DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Claim Objections
Claim 4 is objected to because of the following informalities: in claim 4 lines 1-2, “125 times” would be clearer if written as --2 times-- as recited in paragraphs [0018] and [0069] of the Applicant’s specification. Appropriate correction is required.
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.
Claims 1-7, 9-13 and 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over German Patent Publication DE102021124391 to Rainer in view of U. S. Patent 4,468,171 to Katsumata.
The Examiner notes that all citations herein to foreign patent documents not in written in English refer to the English language translation thereof.
Referring to claim 1, Rainer teaches a method for operating a fan module (10), which has a fan wheel (14) and a motor (12) for driving the fan wheel (14) (Figures 1-3 paragraph [0036]), the method comprising:
operating the motor (14) in a cleaning operating mode to remove contamination and thereby operating the motor (12) at a predetermined cleaning speed that is greater than a normal speed of the motor (12) (Figures 1-3 paragraphs [0009]-[0015], [0018]-[0020], [0024], [0028] and [0036]).
While Rainer teaches that the cleaning speed is a speed greater than the normal operating speed (paragraphs [0009]-[0015], [0018]-[0020], [0024], [0028] and [0036]), Rainer does not teach that the cleaning speed is a speed that is greater than a rated speed of the motor. However, Rainer teaches that the variable of cleaning speed effects the resulting size of soiling which is cleaned (paragraphs [0009]-[0011]). Accordingly, the cleaning speed is a result effective variable. It would have been obvious before the invention was effectively filed, to a person having ordinary skill in the art, to use a cleaning speed that is greater than a rated speed of the motor, since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art, and since it has been held that discovering an optimum value of a result effective variable involves only routine skill in the art. In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233; In re Boesch, 617 F.2d 272, 205 USPQ 215 (CCPA 1980).
Furthermore, it is well known in the art that a rated speed of a fan motor is used as a normal operating speed of the fan motor (Katsumata, col. 6 lines 40-47).
It would have been obvious before the invention was effectively filed, to a person having ordinary skill in the art, to modify the method taught by Rainer with the rated speed operation taught by Katsumata in order to run the motor at the speed at which it produces the most power without causing damage to the motor.
Accordingly, when the Rainer normal operating speed is the rated speed of the motor, as taught by Katsumata, the increase in speed taught by Rainer to a cleaning speed is an increase in speed from a rated speed of the motor as taught by Katsumata.
Referring to claim 2, Rainer and Katsumata teach a method comprising all the limitations of claim 1, as detailed above, but do not teach wherein the cleaning speed is between 1.5 times and 10 times greater than the rated speed. However, Rainer teaches that the variable of cleaning speed effects the resulting size of soiling which is cleaned (paragraphs [0009]-[0011]). Accordingly, the cleaning speed is a result effective variable. It would have been obvious before the invention was effectively filed, to a person having ordinary skill in the art, to use a cleaning speed between 1.5 times and 10 times greater than the rated speed, since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art, and since it has been held that discovering an optimum value of a result effective variable involves only routine skill in the art. In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233; In re Boesch, 617 F.2d 272, 205 USPQ 215 (CCPA 1980).
Referring to claim 3, Rainer and Katsumata teach a method comprising all the limitations of claim 2, as detailed above, but do not teach wherein the cleaning speed is between 1.5 times and 5 times greater than the rated speed. However, Rainer teaches that the variable of cleaning speed effects the resulting size of soiling which is cleaned (paragraphs [0009]-[0011]). Accordingly, the cleaning speed is a result effective variable. It would have been obvious before the invention was effectively filed, to a person having ordinary skill in the art, to use a cleaning speed between 1.5 times and 5 times greater than the rated speed, since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art, and since it has been held that discovering an optimum value of a result effective variable involves only routine skill in the art. In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233; In re Boesch, 617 F.2d 272, 205 USPQ 215 (CCPA 1980).
Referring to claim 4, Rainer and Katsumata teach a method comprising all the limitations of claim 2, as detailed above, but do not teach wherein the cleaning speed is between 2 times and 4 times greater than the rated speed. However, Rainer teaches that the variable of cleaning speed effects the resulting size of soiling which is cleaned (paragraphs [0009]-[0011]). Accordingly, the cleaning speed is a result effective variable. It would have been obvious before the invention was effectively filed, to a person having ordinary skill in the art, to use a cleaning speed between 2 times and 4 times greater than the rated speed, since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art, and since it has been held that discovering an optimum value of a result effective variable involves only routine skill in the art. In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233; In re Boesch, 617 F.2d 272, 205 USPQ 215 (CCPA 1980).
Referring to claim 5, Rainer and Katsumata teach a method comprising all the limitations of claim 2, as detailed above, but do not teach wherein the cleaning speed is 3 times greater than the rated speed. However, Rainer teaches that the variable of cleaning speed effects the resulting size of soiling which is cleaned (paragraphs [0009]-[0011]). Accordingly, the cleaning speed is a result effective variable. It would have been obvious before the invention was effectively filed, to a person having ordinary skill in the art, to use a cleaning speed is 3 greater than the rated speed, since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art, and since it has been held that discovering an optimum value of a result effective variable involves only routine skill in the art. In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233; In re Boesch, 617 F.2d 272, 205 USPQ 215 (CCPA 1980).
Referring to claim 6, Rainer and Katsumata teach a method comprising all the limitations of claim 1, as detailed above, but do not teach driving the fan wheel at the cleaning speed for a time period between 1 s and 30 s. However, Rainer teaches that the variable of duration of cleaning speed operation effects the resulting vibration and cleaning caused thereby (paragraphs [0009]-[0011]). Accordingly, the duration of cleaning speed operation is a result effective variable. It would have been obvious before the invention was effectively filed, to a person having ordinary skill in the art, to drive the fan wheel at the cleaning speed for a time period between 1 s and 30 s, since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art, and since it has been held that discovering an optimum value of a result effective variable involves only routine skill in the art. In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233; In re Boesch, 617 F.2d 272, 205 USPQ 215 (CCPA 1980).
Referring to claim 7, Rainer and Katsumata teach a method comprising all the limitations of claim 6, as detailed above, but do not teach driving the fan wheel at the cleaning speed for a time period between 1 s and 10 s. However, Rainer teaches that the variable of duration of cleaning speed operation effects the resulting vibration and cleaning caused thereby (paragraphs [0009]-[0011]). Accordingly, the duration of cleaning speed operation is a result effective variable. It would have been obvious before the invention was effectively filed, to a person having ordinary skill in the art, to drive the fan wheel at the cleaning speed for a time period between 1 s and 30 s, since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art, and since it has been held that discovering an optimum value of a result effective variable involves only routine skill in the art. In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233; In re Boesch, 617 F.2d 272, 205 USPQ 215 (CCPA 1980).
Referring to claim 9, Rainer and Katsumata teach a method comprising all the limitations of claim 1, as detailed above, and Rainer further teaches wherein:
the fan module (10) is a motor vehicle fan module configured for use in a motor vehicle (20) (Figures 1-3 paragraphs [0001], [0009]-[0015], [0018]-[0020], [0024], [0028] and [0036]).
Referring to claim 10, Rainer and Katsumata teach a method comprising all the limitations of claim 1, as detailed above, and Rainer further teaches a fan module comprising:
a fan wheel (14); a motor (12) for driving the fan wheel (14); a fan shroud (13) for attaching a heat exchanger (11); and a control unit (15) configured for carrying out the method according to claim 1 (Figures 1-3 paragraphs [0001], [0009]-[0015], [0018]-[0020], [0024], [0028], [0036], [0038] and [0039]).
Referring to claim 11, Rainer and Katsumata teach a fan module comprising all the limitations of claim 10, as detailed above, and Rainer further teaches a fan module wherein:
the fan module (10) is a motor vehicle fan module configured for use in a motor vehicle (20) (Figures 1-3 paragraphs [0001], [0009]-[0015], [0018]-[0020], [0024], [0028] and [0036]).
Referring to claim 12, Rainer and Katsumata teach a fan module comprising all the limitations of claim 10, as detailed above, and Rainer further teaches a fan module wherein:
said fan shroud is formed with a drain hole (the hole(s) in 13 that allows air and contaminants to discharge from the shroud 13, as indicated by the arrows on the right side of the shroud in the Figure 1) for dirt released from the fan wheel (Figures 1-3 paragraphs [0001], [0009]-[0015], [0018]-[0020], [0024], [0028] and [0036]).
Referring to claim 13, Rainer and Katsumata teach a fan module comprising all the limitations of claim 12, as detailed above, and Rainer further teaches a fan module wherein:
said fan shroud (13) includes a shroud ring (the shroud is funnel shaped (paragraph [0036] and therefore forms a ring around the heat exchanger, fan and motor) and said drain hole (the hole(s) in 13 that allows air and contaminants to discharge from the shroud 13, as indicated by the arrows on the right side of the shroud in the Figure 1) for releasing dirt is formed in said shroud ring (Figures 1-3 paragraphs [0001], [0009]-[0015], [0018]-[0020], [0024], [0028] and [0036]).
Referring to claim 15, Rainer and Katsumata teach a fan module comprising all the limitations of claim 1, as detailed above, and Rainer further teaches a device comprising:
a heat exchanger (11); a fan module having a fan wheel (14), a motor (12) for driving said fan wheel (14), a fan shroud (13) for attachment to said heat exchanger (11); and a control unit (15) configured for carrying out the method according to claim 1 by selectively operating said fan module in a cooling mode substantially at a normal speed of the motor (12) or in a cleaning operating mode for removing contamination at the predetermined cleaning speed that is greater than the normal speed.
While Rainer teaches that the cleaning speed is a speed greater than the normal operating speed (paragraphs [0009]-[0015], [0018]-[0020], [0024], [0028] and [0036]), Rainer does not teach that the cleaning speed is a speed that is greater than a rated speed of the motor. However, Rainer teaches that the variable of cleaning speed effects the resulting size of soiling which is cleaned (paragraphs [0009]-[0011]). Accordingly, the cleaning speed is a result effective variable. It would have been obvious before the invention was effectively filed, to a person having ordinary skill in the art, to use a cleaning speed that is greater than a rated speed of the motor, since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art, and since it has been held that discovering an optimum value of a result effective variable involves only routine skill in the art. In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233; In re Boesch, 617 F.2d 272, 205 USPQ 215 (CCPA 1980).
Furthermore, it is well known in the art that a rated speed of a fan motor is used as a normal operating speed of the fan motor (Katsumata, col. 6 lines 40-47).
It would have been obvious before the invention was effectively filed, to a person having ordinary skill in the art, to modify the method taught by Rainer with the rated speed operation taught by Katsumata in order to run the motor at the speed at which it produces the most power without causing damage to the motor.
Accordingly, when the Rainer normal operating speed is the rated speed of the motor, as taught by Katsumata, the increase in speed taught by Rainer to a cleaning speed is an increase in speed from a rated speed of the motor as taught by Katsumata.
Claim 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over German Patent Publication DE102021124391 to Rainer in view of U. S. Patent 4,468,171 to Katsumata and U. S. Patent 6,189,811 to Rudy.
Referring to claim 8, Rainer and Katsumata teach a method comprising all the limitations of claim 1, as detailed above, including wherein Rainer teaches use of the method in a motor vehicle, but do not teach starting the cleaning operating mode when off-road operation is terminated. Rudy teaches a method comprising:
starting a cleaning operating mode when off-road operation is terminated (col. 1 lines 26-28).
It would have been obvious before the invention was effectively filed, to a person having ordinary skill in the art, to modify the method taught by Rainer with the operation after off-road use taught by Rudy in order to remove debris that entered the module during off-road driving.
Claim 14 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over German Patent Publication DE102021124391 to Rainer in view of U. S. Patent 4,468,171 to Katsumata and Chinese Patent Publication CN116241512A to Ren.
Referring to claim 14, Rainer and Katsumata teach a fan module comprising all the limitations of claim 12, as detailed above, but do not teach an additive. Ren teaches a fan module wherein:
at least one of a fan wheel (1, 2) or a fan shroud comprises an additive (3) for increasing a smoothness of a surface thereof (Fig. 1; last paragraph starting on the bottom of page 4 - first full paragraph on page 5).
It would have been obvious before the invention was effectively filed, to a person having ordinary skill in the art, to modify the method taught by Rainer with the additive taught by Ren in order to improve the shedding of materials from the impeller (Ren last paragraph starting on the bottom of page 4 - first full paragraph on page 5).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Mougey and Dewald teach similar high speed fan operations.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to BRYAN MATTHEW LETTMAN whose telephone number is (571)270-7860. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 8am-4pm.
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, Essama Omgba can be reached at 469-295-9278. 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.
/BRYAN M LETTMAN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3746