DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
This action is in response to the claims set filed 09/02/2025 containing amendments. Claims 1-15 were amended; claims 16-20 were added. Claims 1-20 are currently pending.
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Claim Objections
Claim 13 is objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 13 lines 3 and 5, “the rib” should likely read “the at least one rib”; since this is what was previously introduced in claim 12 from which claim 13 depends upon.
Appropriate correction is required.
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.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitation(s) is/are:
“welding assistance structures” in claim 6. “structures” being an a generic placeholder; “welding assistance” and “which can be engaged with each other” being the functional language recited in the claim; the claim failing to recite sufficient structural language.
The corresponding structure for “welding assistance structures” found in the specification is: “The "welding assistance structure", as the name implies, helps to form desired welding beads, for example, it can help to control the flow of molten materials.” On page 7 of instant specification. “the welding assistance structures comprise a boss 122 formed on the edge 121 and a groove 132 formed at an inner side 131 of the shroud 13 for receiving the boss 122, and the shroud 13 can be welded to the corresponding blades 12 by applying ultrasonic waves from the outer side 133, i.e. the upper side in FIG. 3, of the shroud 13 to an area of the boss 122. The groove 132 has a bottom, which means it does not penetrate through the shroud 13. The boss 122 may be in the shape of a ridge that is high in the middle and low on both sides, which can be seen clearly from FIG. 7. Of course, those skilled in the art can understand that the present invention is not limited thereto, and any suitable shapes are possible. In addition, the boss 122 may also be formed at only a portion of the upper edge 121 of the blade 12, for example, only at a central section, and the portions on both ends are not formed with the boss 122” on page 8 of instant specification.
“a protruding vortex reducing structure” in claim 11. “structure” being a generic placeholder; “vortex reducing structure” being the functional language recited in the claim; the claim failing to recite sufficient structural language to entirely perform the recited function.
The corresponding structure for “a protruding vortex reducing structure” found in the specification is: “The "protruding" structure can block, limit, or destroy the noisemaking vortex gradually generated along the suction surface 124. For this reason, according to a second aspect of the invention, another impeller 1 for a centrifugal blower 10 of a vehicle seat ventilation system is provided, comprising: a hub 11 and a plurality of blades 12 arranged on one side of the hub 11, wherein a suction surface 124 of the blade 12 is formed with a protruding vortex reducing structure 125. As mentioned above, the vortex is gradually formed as it flows from the front edge 126 of the blade 12 along the suction surface 124 to the trailing edge 127. Therefore, according to an exemplary embodiment of the invention, the vortex reducing structure 125 is arranged adjacent to the front edge 126 of the blade 12, which can destroy the formation of vortex at its early stage so as to destroy the vortex formation to the greatest extent. As shown in FIG. 9 and FIG. 10, the vortex reducing structure 125 comprises at least one rib 1251, which extends not in parallel to a direction of extending of the suction surface 124 of the blade 12 from the front edge 126 to the trailing edge 127, in other words, the rib 1251does not extend following a flow direction of the gas on the suction surface 124, and as a result, the gas flow can be effectively blocked. According to an exemplary embodiment of the invention, as shown in FIG. 10, the at least one rib 1251 comprises a plurality of ribs arranged in parallel to and spaced apart from one another so that the vortex reducing structure 125 is wave-like. In particular, as shown in FIG. 10, according to an exemplary embodiment of the invention, the rib 1251 extends axially. In particular, the rib 1251 has a constant cross section in the axial direction” on page 10 of the instant specification and “According to an exemplary embodiment of the invention, as shown in FIG. 10, the vortex reducing structure 125 is arranged at least over half a length of the blade 12” on page 11 of the instant specification.
“a vehicle seat ventilation system” in claim 15. “system” being a generic placeholder; “vehicle seat ventilation” being the functional language recited in the claim; the claim failing to recite sufficient structural language.
The corresponding structure for “a vehicle seat ventilation system” found in the specification is: “a vehicle seat ventilation system is provided, which comprises the impeller according to any one of the above embodiments or the blower according to any one of the above embodiments” on page 4 of the instant specification; and “a vehicle seat ventilation system is provided, which comprises the impeller 1 according to any of the above embodiments or the blower 10 according to any one of the above embodiments” on page 12 of the instant specification.
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
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 1-20 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.
Claim 1 in lines 5-6 and 8 recites the limitation “the blade”, thrice. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. The claim has only previously introduced “a plurality of blades”. This makes it unclear if “the blade” is meant to reference to a blade of the plurality of blades or to all of the blades of the plurality.
Claims 2-20 are also rejected under 35 USC § 112(b) due to their respective dependency upon claim 1 rejected above.
Claim 11 recites the limitation “the blade”. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Only “a plurality of blades” possesses proper antecedence for this claim; introduced in claim 1 from which claim 11 depends upon. This makes it unclear if “the blade” is meant to reference to a blade of the plurality of blades or to all of the blades of the plurality.
Examiner Note: Claims 12 and 13, which depend upon claim 11, also recite “the blade”.
Regarding Claim 15, the limitation “a vehicle seat ventilation system, which comprises the impeller of the centrifugal blower according to claim 14” renders the claim indefinite since claim 14 is directed to a “a centrifugal blower”, while claim 15 only requires the impeller component/aspect of the centrifugal blower of claim 14. It is unclear what the metes and bounds of claim 15 are to be since it does not fully encompass all the limitations set forth in the claim from which it depends upon.
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 1-4, 10, 14-18 and 20 are provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 14-15 of copending Application No. 19/163879, herein referenced as ‘879, in view of CN214820264U, herein referenced as Li.
Instant Claim 1
Scope of claim 14 of ‘879 (claim 14 depending on claim 13, which then depends upon claim 1)
[instant claim 1 lines 1-4]
An impeller for a centrifugal blower of a vehicle seat ventilation system, comprising:
a hub; a plurality of blades protruding from an end face on one side of the hub,
[Claim 1 of ‘879]
An impeller for a centrifugal blower of a vehicle seat ventilation system, comprising: a hub; and a plurality of blades arranged on one side of the hub.
[instant claim 1 lines 5-10]
the blade being configured in such a manner that when viewed in an axial direction towards the end face, a profile of a first cross section of the blade axially farther from the end face at least partially exceeds a profile of a second cross section of the blade axially closer to the end face; and an annular shroud which is connected, facing the end face, to an edge of the blades,
[Claim 14 of ‘879]
wherein the blade is configured in such a manner that when viewed in an axial direction towards an end face of the hub-facing the blade, a profile of a first cross section of the blade axially farther from the end face at least partially exceeds a profile of a second cross section of the blade axially closer to the end face; and the impeller further comprises an annular shroud which is connected, facing the hub, to an edge of the blades.
However, the scope of claim 14 of ‘879 fails to disclose “wherein the blades are integrally molded with the hub” in line 11 of instant claim 1.
Li is analogous art since it relates to the field of endeavor of impellers of centrifugal fans/blowers.
Li teaches wherein the blades are integrally molded with the hub (see lower plate 2, wheel hub 4 and blades 3 in fig. 2; “This utility model integrates the lower plate, blade and hub into one injection molded part, and then forms the upper plate through injection molding. Finally, the upper plate is connected and fixed through assembly. This can greatly simplify the mold complexity and reduce the mold development cost. At the same time, the simpler the mold structure, the higher the molding quality, which is also conducive to improving the overall quality of the product” pr. n0010).
Therefore, it would have been obvious before the effective filing date of invention to one of ordinary skill in the art to have modified the invention of claim 14 of ‘879 such that the lower plate, hub and blades are integrally molded together as disclosed by Li, to obtain the benefit of ‘simplifying mold complexity, reducing mold development cost, resulting in higher molding quality’ as taught by Li.
NOTE: the claims of ‘879 referenced below depend are encompassed by claim 14 or depend upon claim 14 of ‘879. The language of the claims compared against each other below being substantially the same.
Examiner Note: the rejections below are presented in order of dependency of the instant claims for readability.
Instant claim 2 is obvious over the combination of ‘879 in view of Li with claim 15 of ‘879 reciting “impeller according to claim 14, wherein the shroud is integrally injection molded, and the shroud is connected to the edge by welding”.
Instant claim 16 is obvious over the combination of ‘879 in view of Li with claim 15 of ‘879 reciting “impeller according to claim 14, wherein the shroud is integrally injection molded, and the shroud is connected to the edge by welding”.
Instant claim 17 is obvious over the combination of ‘879 in view of Li with claim 15 of ‘879 reciting “impeller according to claim 14, wherein the shroud is integrally injection molded, and the shroud is connected to the edge by welding”.
Instant claim 20 is obvious over the combination of ‘879 (encompassing the invention of claim 15 of '879) in view of Li with claim 13 of ‘879 reciting “impeller according to claim 1, wherein the impeller is configured as a backward impeller”.
Instant claim 3 is obvious over the combination of ‘879 in view of Li with claim 15 of ‘879 reciting “impeller according to claim 14, wherein the shroud is integrally injection molded, and the shroud is connected to the edge by welding”.
Instant claim 18 is obvious over the combination of ‘879 in view of Li with claim 15 of ‘879 reciting “impeller according to claim 14, wherein the shroud is integrally injection molded, and the shroud is connected to the edge by welding”.
Instant claim 4 is obvious over the combination of ‘879 in view of Li with claim 15 of ‘879 reciting “impeller according to claim 14, wherein the shroud is integrally injection molded, and the shroud is connected to the edge by welding”.
Instant claim 10 is obvious over the combination of ‘879 in view of Li with claim 13 of ‘879 reciting “impeller according to claim 1, wherein the impeller is configured as a backward impeller”.
Instant claim 14 is obvious over the combination of ‘879 in view of Li since claim 1 of '879 states “An impeller for a centrifugal blower of a vehicle seat ventilation system”. It therefore would have been obvious to have modified the impeller for a centrifugal blower of a vehicle seat ventilation system in the combination of '879 and Li to be provided in a centrifugal blower.
Instant claim 15 is obvious over the combination of ‘879 in view of Li since claim 1 of '879 states “An impeller for a centrifugal blower of a vehicle seat ventilation system”. It therefore would have been obvious to have modified the impeller for a centrifugal blower of a vehicle seat ventilation system in the combination of '879 and Li to be provided in a vehicle seat ventilation system.
These are provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejections because the patentably indistinct claims have not in fact been patented.
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) 1-5, 10, 14-18 and 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by US 2010/0329871, herein referenced as Cahill.
PNG
media_image1.png
924
809
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Figure 6 of Cahill
Regarding Claim 1, Cahill discloses an impeller (see fan subassembly (including the backplate 22, blades 24 and fan shroud 26) of fan assembly 20 and/or fan assembly 30 fig. 6) for a centrifugal blower of a vehicle seat ventilation system (this limitation appears to merely represent an intended use or manner in which a claimed apparatus is intended to be employed and does not differentiate the claimed apparatus from the prior art apparatus, see MPEP 2111.02 “Effect of Preamble” and MPEP 2114 “Apparatus and Article Claims”;), comprising:
a hub (backplate 22 fig. 6);
a plurality of blades (see blades 24 fig. 6) protruding from an end face on one side of the hub (see end face on top side of backplate 22 fig. 6), the blade being configured in such a manner that when viewed in an axial direction towards the end face, a profile of a first cross section of the blade axially farther from the end face at least partially exceeds a profile of a second cross section of the blade axially closer to the end face (a first given cross-section of the blades near the backplate 22 in a plane normal to the centerline CL and a second given cross-section of the blades 24 in a plane normal to the centerline CL, which is relatively closer to the shroud 26 than the first given cross section, the in figs. 4 and 6, the second given cross-section would exceed, extend beyond the limits of, the profile of the first given cross-section due to the blade 24 having a tilt angle αT with respect to a line parallel to the centerline CL; “Each blade 24 is oriented at a tilt angle αT with respect to a line normal to the OD portion 36 of the backplate 22 (i.e., a line parallel to the centerline CL) (see FIG. 4). The blades 24 are tilted in a direction into the direction of rotation of the fan apparatus 20 designated by the arrow 28 in FIG. 3” pr. 31); and
an annular shroud (see fan shroud 26 fig. 6) which is connected, facing the end face, to an edge of the blades (see fan shroud 26 which is connected to an edge of the blades 24 and faces the end face of backplate 22 in fig. 6),
wherein the blades are integrally molded with the hub (“the backplate 22 and the blades 24 are integrally molded during fabrication” pr. 27).
Regarding Claim 2, Cahill discloses the impeller according to claim 1, wherein the shroud is integrally molded (fan shroud 26 shown to be formed as an integral component in figs. 1, 3-4 and 6; “fan shroud 26 and the inlet shroud 32 are generally each separately formed by injection molding or other suitable techniques” pr. 38).
Regarding Claim 16, Cahill discloses the impeller according to claim 2, wherein the blades are integrally injection molded with the hub; and/or the shroud is integrally injection molded (fan shroud 26 shown to be formed as an integral component in figs. 1, 3-4 and 6; “fan shroud 26 and the inlet shroud 32 are generally each separately formed by injection molding or other suitable techniques” pr. 38).
Regarding Claim 17, Cahill discloses the impeller according to claim 2, wherein the blades and the hub are integrally molded by a slider injection molding process; and/or the shroud is connected to the edge by welding (“fan shroud 26 is then attached to the blades 24 of the subassembly, using a welding process, mechanical fasteners or other suitable techniques. A welding or welding-like process, such as ultrasonic welding or high frequency electromagnetic welding and bonding, is preferred” pr. 38).
Regarding Claim 20, Cahill discloses the impeller according to claim 2, wherein the impeller is configured as a backward impeller (“a fan apparatus according to the present invention can have its blades arranged in a number of different configurations in alternative embodiments, such as backward curved, backward inclined, radial (or quasi-radial) tip, forward curved, and radial blade configurations” pr. 40).
Regarding Claim 3, Cahill discloses the impeller according to claim 1, wherein the blades are integrally injection molded with the hub (see blades 24 and backplate 22 in fig. 6; “blades 24 and the backplate 22 are usually integrally formed as a single subassembly. If the blades 24 and backplate 22 are injection molded” pr. 38); and/or the shroud is integrally injection molded (fan shroud 26 shown to be formed as an integral component in figs. 1, 3-4 and 6; “fan shroud 26 and the inlet shroud 32 are generally each separately formed by injection molding or other suitable techniques” pr. 38).
Regarding Claim 18, Cahill discloses the impeller according to claim 3, wherein the blades and the hub are integrally molded by a slider injection molding process; and/or the shroud is connected to the edge by welding (“fan shroud 26 is then attached to the blades 24 of the subassembly, using a welding process, mechanical fasteners or other suitable techniques. A welding or welding-like process, such as ultrasonic welding or high frequency electromagnetic welding and bonding, is preferred” pr. 38).
Regarding Claim 4, Cahill discloses the impeller according to claim 1, wherein the blades and the hub are integrally molded by a slider injection molding process; and/or the shroud is connected to the edge by welding (“fan shroud 26 is then attached to the blades 24 of the subassembly, using a welding process, mechanical fasteners or other suitable techniques. A welding or welding-like process, such as ultrasonic welding or high frequency electromagnetic welding and bonding, is preferred” pr. 38).
Regarding Claim 5, Cahill discloses the impeller according to claim 4, wherein the shroud is connected to the edge by ultrasonic welding (“fan shroud 26 is then attached to the blades 24 of the subassembly, using a welding process, mechanical fasteners or other suitable techniques. A welding or welding-like process, such as ultrasonic welding or high frequency electromagnetic welding and bonding, is preferred” pr. 38).
Regarding Claim 10, Cahill discloses the impeller according to claim 1, wherein the impeller is configured as a backward impeller (“a fan apparatus according to the present invention can have its blades arranged in a number of different configurations in alternative embodiments, such as backward curved, backward inclined, radial (or quasi-radial) tip, forward curved, and radial blade configurations” pr. 40).
Regarding Claim 14, Cahill discloses a centrifugal blower (see fan assembly 30, which includes fan assembly 20, in fig. 3; “The fan should preferably be mounted on the front of an engine in the same manner as existing axial flow fans (e.g., belt-driven or crankshaft mounted). Further, the fan should allow use of a viscous fan clutch (also called a viscous fan drive), a device that allows speed control of the fan” pr. 21; Merriam-Webster defines a blower as “ a device for producing a current of air or gas” which the fan assembly 30 qualifies as when the fan subassembly rotates) for a vehicle seat ventilation system, the blower comprising the impeller according to claim 1 (see fig. 6; see rejection of claim 1 above over Cahill).
Regarding Claim 15, Cahill discloses a vehicle seat ventilation system (as stated in the Claim Interpretation section above, the corresponding structure to accomplish the functional language recited in the claim for this system is an impeller and/or a blower; Cahill discloses both of an impeller and an blower (i.e. a device for producing a current of air) as established in the rejection of claim 1 and claim 14 above, thus anticipating this limitation), which comprises the impeller of the centrifugal blower according to claim 14 (see rejection of the impeller of claim 1 and the impeller of the centrifugal blower of claim 14 above over Cahill).
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.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claim(s) 6-9 and 19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Cahill, as applied to claim 5 above, and further in view of CN113757145A, herein referenced as Schenk.
Regarding Claim 6, Cahill discloses the impeller according to claim 5, but fails to anticipate wherein the shroud and corresponding blades are formed with welding assistance structures which can be engaged with each other; and/or the shroud and corresponding blades are formed with positioning structures which can be inserted into each other.
PNG
media_image2.png
357
505
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Figure 2 of Schenk
Cahill and Schenk are analogous art since they both relate to the field of endeavor of impellers of fans/blowers.
Schenk teaches wherein the shroud and corresponding blades (see top cover 3-3 in fig. 13 blades 3-2 in fig. 12) are formed with welding assistance structures which can be engaged with each other (see plurality of ultrasonic welding ribs 3-2-1 on the edge of blades 3-2 in fig. 12 and the corresponding welding rough surface groove 3-3-3 in fig. 13); and/or the shroud and corresponding blades (see top cover 3-3 in fig. 13 blades 3-2 in fig. 12) are formed with positioning structures which can be inserted into each other (see positioning posts 3-2-2 in fig. 12 which correspond with the positioning holes 3-3-2 in fig. 13). Schenk further teaches that “blade 3-2 has an ultrasonic welding rib 3-2-1 on its upper end face, and the upper cover 3-3 has an ultrasonic welding rough surface groove 3-3-3 on its lower end face corresponding to the ultrasonic welding rib 3-2-1. The upper cover 3-3 and the blade 3-2 are welded together by ultrasonic welding. To ensure that the upper cover 3-3 and the base 3-1 remain concentric during ultrasonic welding, a positioning post 3-2-2 is provided on the upper end face of the three blades 3-2, and a positioning hole 3-3-2 that mates with the positioning post 3-2-2 is provided on the lower end face of the upper cover 3-3” in pr. n0078.
Therefore, it would have been obvious before the effective filing date of invention to one of ordinary skill in the art to have modified the interface between the blades 24 and fan shroud 26 of Cahill with the welding ribs and grooves as well as the positioning posts and holes, disclosed by Schenk, to obtain the benefit of ‘facilitating the ultrasonic welding of the components together and to ensure that they remain concentric while being welded together’ as taught by Schenk.
Regarding Claim 7, the combination of Cahill and Schenk comprises the impeller according to claim 6, wherein the welding assistance structures comprise a boss formed on the edge (plurality of ultrasonic welding ribs 3-2-1 on the edge of blades 3-2 in fig. 12 of Schenk, as used to modify Cahill) and a groove formed at an inner side of the shroud for receiving the boss (welding rough surface groove 3-3-3 on inner side of upper cover 3-3 in fig. 13 of Schenk, as used to modify Cahill), and the shroud is welded to corresponding blades by applying ultrasonic waves from an outer side of the shroud to an area of the boss (see welding grooves 3-3-3 on upper cover 3-3 and welding ribs 3-2-1 in figs. 12-13 of Schenk, as used to modify Cahill’; this limitation renders the claim a product-by-process claim; the apparatus/structure claimed is identical to that of the combination of Cahill and Schenk above and is therefore rendered obvious by the combination above because patentability of a product claim does not depend upon its method of production. See MPEP 2113 “Product-by-Process Claims” for more detail); and/or the positioning structures comprise a positioning pin formed on the edge and a positioning hole formed at the inner side of the shroud for receiving the positioning pin (see positioning posts 3-2-2 formed on edges of the blades 3-2 and the corresponding positioning holes 3-3-2 formed in the welding grooves 3-3-3 of the upper cover 3-3 in figs. 12-13 of Schenk, as used to modify Cahill).
Regarding Claim 8, the combination of Cahill and Schenk comprises the impeller according to claim 7, wherein the positioning pin is located at the boss (positioning post 3-2-2 shown to be located at the welding rib 3-2-1 in fig. 12 of Schenk, as used to modify Cahill), and the positioning hole is located inside the groove (positioning hole 3-3-2 shown to be located inside the welding groove 3-3-3 in fig. 13 of Schenk, as used to modify Cahill).
Regarding Claim 19, the combination of Cahill and Schenk comprises the impeller according to claim 8, wherein each blade is formed with the boss (each of the blades 3-2 are shown to be formed with a welding rib 3-2-1 in fig. 12 of Schenk, as used to modify Cahill); and/or only some of the blades are formed with the positioning pin (only some of the blades 3-2 are shown to be formed with a positioning post 3-2-2 in fig. 12 of Schenk, as used to modify Cahill).
Regarding Claim 9, the combination of Cahill and Schenk comprises the impeller according to claim 7, wherein each blade is formed with the boss (each of the blades 3-2 are shown to be formed with a welding rib 3-2-1 in fig. 12 of Schenk, as used to modify Cahill); and/or only some of the blades are formed with the positioning pin (only some of the blades 3-2 are shown to be formed with a positioning post 3-2-2 in fig. 12 of Schenk, as used to modify Cahill).
Claim(s) 11-13 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Cahill, as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of JP2002168194A, herein referenced as Matsuda.
PNG
media_image3.png
232
258
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Figure 2 of Matsuda
Regarding Claim 11, Cahill discloses the impeller according to claim 1, but fails to anticipate wherein a protruding vortex reducing structure is formed at a suction surface of the blade.
Cahill and Matsuda are analogous art since they both relate to the field of endeavor of centrifugal fans/blowers.
Matsuda teaches wherein a protruding vortex reducing structure is formed at a suction surface of the blade (see bulge 11 on back side of blades 5 in figs. 1-3; “by providing a bulge 11 in the form shown in Figure 1 on the back side 19 of the blade 5 that forms the impeller 2, the generation of separation vortices 9 was suppressed, and the noise associated with these separation vortices 9 was prevented” pr. 31, the back side of the blade being analogous to a leeward side or suction side of the blades 5).
Therefore, it would have been obvious before the effective filing date of invention to one of ordinary skill in the art to have modified the blades of Cahill with the bulge arranged on the back side of the blades, as disclosed by Matsuda, to obtain the benefit of ‘suppressing generation of separation vortices, thereby preventing noise associated with these separation vortices’ as taught by Matsuda.
Regarding Claim 12, the combination of Cahill and Matsuda comprises the impeller according to claim 11, wherein the vortex reducing structure is arranged adjacent to a front edge of the blade; and/or the vortex reducing structure comprises at least one rib (bulge 11 shown to take the form of a rib/strip which extends vertically in figs. 2 and 3(a) of Matsuda, as used to modify Cahill above), which extends not in parallel to a direction of extending of the suction surface of the blade from the front edge to a trailing edge of the blade (bulge 11 shown to primarily extend in the vertical/axial direction in fig. 3(a) of Matsuda, as used to modify Cahill, and not in a direction which the back/suction side of blades 5 extend from the front edge to a trailing edge).
Regarding Claim 13, the combination of Cahill and Matsuda comprises the impeller according to claim 12, wherein the at least one rib comprises a plurality of ribs arranged in parallel to and spaced apart from one another so that the vortex reducing structure is wave-like; and/or the rib extends axially (bulge 11a shown to extend primarily axially in fig. 3(a) of Matsuda, as used to modify Cahill); and/or the vortex reducing structure is arranged at least over half a length of the blade (see bulge width W and chord length L in fig. 2 of Matsuda as used to modify Cahill; a ratio between the bulge width and the chord length L can be “0.1 < W/L < 0.7”, as stated in pr. 15, with a ratio at 0.5 or above meeting this limitation); and/or the rib extends across an entire height of the blade (bulge 11a shown to extend across the entire height of the primarily axially in fig. 3(a) of Matsuda, as used to modify Cahill).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
US 8834121 and JP2019167939A – discloses a centrifugal impeller with a hub and hub plate which are integrally molded with blades, the blades having a tilted/twisted profile.
JP6581361B2 – discloses a centrifugal impeller where the top shroud and the blades are bonded by ultrasonic welding, the interface between which includes welding assistance structures and positioning structures.
US 10590947 and US 2005/0071998 discloses a centrifugal compressor with components with a bonding interface that is joined by ultrasonic welding, the interface also includes welding assistance structures and positioning structures.
US 2017/0164757 – discloses a system for heating and cooling a vehicle seat which employs the use of a fan/blower.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Wesley Fisher whose telephone number is (469)295-9146. The examiner can normally be reached 10:00AM to 5:30PM, Monday - Friday.
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, Court Heinle can be reached at (571) 270-3508. 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.
/W.L.F./Examiner, Art Unit 3745
/COURTNEY D HEINLE/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3745 i
