashed-line in annotated Figure 1 below, which includes an inclined section) formed to extend radially outward from the flat portion (note: formed to extend radially outward from the flat portion is considered to mean “formed to extend radially outward of the flat portion” in light of the disclosure showing bent portion 140 and/or connecting portion 112c interposing flat portion 112a and inclined portion 112b, thereby precluding a direct attachment between flat portion 112a and inclined portion 112b) and cover and protect a side surface of the motor,
wherein the protection part includes a bent portion (i.e., the portion between the right-most dotted-line and the dashed-line in annotated Figure 1 below) of which inclination changes in a direction toward the motor from an outside to an inside of the motor in the radial direction,
wherein the bent portion provided on inner and outer sides of the motor in the radial direction (i.e., the identified bent portion extends radially and, thus, across a relatively inner side of the motor to a relatively outer side of the motor) based on the above-mentioned bending portion is formed differently (note: the clause based on the above-mentioned bending portion is formed differently is indefinite - see corresponding indefiniteness rejection),
wherein the protection part includes a flat portion (i.e., at least a portion, in a radial sense, of the identified hub between the dotted-lines in annotated Figure 1 below) formed to extend radially from the fixed portion and cover and protect one surface of the motor,
wherein the bent portion is a curved portion (see Figure 1) between the flat portion and the inclined portion, and
wherein a radial width of the flat portion is wider than a radial width of the inclined portion (note: the lengths and/or limits, in a radial sense, of the identified flat portion and the identified inclined portion can be chosen such that the instant inequality is met).
PNG
media_image7.png
393
367
media_image7.png
Greyscale
In reference to claim 9
Noda discloses:
The blower unit of claim 1, wherein the flat portion is formed to have a flat surface (see Figure 1), and the inclined portion (see Figure 1) is formed to have a curved surface having a predetermined radius of curvature.
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 of this title, 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 5 and 13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Blumenberg or Nagano or Sakai or Noda in view of a design choice.
In reference to claim 5 (as far as it is clear and definite)
Blumenberg or Nagano or Sakai or Noda discloses:
The blower unit of claim 1.
Blumenberg or Nagano or Sakai or Noda does not disclose:
an axial height of the protection part is 10 mm or more and less than 20 mm.
As discussed in MPEP 2144.04, various common practices, one being the act of altering size/dimensions, which the court has held normally require only ordinary skill in the art and hence are considered routine expedients, if the Applicant has not demonstrated criticality of the specific limitation, are discussed in MPEP 2144.04.
Furthermore, Applicant has not demonstrated any criticality to the claimed size/dimension.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the blower unit of Blumenberg or Nagano or Sakai or Noda to include the claimed size/dimension for the purpose of achieving a desired fan performance (e.g., flow rate, efficiency, noise) and/or configuring it for a particular environment of use.
In reference to claim 13 (as far as it is clear and definite)
Blumenberg or Nagano or Sakai or Noda discloses:
The blower unit of claim 12.
Blumenberg or Nagano or Sakai or Noda does not disclose:
a spacing distance between the protection part and the one surface and side surface of the motor is 4 mm or more and less than 6 mm.
As discussed in MPEP 2144.04, various common practices, one being the act of altering size/dimensions, which the court has held normally require only ordinary skill in the art and hence are considered routine expedients, if the Applicant has not demonstrated criticality of the specific limitation, are discussed in MPEP 2144.04.
Furthermore, Applicant has not demonstrated any criticality to the claimed size/dimension.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the blower unit of Blumenberg or Nagano or Sakai or Noda to include the claimed size/dimension for the purpose of achieving a desired fan performance (e.g., flow rate, efficiency, noise) and/or configuring it for a particular environment of use.
Claim 14 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Blumenberg or Nagano or Sakai or Noda in view of Hayashi et al. (US 12,228,141 - hereafter referred to as Hayashi; previously cited).
In reference to claim 14
Blumenberg or Nagano or Sakai or Noda discloses:
The blower unit of claim 1.
Blumenberg or Nagano or Sakai or Noda does not disclose:
the blade is formed in a shape that gradually lengthens radially in a direction from a first surface coming into contact with the ring member toward a second surface coming into contact with the blower hub.
Hayashi discloses:
a centrifugal fan blade (12) comprising a tapered shape (see Figure 2) such that its length gradually increases from an outer rim (13) to an inner hub (11); the tapered shape reduces airflow obstruction at the outer portion of the blade in order to limit noise (see col.8:ll.5-15).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the blade of Blumenberg or Nagano or Sakai or Noda to include a tapered shape, as disclosed by Hayashi, for the purpose of limiting noise.
Examiner’s Comment
Although claims 4 and 15 are not rejected over prior art, patentability cannot be determined in lig