DETAILED ACTION
Status of Claims
This action is in reply to the communication(s) filed on 23 June 2025.
Claim 16 is canceled by the Applicant.
Claims 1-15 and 17-21 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 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.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to under 37 CFR 1.83(a). The drawings must show every feature of the invention specified in the claims. Therefore, the “fan” in claims 20-21 (as described in paragraph [0052]) must be shown or the feature(s) canceled from the claim(s). No new matter should be entered.
Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
Specification
The disclosure is objected to because of the following informalities: the term “dual-profile strong-suction vortex fan blade” which is meant to represent the “fan impeller” or alternatively, “fan rotor” used in many instances through the specification is objected to, since the definition of the term “fan blade” refers to the blade part of the rotor, but not the rotor as a whole. The Examiner suggest amending each instance of the term, “dual-profile strong-suction vortex fan blade” to instead be, “dual-profile strong-suction vortex fan rotor [[blade]].”
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Objections
Claims 1-15 and 17-21 are objected to because of the following informalities: the claim language, “dual-profile strong-suction vortex fan blade,” is objected to, after careful review of the Specification, as best understood the claim is directed to a fan rotor, thus for purposes of examination the language is interpreted to instead be, dual-profile strong-suction vortex fan rotor [[blade]].”
Appropriate correction is required.
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.
Claim(s) 1-3, 8-10, 15, 17-18, and 20-21 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1)/(a)(2) as being anticipated by Jarrah et al (US 20040197192), hereafter referred to as Jarrah.
Regarding Claim 1, Jarrah discloses the following:
A dual-profile strong-suction vortex fan blade, comprising:
a base (5); and
a plurality of centrifugal blades (6, also see [0028]) and a plurality of axial flow blades (7, also see [0024]) respectively connected to the base (5), wherein the plurality of centrifugal blades (6, also see [0028]) and the plurality of axial flow blades (7, also see [0024]) circumferentially surround an outer periphery of the base (5), respectively, and
the plurality of axial flow blades (7, also see [0024]) are arranged at an air intake side of the plurality of centrifugal blades (6, also see [0028]);
a gap is formed between every two adjacent centrifugal blades (6, also see [0028]);
the number of centrifugal blades (6, also see [0028]) is twice (see [0024]) the number of axial flow blades (7, also see [0024]), so that the number of gaps is also twice (see [0024]) the number of axial flow blades (7, also see [0024]); and
each axial flow blade extends obliquely relative to an axial direction and gradually approaches two adjacent gaps which are right opposite to the axial flow blade, so that each axial flow blade guides external gas into the two corresponding gaps in order (as seen in FIG. 4, also see for example [0025]).
Regarding Claim 2, Jarrah discloses the following:
The dual-profile strong-suction vortex fan blade of claim 1,
wherein a surface of the axial flow blades (7, also see [0024]) facing the centrifugal blades (6, also see [0028]) is a first air guide surface (301, see Examiner annotated FIG. 4);
a surface of the axial flow blades (7, also see [0024]) facing away from the centrifugal blades (6, also see [0028]) is a second air guide surface (302, see Examiner annotated FIG. 4);
the first air guide surface (301, see Examiner annotated FIG. 4) and the second air guide surface (302, see Examiner annotated FIG. 4) of each axial flow blade both gradually approach the gap obliquely relative to the axial direction; and the first air guide surface (301, see Examiner annotated FIG. 4) and the second air guide surface (302, see Examiner annotated FIG. 4) of each axial flow blade have projections in the axial direction falling into the same two adjacent gaps, so that the first air guide surface (301, see Examiner annotated FIG. 4) of one axial flow blade and the second air guide surface (302, see Examiner annotated FIG. 4) of another adjacent axial flow blade cooperate to guide external gas into the two corresponding gaps in order (as seen in FIG. 4).
Regarding Claim 3, Jarrah discloses the following:
The dual-profile strong-suction vortex fan blade of claim 2,
wherein the first air guide surface (301, see Examiner annotated FIG. 4) and the second air guide surface (302, see Examiner annotated FIG. 4) are both curved structures recessed toward the centrifugal blades (6, also see [0028]).
Regarding Claim 8, Jarrah discloses the following:
A dual-profile strong-suction vortex fan blade, comprising a base (5), and a plurality of centrifugal blades (6, also see [0028]) and a plurality of axial flow blades (7, also see [0024]) respectively connected to the base (5), wherein
the plurality of centrifugal blades (6, also see [0028]) and the plurality of axial flow blades (7, also see [0024]) circumferentially surround an outer periphery of the base (5), respectively, and the plurality of axial flow blades (7, also see [0024]) are arranged at an air intake side of the plurality of centrifugal blades (6, also see [0028]); a gap is formed between every two adjacent centrifugal blades (6, also see [0028]); the number of centrifugal blades (6, also see [0028]) is 2N times the number of axial flow blades (7, also see [0024]), so that the number of gaps is also 2N times the number of axial flow blades (7, also see [0024]); and each axial flow blade extends obliquely relative to an axial direction and gradually approaches two adjacent gaps which are right opposite to the axial flow blade, so that each axial flow blade guides external gas into the two corresponding gaps in order, where N> 1 and N is an integer (See [0024], twice as many blades 6 is synonymous with 2N, further there are twice as many gaps.).
Regarding Claim 9, Jarrah discloses the following:
The dual-profile strong-suction vortex fan blade of claim 8,
wherein a surface of the axial flow blades (7, also see [0024]) facing the centrifugal blades (6, also see [0028]) is a first air guide surface (301, see Examiner annotated FIG. 4);
a surface of the axial flow blades (7, also see [0024]) facing away from the centrifugal blades (6, also see [0028]) is a second air guide surface (302, see Examiner annotated FIG. 4);
the first air guide surface (301, see Examiner annotated FIG. 4) and the second air guide surface (302, see Examiner annotated FIG. 4) of each axial flow blade both gradually approach the gap obliquely relative to the axial direction; and
the first air guide surface (301, see Examiner annotated FIG. 4) and the second air guide surface (302, see Examiner annotated FIG. 4) of each axial flow blade have projections in the axial direction falling into the same two adjacent gaps, so that the first air guide surface (301, see Examiner annotated FIG. 4) of one axial flow blade and the second air guide surface (302, see Examiner annotated FIG. 4) of another adjacent axial flow blade cooperate to guide external gas into the two corresponding gaps in order (as seen in FIG. 4).
Regarding Claim 10, Jarrah discloses the following:
The dual-profile strong-suction vortex fan blade of claim 9,
wherein the first air guide surface (301, see Examiner annotated FIG. 4) and the second air guide surface (302, see Examiner annotated FIG. 4) are both curved structures recessed toward the centrifugal blades (6, also see [0028]).
Regarding Claim 15, Jarrah discloses the following:
A fan (1, FIG. 3), in adopting a dual-profile strong-suction vortex fan blade
wherein the dual-profile strong- suction vortex fan blade comprises:
a base (5), and a plurality of centrifugal blades (6, also see [0028]) and a plurality of axial flow blades (7, also see [0024]) respectively connected to the base (5), wherein the plurality of centrifugal blades (6, also see [0028]) and the plurality of axial flow blades (7, also see [0024]) circumferentially surround an outer periphery of the base (5), respectively, and the plurality of axial flow blades (7, also see [0024]) are arranged at an air intake side of the plurality of centrifugal blades (6, also see [0028]);
a gap is formed between every two adjacent centrifugal blades (6, also see [0028]);
the number of centrifugal blades (6, also see [0028]) is twice (see [0024]) the number of axial flow blades (7, also see [0024]), so that the number of gaps is also twice (see [0024]) the number of axial flow blades (7, also see [0024]); and
each axial flow blade extends obliquely relative to an axial direction and gradually approaches two adjacent gaps which are right opposite to the axial flow blade, so that each axial flow blade guides external gas into the two corresponding gaps in order (as seen in FIG. 4).
Regarding Claim 17, Jarrah discloses the following:
The fan of claim 15,
wherein a surface of the axial flow blades (7, also see [0024]) facing the centrifugal blades (6, also see [0028]) is a first air guide surface (301, see Examiner annotated FIG. 4); a surface of the axial flow blades (7, also see [0024]) facing away from the centrifugal blades (6, also see [0028]) is a second air guide surface (302, see Examiner annotated FIG. 4); the first air guide surface (301, see Examiner annotated FIG. 4) and the second air guide surface (302, see Examiner annotated FIG. 4) of each axial flow blade both gradually approach the gap obliquely relative to the axial direction; and the first air guide surface (301, see Examiner annotated FIG. 4) and the second air guide surface (302, see Examiner annotated FIG. 4) of each axial flow blade have projections in the axial direction falling into the same two adjacent gaps, so that the first air guide surface (301, see Examiner annotated FIG. 4) of one axial flow blade and the second air guide surface (302, see Examiner annotated FIG. 4) of another adjacent axial flow blade cooperate to guide external gas into the two corresponding gaps in order (as seen in FIG. 4).
Regarding Claim 18, Jarrah discloses the following:
The fan of claim 17,
wherein the first air guide surface (301, see Examiner annotated FIG. 4) and the second air guide surface (302, see Examiner annotated FIG. 4) are both curved structures recessed toward the centrifugal blades (6, also see [0028]).
Regarding Claim 20, Jarrah discloses the following:
A fan (1, FIG. 3), adopting a dual-profile strong-suction vortex fan blade, wherein the dual-profile strong-suction vortex fan blade comprises:
a base (5), and a plurality of centrifugal blades (6, also see [0028]) and a plurality of axial flow blades (7, also see [0024]) respectively connected to the base (5), wherein the plurality of centrifugal blades (6, also see [0028]) and the plurality of axial flow blades (7, also see [0024]) circumferentially surround an outer periphery of the base (5), respectively, and the plurality of axial flow blades (7, also see [0024]) are arranged at an air intake side of the plurality of centrifugal blades (6, also see [0028]);
a gap is formed between every two adjacent centrifugal blades (6, also see [0028]);
the number of centrifugal blades (6, also see [0028]) is 2N times the number of axial flow blades (7, also see [0024]), so that the number of gaps is also 2N times the number of axial flow blades (7, also see [0024]); and
each axial flow blade extends obliquely relative to an axial direction and gradually approaches two adjacent gaps which are right opposite to the axial flow blade, so that each axial flow blade guides external gas into the two corresponding gaps in order, where N> 1 and N is an integer (See [0024], twice as many blades 6 is synonymous with 2N, further there are twice as many gaps.).
Regarding Claim 21, Jarrah discloses the following:
The fan of claim 20,
wherein a surface of the axial flow blades (7, also see [0024]) facing the centrifugal blades (6, also see [0028]) is a first air guide surface (301, see Examiner annotated FIG. 4);
a surface of the axial flow blades (7, also see [0024]) facing away from the centrifugal blades (6, also see [0028]) is a second air guide surface (302, see Examiner annotated FIG. 4);
the first air guide surface (301, see Examiner annotated FIG. 4) and the second air guide surface (302, see Examiner annotated FIG. 4) of each axial flow blade both gradually approach the gap obliquely relative to the axial direction; and
the first air guide surface (301, see Examiner annotated FIG. 4) and the second air guide surface (302, see Examiner annotated FIG. 4) of each axial flow blade have projections in the axial direction falling into the same two adjacent gaps, so that the first air guide surface (301, see Examiner annotated FIG. 4) of one axial flow blade and the second air guide surface (302, see Examiner annotated FIG. 4) of another adjacent axial flow blade cooperate to guide external gas into the two corresponding gaps in order.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 4-7, 11-14, and 19 would appear to be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
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 Claims 4, 11, and 19:
wherein each centrifugal blade includes a guide part and a blowing part; the guide part and the blowing part are sequentially connected in a direction gradually away from the base, the guide part is convex in a rotating direction of the centrifugal blade, and the blowing part is convex in an opposite direction to the rotating direction of the centrifugal blade; and
ends of the first air guide surface and the second air guide surface away from the base both extend to a position adjacent to a joint of the guide part and the blowing part;
Regarding Claims 5-7 and 12-14:
Claims 5-7 and 12-14 are dependent upon claim 4 or 8;
was not found or fairly taught by prior art and differentiated the claims from the closest prior art to Jarrah et al (US 20040197192).
The Examiner notes Jarrah is considered the closest prior art and does not teach the limitations as described above. 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 fan arrangements see Pages 1-2.
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
Prosecution Insights