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 .
This action is in response to the amendments and remarks filed 12/05/2025.
Claims 1-13 and 15 are presented for examination.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 1-13 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
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) 1-2, 5, 9-13, and 15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Longhouse in US Patent 3937192 (hereinafter “Longhouse”).
Regarding claim 1, Longhouse discloses an axial fan with a nozzle 54 and with a rotatable impeller which has freely ending blades 24 forming blade tips, wherein the nozzle forms a main flow duct which connects an inflow side of the fan (left side of Fig. 4) to an outflow side of the fan (right side of Fig. 4) and defines a main flow direction as a result, wherein the nozzle 54 surrounds the impeller, wherein the nozzle 54 does not corotate with the impeller, wherein there is a bypass duct 64 present which forms a flow connection from an outflow-side surrounding area of the nozzle into an inflow-side region of the main flow duct for the purpose of returning outflow-side air into the main flow duct of the nozzle, wherein the bypass duct opens in the main flow direction in a region of free ends of the blades of the impeller into the main flow duct (the bypass duct may be said to “open” to the main flow after the axial end of the nozzle 52, which is a “region” of the blade tips), and wherein the bypass duct opens in the main flow direction adjacently downstream of the blade tips of the impeller into the main flow duct (the bypass duct may be said to “open” to the main flow at the axial end of the nozzle 54, which is just downstream of the blades).
PNG
media_image1.png
438
539
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 2, Longhouse discloses the axial fan according to Claim 1, wherein the bypass duct has the same inflow direction as the main flow duct when opening into the main flow duct (Fig. 4; left to right).
Regarding claim 5, Longhouse discloses the axial fan according to Claim 1, wherein the axial fan has a carrier part, on which the impeller is arranged rotatably and on which the nozzle is arranged in a stationary manner, and wherein the bypass duct is formed between a wall of the carrier part and a wall of the nozzle (as Longhouse is directed to an automotive fan, the implied vehicle chassis could be considered a “carrier part” such that claim 5 is anticipated because the bypass duct 64 is between the vehicle chassis and nozzle 54).
Regarding claim 9, Longhouse discloses the axial fan according to Claim 1, wherein the bypass duct is of all-round formation (its an annular body of revolution).
Regarding claim 10, Longhouse discloses the axial fan according to Claim 1, wherein the bypass duct is formed to be multiple times smaller in terms of a flow length and a cross section of the bypass duct than the main flow duct (here, if the flow length of the bypass duct is considered to be only the space between member 64 and 54, then it is much smaller than the cross section of the main flow duct and has an axial length much shorter than that of the main flow duct).
Regarding claim 11, Longhouse discloses the axial fan according to Claim 1, wherein the bypass duct 64 has an inlet opening which has a greater cross section than an outlet opening of the bypass duct (Fig. 4; see the bell mouth shape).
Regarding claim 12, Longhouse discloses the axial fan according to Claim 1, wherein the bypass duct forms an arc before opening into the main flow duct (Fig. 4; see the bell mouth shape).
Regarding claim 13, Longhouse discloses the axial fan according to Claim 1, wherein the nozzle 54 tapers at least in its inlet-side region towards the outflow side (Fig. 4).
Regarding claim 15, Longhouse discloses the axial fan according to Claim 13, wherein the nozzle tapers over an entire length of the nozzle towards the outflow side (as the inlet has a larger cross section than the outlet, the nozzle may be considered to “taper over an entire length”; Applicant might consider refining this language to overcome a rejection based on Longhouse alone).
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) 4 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Longhouse alone.
Regarding claim 4, Longhouse cannot be considered to disclose a motor upstream of the equivalent nozzle. At best Longhouse can be said to disclose a motor downstream of the nozzle. However, simply reversing the mounting of a fan so it blows one way and not the other would have been obvious to try to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention. Particularly in automotives, it is known to employ accessory fans for cooling various components. Positioning a fan driven by a motor so that the direction of air flow either blows towards the motor (fan and nozzle upstream of the motor) or away from the motor (fan and nozzle downstream of the motor) would have been an obvious consideration to one of ordinary skill in the art with the motivation to direct airflow to different components to achieve a particularly desired cooling effect and arrive at the claimed invention.
Allowable Subject Matter
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter.
Claims 3 and 6-8 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Regarding claim 3, the art of record is silent to the axial fan according to Claim 1, wherein, when opening into the main flow duct, the bypass duct forms a step-free extension of an inner wall, following in the main flow direction, of the nozzle. Longhouse, applied above and considered the closest art of record, comprises a bypass duct that is separate from and not an extension of the nozzle.
Regarding claims 6-8, Longhouse, applied above and considered the closest art of record, is silent to the axial fan according to Claim 5, wherein the wall of the carrier part and the wall of the nozzle have the same orientation and inclination when opening into the bypass duct. While Longhouse may be broadly considered to disclose a carrier, or just a vehicle chassis, that structure fails to meet the carrier part structure required of claim 6. Claims 7-8 depend on claim 6.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ELDON T BROCKMAN whose telephone number is (571)270-3263. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri 9am-5pm EST.
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.
/ELDON T BROCKMAN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3799