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 .
Status of the Claims
This is a non-final rejection in response to the communication filed 11/19/2025. Clams 1-11 are currently pending.
Election/Restrictions
Applicant's election with traverse of Species I(A), Species I(A1)-II, Species I(A2)-II and Species I(A3)-I in the reply filed on 11/19/2025 is acknowledged.
Examiner notes, the restriction/election among Groups I(A1), I(A2) and I(A3) is withdrawn as Applicant has identified “species (Species Sub-Group l(A 1 ), Species Sub-Group l(A2) and Species Sub-Group l(A3))” as obvious variants of each other.
Examiner also notes, because applicant did not distinctly and specifically point out the supposed errors in the restriction requirement with respect to Species Group I and Species Sub-Group I(C1), the election has been treated as an election without traverse with respect to those groups (MPEP § 818.01(a)).
Regarding traversal arguments that “the identified species are sufficiently related such as not to create an undue burden on the Examiner in examining all the identified species”. This is not found persuasive there is a serious search and/or examination burden for the patentably distinct species because at least the following reason(s) apply: the species have mutually exclusive characteristics, the species require a different field of search (e.g., searching different classes/subclasses or electronic resources, or employing different search queries), and/or the prior art applicable to one species would not likely be applicable to another species and/or the species are likely to raise different non-prior art issues under 35 U.S.C. 101 and/or 35 U.S.C. 112, first paragraph.
Examiner notes that, applicant submits that claims 1-4, 6, 8 and 9 read on the elected species. However, claim 5 appears to be represented by Species Group I(A1)-III which Group I(A1) is asserted by Applicant to be an obvious variant among Groups I(A2) and I(A3). Similarly, claim 7 appears to be represented by Species Group I(A2)-I which Group I(A2) is asserted by Applicant to be an obvious variant among Groups I(A1) and I(A3).
On the other hand, the limitations of claim 8 (i.e. positioned inward of the intake-hole forming portion) appears to be related to Species I(C)I as represented by figures 9-11.
Therefore, claims 8 and 10-11 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b), as being drawn to a nonelected Species I(B), Species I(C), Species l(C1)-I and Species l(C1)-II there being no allowable generic or linking claim.
Specification
The title of the invention is not descriptive. A new title is required that is clearly indicative of the invention to which the claims are directed.
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.
Claim(s) 1-7 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by US Patent 6,030,286 to Kameoka et al. (Kameoka).
In Reference to Claim 1
Kameoka discloses a blower (abstract) comprising:
a casing (Fig. 2, 74 for instance) having an intake hole opening (76) on one side in an axial direction in which an axis extends is the axial direction (direction through the center of 72 and up and down for instance);
a centrifugal fan (72) housed within the casing (74), the centrifugal fan including blades (71) arranged in a circumferential direction about the axis (see figure 3), each pair of adjacent blades defining an air flow path therebetween (space between adjacent 71 for instance, see figure 3), and the blades rotating in one rotational direction about the axis (see figure 5A) for drawing air from the one side in the axial direction through the intake hole into the air flow path and discharging the drawn air outward in a radial direction with respect to the axis (air through 76 and out of 75 for instance, see figures 2 and 3); and
at least one guide (Fig. 2, 80 for instance) having a guide surface (sides of 80, one side seen in figure 2 for instance) directing air into the air flow path such that the air swirls in the one rotational direction while being drawn into the air flow path of the centrifugal fan (see flow arrows in figure 2 and position of 80 in figure 5A for instance), wherein
the at least one guide (80) is configured such that a main stream of air flowing from the one side to another side in the axial direction and drawn into the air flow path is directed toward a direction of a main stream of air flowing through the air flow path (see flow arrows in figure 2 and position of 80 in figure 5A for instance).
In Reference to Claim 2
Kameoka discloses the blower according to claim 1, wherein the guide surface is formed such that the guide surface (Fig. 5A, left or right sides of 80 for instance) is inclined in a direction opposite to the one rotational direction as the guide surface extends from an inner side (bottom side of 80 for instance) to an outer side (top side of 80 for instance) in the radial direction with respect to the axis (a direction left to right for instance).
In Reference to Claim 3
Kameoka discloses the blower according to claim 2, wherein the guide surface (Fig. 5A, left side of 80 for instance) is a first guide surface provided on a side in the one rotational direction of the at least one guide (80), the at least one guide has a second guide surface provided on another side in the opposite rotational direction (right side of 80 for instance), and the second guide surface is formed such that the second guide surface is inclined in the direction opposite to the rotational direction as the second guide surface extends from the inner side to the outer side in the radial direction with respect to the axis (see 80 in figure 5A for instance), and guiding the air to be drawn into the air flow path of the centrifugal fan such that the air swirls in the one rotational direction (see flow arrows in figure 2 and position of 80 in figure 5A for instance).
In Reference to Claim 4
Kameoka discloses the blower according to claim 3, wherein the first guide surface (Fig. 5A, left side of 80 for instance) is formed in an arcuate shape being convex in the one rotational direction (see left side of 80), and the second guide surface (right side of 80 for instance) is formed in an arcuate shape being concave in the one rotational direction (see right side of 80).
In Reference to Claim 5
Kameoka discloses the blower according to claim 3, wherein a distance between the first guide surface and the second guide surface is a thickness (Fig. 5A, left and right surface of 80 for instance), and the thickness of the at least one guide (of 80) decreases from the outer side (top side of 80 for instance) to the inner side (bottom side of 80) in the radial direction with respect to the axis (from left to right for instance).
In Reference to Claim 6
Kameoka discloses the blower according to claim 1, wherein the at least one guide is one of guides arranged at intervals in the circumferential direction about the axis (see the guides in figure 4 and their arrangement for instance).
In Reference to Claim 7
Kameoka discloses the blower according to claim 6, wherein the guides are arranged at equal intervals in the circumferential direction (see the arrangement of 80 on figure 4 for instance).
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.
Claim(s) 9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as anticipated by or, in the alternative, under 35 U.S.C. 103 as obvious over US Patent 6,030,286 to Kameoka et al. (Kameoka) as evidenced by Applicant’s admission of obviousness.
In Reference to Claim 9
Kameoka discloses the blower according to claim 1, wherein the casing (Fig. 2, 74) has an intake-hole forming portion (77 for instance) defining the air intake hole (76), the intake-hole forming portion has a forming portion end (bottom end of 77 for instance) surrounding an intake-hole end positioned furthest on another side in the axial direction of the intake hole (the bell mouth form of 77 for instance), an inner guide region is a region of the at least one guide (lower edge of 80 for instance) positioned inward of the intake-hole forming portion in the radial direction with respect to the axis (in figure 2, it is taught that the lower edge of 80 is aligned with 77 which an obvious variant, as asserted by Applicant, of the lower edge of 80 being positioned beyond 77 in another variant, thus the previous italics limitations are obvious), and another end portion of the inner guide region in the axial direction is positioned on another side in the axial direction relative to the forming portion end (upper edge of 80 for instance).
Prior Art
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure, as cited in the Notice of References Cited, are cited to show blower assemblies with flow guides at inlet, and blower assemblies with flow guide features.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to WAYNE A LAMBERT whose telephone number is (571)270-3516. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Thursday 9 am - 7 pm.
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.
/WAYNE A LAMBERT/Examiner, Art Unit 3745
/NATHANIEL E WIEHE/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3745