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 .
Response to Amendment
The amendment submitted 03/17/2026 has been entered. Claims 1-17 remain pending.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, see Remarks, filed 03/17/2026, with respect to the rejection(s) of claim(s) 1-17 have been fully considered and are persuasive. Therefore, the rejection has been withdrawn. However, upon further consideration, a new ground(s) of rejection is made in view of JP 2021187286 to Maeda.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
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) 1-2, 7, and 11 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over JP 2021187286 to Maeda (see machine translation in file wrapper) in view of US 7811055 to Stommel.
(a) Regarding claim 1:
(i) Maeda discloses:
an air conditioning case (casing 20, Fig 11) that has an inner wall (inner surface of casing 20, Fig 11), wherein the inner wall forms an air passage (cavity within casing 20, Fig 11) which is configured to conduct air (Par 0020);
a blower fan (fan 31, Fig 11) that is a centrifugal fan (Par 0022) and is disposed in the air passage (Fig 11),
wherein a direction, in which an axis of the blower fan (axis S, Fig 1) extends, is defined as an axial direction (as defined), and
the blower fan is configured to rotate about the axis (Par 0022) to draw in the air from one side in the axial direction (side having inlet 32a, Fig 11) and to blow the air out toward a radially outer side in a radial direction about the axis (Par 0022);
a cover (cover 34, Fig 11) that is disposed on another side in the axial direction with respect to the blower fan in the air passage (Fig 11) and is formed to entirely cover an axial side of the blower fan from the another side in the axial direction (Fig 11),
wherein the cover forms, between the cover and the inner wall, a through-passage (air passage 22, Fig 11) that is entirely located on a radially outer side over the cover (Fig 11) and is configured to conduct the air blow out from the blower fan toward the another side in the axial direction (Par 0020).
(ii) Maeda does not disclose:
at least one swirl flow suppressor that is disposed in the through-passage and is elongated along the radial direction, wherein:
a one-side end portion of the at least one swirl flow suppressor, which faces the one side in the axial direction, is formed to extend toward the another side in the axial direction as the one-side end portion extends from a radially inner side toward the radially outer side in the radial direction.
(iii) Stommel teaches a blower device (see abstract) comprising:
a cover (unlabeled cover corresponding to retaining ring 5, Figs 1/3-4) that is disposed on another side in the axial direction with respect to the blower fan in the air passage (Figs 3-4) and is formed to cover the blower fan from the another side in the axial direction (Figs 3-4),
wherein the cover forms, between the cover and the inner wall, a through-passage (space between retaining ring 5 and fan housing 2, Figs 1/3-4) that is configured to conduct the air blown out from the blower fan toward the another side in the axial direction (flow direction L, Figs 1/3-4); and
at least one swirl flow suppressor (struts 9/10 Figs 3-4) that is disposed in the through-passage and is elongated along the radial direction (Figs 3-4), wherein:
a one-side end portion of the at least one swirl flow suppressor (end proximate front edges 9a/10a, Figs 3-4), which faces the one side in the axial direction (Figs 3-4), is formed to extend toward the another side in the axial direction as the one-side end portion extends from a radially inner side toward the radially outer side in the radial direction (Fig 3).
(iv) It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the cover as disclosed by Maeda with the above aforementioned at least one swirl flow suppressor as taught by Stommel for the purpose of providing axial and radial rigidity (Col 1 Ln 66 – Col 2 Ln4; Col 2 Lns 34-37/47-55).
(v) The Examiner notes “to suppress a swirl flow of the air generated by rotation of the blower fan, and thereby to generate an airflow that flows toward the another side in the axial direction” is a functional limitation and since Stommel discloses all structural limitations of the claim the at least one swirl flow suppressor of Stommel can perform the claimed function.
(b) Regarding claim 2:
(i) Maeda discloses:
an air conditioning case (casing 20, Fig 11) that has an inner wall (inner surface of casing 20, Fig 11), wherein the inner wall forms an air passage (cavity within casing 20, Fig 11) which is configured to conduct air (Par 0020);
a blower fan (fan 31, Fig 11) that is a centrifugal fan (Par 0022) and is disposed in the air passage (Fig 11),
wherein a direction, in which an axis of the blower fan (axis S, Fig 1) extends, is defined as an axial direction (as defined), and
the blower fan is configured to rotate about the axis (Par 0022) to draw in the air from one side in the axial direction (side having inlet 32a, Fig 11) and to blow the air out toward a radially outer side in a radial direction about the axis (Par 0022);
a cover (cover 34, Fig 11) that is disposed on another side in the axial direction with respect to the blower fan in the air passage (Fig 11) and is formed to entirely cover an axial side of the blower fan from the another side in the axial direction (Fig 11),
wherein the cover forms, between the cover and the inner wall, a through-passage (air passage 22, Fig 11) that is entirely located on a radially outer side over the cover (Fig 11) and is configured to conduct the air blow out from the blower fan toward the another side in the axial direction (Par 0020).
(ii) Maeda does not disclose:
at least one swirl flow suppressor that is disposed in the through-passage and is elongated along the radial direction, wherein:
a one-side end portion of the at least one swirl flow suppressor, which faces the one side in the axial direction, is formed to extend toward the one side in the axial direction as the one-side end portion extends from a radially inner side toward the radially outer side in the radial direction.
(iii) Stommel teaches a blower device (see abstract) comprising:
a cover (unlabeled cover corresponding to retaining ring 5, Figs 1/3-4) that is disposed on another side in the axial direction with respect to the blower fan in the air passage (Figs 3-4) and is formed to cover the blower fan from the another side in the axial direction (Figs 3-4),
wherein the cover forms, between the cover and the inner wall, a through-passage (space between retaining ring 5 and fan housing 2, Figs 1/3-4) that is configured to conduct the air blown out from the blower fan toward the another side in the axial direction (flow direction L, Figs 1/3-4); and
at least one swirl flow suppressor (struts 9/10 Figs 3-4) that is disposed in the through-passage and is elongated along the radial direction (Figs 3-4), wherein:
a one-side end portion of the at least one swirl flow suppressor (end proximate front edges 9a/10a, Figs 3-4), which faces the one side in the axial direction (Figs 3-4), is formed to extend toward the one side in the axial direction as the one-side end portion extends from a radially inner side toward the radially outer side in the radial direction (Fig 4).
(iv) It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the cover as disclosed by Maeda with the above aforementioned at least one swirl flow suppressor as taught by Stommel for the purpose of providing axial and radial rigidity (Col 1 Ln 66 – Col 2 Ln4; Col 2 Lns 34-37/47-55).
(v) The Examiner notes “to suppress a swirl flow of the air generated by rotation of the blower fan, and thereby to generate an airflow that flows toward the another side in the axial direction” is a functional limitation and since Stommel discloses all structural limitations of the claim the at least one swirl flow suppressor of Stommel can perform the claimed function.
(c) Regarding claim 7:
(i) Maeda discloses:
an air conditioning case (casing 20, Fig 11) that has an inner wall (inner surface of casing 20, Fig 11), wherein the inner wall forms an air passage (cavity within casing 20, Fig 11) which is configured to conduct air (Par 0020);
a blower fan (fan 31, Fig 11) that is a centrifugal fan (Par 0022) and is disposed in the air passage (Fig 11),
wherein a direction, in which an axis of the blower fan (axis S, Fig 1) extends, is defined as an axial direction (as defined), and
the blower fan is configured to rotate about the axis (Par 0022) to draw in the air from one side in the axial direction (side having inlet 32a, Fig 11) and to blow the air out toward a radially outer side in a radial direction about the axis (Par 0022);
a cover (cover 34, Fig 11) that is disposed on another side in the axial direction with respect to the blower fan in the air passage (Fig 11) and is formed to entirely cover an axial side of the blower fan from the another side in the axial direction (Fig 11),
wherein the cover forms, between the cover and the inner wall, a through-passage (air passage 22, Fig 11) that is entirely located on a radially outer side over the cover (Fig 11) and is configured to conduct the air blow out from the blower fan toward the another side in the axial direction (Par 0020).
(ii) Maeda does not disclose:
at least one swirl flow suppressor that is disposed in the through-passage and is elongated along the radial direction, wherein:
a dimension of the at least one swirl flow suppressor, which is measured in a rotational direction of the blower fan, increases as the at least one swirl flow suppressor extends from a radially inner side toward the radially outer side in the radial direction.
(iii) Stommel teaches a blower device (see abstract) comprising:
a cover (unlabeled cover corresponding to retaining ring 5, Figs 1/3-4) that is disposed on another side in the axial direction with respect to the blower fan in the air passage (Figs 3-4) and is formed to cover the blower fan from the another side in the axial direction (Figs 3-4),
wherein the cover forms, between the cover and the inner wall, a through-passage (space between retaining ring 5 and fan housing 2, Figs 1/3-4) that is configured to conduct the air blown out from the blower fan toward the another side in the axial direction (flow direction L, Figs 1/3-4); and
at least one swirl flow suppressor (struts 9/10 Figs 3-4) that is disposed in the through-passage and is elongated along the radial direction (Figs 3-4), wherein:
a dimension of the at least one swirl flow suppressor, which is measured in a rotational direction of the blower fan, increases as the at least one swirl flow suppressor extends from a radially inner side toward the radially outer side in the radial direction (Col 2 Lns 50-54; “radially outer area” and “increasing the strut width”, Col 4 Lns 12-18).
(iv) It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the cover as disclosed by Maeda with the above aforementioned at least one swirl flow suppressor as taught by Stommel for the purpose of providing axial and radial rigidity (Col 1 Ln 66 – Col 2 Ln4; Col 2 Lns 34-37/47-55).
(v) The Examiner notes “to suppress a swirl flow of the air generated by rotation of the blower fan, and thereby to generate an airflow that flows toward the another side in the axial direction” is a functional limitation and since Stommel discloses all structural limitations of the claim the at least one swirl flow suppressor of Stommel can perform the claimed function.
(d) Regarding claim 11:
(i) Maeda as modified by Stommel teaches the blower device according to claim 1.
(ii) Stommel further teaches wherein the at least one swirl flow suppressor is a plurality of swirl flow suppressors that are arranged at intervals in a circumferential direction about the axis (at least two at different circumferential locations, Figs 3-4).
Claim(s) 3 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over JP 2021187286 to Maeda (see machine translation in file wrapper) in view of US 7811055 to Stommel in view of US 7334987 to Oh.
(a) Regarding claim 3:
(i) Maeda as modified by Stommel teaches the blower device of claim 1.
(ii) Stommel further teaches wherein:
an end part of the one-side end portion of the at least one swirl flow suppressor, which faces the one side in the axial direction and is located radially innermost in the radial direction in the one-side end portion, is defined as a radially inner end part (must exist as defined);
an end part of the one-side end portion of the at least one swirl flow suppressor, which faces the one side in the axial direction and is located radially outermost in the radial direction in the one-side end portion, is defined as a radially outer end part (must exist as defined);
a distance between the radially inner end part and the radially outer end part measured in the axial direction is defined as an axial distance (axial distance between radially inner and outer ends); and
the at least one swirl flow suppressor is a plurality of swirl flow suppressors that include two or more swirl flow suppressors (at least two as shown in Figs 3-4).
(iii) Maeda as modified by Stommel does not teach wherein the axial distances of the two or more swirl flow suppressors are different from each other.
(iv) Oh is also in the field of blower devices (see title) and teaches a plurality of swirl flow suppressors (diffuser wings 321-323, Fig 10A-C) each having a different axial distance between radially inner and radially outer end parts (the axial distances of each swirl flow suppressor being a respective height difference H1 which varies for each swirl flow suppressor, Fig 10; Col 6 Lns 8-10).
(v) It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the plurality of swirl flow suppressors as taught by the combined teachings of Maeda as modified by Stommel to have different axial distances as taught by Oh for the purpose of reducing air whirlpools and reducing noise (Col 6 Lns 4-10/13-15).
Claim(s) 4-5, 9, and 14-17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over JP 2021187286 to Maeda (see machine translation in file wrapper) in view of US 7811055 to Stommel in further view of JP 6488612 to Takemoto (see machine translations in file wrapper).
(a) Regarding claim 4:
(i) Maeda discloses:
an air conditioning case (casing 20, Fig 11) that has an inner wall (inner surface of casing 20, Fig 11), wherein the inner wall forms an air passage (cavity within casing 20, Fig 11) which is configured to conduct air (Par 0020);
a blower fan (fan 31, Fig 11) that is a centrifugal fan (Par 0022) and is disposed in the air passage (Fig 11),
wherein a direction, in which an axis of the blower fan (axis S, Fig 1) extends, is defined as an axial direction (as defined), and
the blower fan is configured to rotate about the axis (Par 0022) to draw in the air from one side in the axial direction (side having inlet 32a, Fig 11) and to blow the air out toward a radially outer side in a radial direction about the axis (Par 0022);
a cover (cover 34, Fig 11) that is disposed on another side in the axial direction with respect to the blower fan in the air passage (Fig 11) and is formed to entirely cover an axial side of the blower fan from the another side in the axial direction (Fig 11),
wherein the cover forms, between the cover and the inner wall, a through-passage (air passage 22, Fig 11) that is entirely located on a radially outer side over the cover (Fig 11) and is configured to conduct the air blow out from the blower fan toward the another side in the axial direction (Par 0020).
(ii) Maeda does not disclose:
at least one swirl flow suppressor that is disposed in the through-passage and is elongated along the radial direction, wherein:
(iii) Stommel teaches a blower device (see abstract) comprising:
a cover (unlabeled cover corresponding to retaining ring 5, Figs 1/3-4) that is disposed on another side in the axial direction with respect to the blower fan in the air passage (Figs 3-4) and is formed to cover the blower fan from the another side in the axial direction (Figs 3-4),
wherein the cover forms, between the cover and the inner wall, a through-passage (space between retaining ring 5 and fan housing 2, Figs 1/3-4) that is configured to conduct the air blown out from the blower fan toward the another side in the axial direction (flow direction L, Figs 1/3-4); and
at least one swirl flow suppressor (struts 9/10 Figs 3-4) that is disposed in the through-passage and is elongated along the radial direction (Figs 3-4).
(iv) It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the cover as disclosed by Maeda with the above aforementioned at least one swirl flow suppressor as taught by Stommel for the purpose of providing axial and radial rigidity (Col 1 Ln 66 – Col 2 Ln4; Col 2 Lns 34-37/47-55).
(v) Maeda as modified by Stommel does not teach wherein: an another-side end portion of the at least one swirl flow suppressor, which faces another side opposite to the one side in the rotational direction, is formed to extend toward the one side in the rotational direction as the another-side end portion extends from a radially inner side toward the radially outer side in the radial direction.
(vi) Takemoto is also in the field of blowers (see title) and teaches a plurality of swirl flow suppressors (wing units 51, Figs 3-4) each having an another-side end portion, which faces another side (opposite to direction of rotation R0, Figs 3-4) opposite to one side in the rotational direction (direction of rotation R0, Figs 3-4), formed to extend toward the one side in the rotational direction as the another-side end portion extends from a radially inner side toward a radially outer side in the radial direction (Fig 4).
(vii) It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the at least one swirl flow suppressor as taught by the combined teachings of Maeda as modified by Stommel with the another-side end portion as taught by Takemoto for the purpose of diffusing the air flow (Par 0030).
(viii) The Examiner notes “to suppress a swirl flow of the air generated by rotation of the blower fan, and thereby to generate an airflow that flows toward the another side in the axial direction” is a functional limitation and since the prior art teaches all structural limitations of the claim the at least one swirl flow suppressor of the prior art can perform the claimed function.
(b) Regarding claim 5:
(i) Maeda discloses:
an air conditioning case (casing 20, Fig 11) that has an inner wall (inner surface of casing 20, Fig 11), wherein the inner wall forms an air passage (cavity within casing 20, Fig 11) which is configured to conduct air (Par 0020);
a blower fan (fan 31, Fig 11) that is a centrifugal fan (Par 0022) and is disposed in the air passage (Fig 11),
wherein a direction, in which an axis of the blower fan (axis S, Fig 1) extends, is defined as an axial direction (as defined), and
the blower fan is configured to rotate about the axis (Par 0022) to draw in the air from one side in the axial direction (side having inlet 32a, Fig 11) and to blow the air out toward a radially outer side in a radial direction about the axis (Par 0022);
a cover (cover 34, Fig 11) that is disposed on another side in the axial direction with respect to the blower fan in the air passage (Fig 11) and is formed to entirely cover an axial side of the blower fan from the another side in the axial direction (Fig 11),
wherein the cover forms, between the cover and the inner wall, a through-passage (air passage 22, Fig 11) that is entirely located on a radially outer side over the cover (Fig 11) and is configured to conduct the air blow out from the blower fan toward the another side in the axial direction (Par 0020).
(ii) Maeda does not disclose:
at least one swirl flow suppressor that is disposed in the through-passage and is elongated along the radial direction, wherein:
(iii) Stommel teaches a blower device (see abstract) comprising:
a cover (unlabeled cover corresponding to retaining ring 5, Figs 1/3-4) that is disposed on another side in the axial direction with respect to the blower fan in the air passage (Figs 3-4) and is formed to cover the blower fan from the another side in the axial direction (Figs 3-4),
wherein the cover forms, between the cover and the inner wall, a through-passage (space between retaining ring 5 and fan housing 2, Figs 1/3-4) that is configured to conduct the air blown out from the blower fan toward the another side in the axial direction (flow direction L, Figs 1/3-4); and
at least one swirl flow suppressor (struts 9/10 Figs 3-4) that is disposed in the through-passage and is elongated along the radial direction (Figs 3-4).
(iv) It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the cover as disclosed by Maeda with the above aforementioned at least one swirl flow suppressor as taught by Stommel for the purpose of providing axial and radial rigidity (Col 1 Ln 66 – Col 2 Ln4; Col 2 Lns 34-37/47-55).
(v) Maeda as modified by Stommel does not teach wherein: an another-side end portion of the at least one swirl flow suppressor, which faces another side opposite to the one side in the rotational direction, is formed to extend toward the another side in the rotational direction as the another-side end portion extends from a radially inner side toward the radially outer side in the radial direction.
(vi) Takemoto is also in the field of blowers (see title) and teaches a plurality of swirl flow suppressors (wing units 51, Figs 3-4) each having an another-side end portion, which faces another side (opposite to direction of rotation R0, Figs 3-4) opposite to one side in the rotational direction (direction of rotation R0, Figs 3-4), formed to extend toward the another side in the rotational direction as the another-side end portion extends from a radially inner side toward a radially outer side in the radial direction (Fig 3).
(vii) It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the at least one swirl flow suppressor as taught by the combined teachings of Maeda as modified by Stommel with the another-side end portion as taught by Takemoto for the purpose of converging the airflow to create a strong wind (Par 0029).
(viii) The Examiner notes “to suppress a swirl flow of the air generated by rotation of the blower fan, and thereby to generate an airflow that flows toward the another side in the axial direction” is a functional limitation and since the prior art teaches all structural limitations of the claim the at least one swirl flow suppressor of the prior art can perform the claimed function.
(c) Regarding claim 9:
(i) Maeda as modified by Stommel teaches the blower device according to claim 1.
(ii) Stommel further teaches wherein:
a direction, which intersects both the axial direction and a rotational direction of the blower fan and is directed from another side toward one side in the rotational direction and from the other side toward the one side in the axial direction, is defined as an intersecting direction (must exist as defined);
the at least one swirl flow suppressor has a one-side end surface, which faces the one side in the rotational direction (must exist as defined), and
the at least one swirl flow suppressor has an another-side end surface, which faces the another side in the rotational direction (must exist as defined).
(iii) Maeda as modified by Stommel does not teach:
wherein the one-side end surface is formed in a curved shape that is convex in the intersecting direction toward the one side in the rotational direction; and
wherein the another-side end surface is formed in a curved shape that is convex in the intersecting direction toward the one side in the rotational direction.
(iv) Takemoto is also in the field of blowers (see title) and teaches:
at least one swirl flow suppressor (wing units 51, Figs 3-4),
a direction, which intersects both an axial direction (direction F1, Fig 2) and a rotational direction (direction F2, Fig 2) of a blower fan (impeller 40, Fig 1) and is directed from another side (side opposite one side in direction of flow) toward one side in the rotational direction (as defined) and from an other side (downstream side relative to airflow direction F1, Fig 2) toward the one side in the axial direction (upstream side relative to airflow direction F1, Fig 2), is defined as an intersecting direction (must exist as defined);
the at least one swirl flow suppressor has a one-side end surface, which faces the one side in the rotational direction (must exist as defined), and
the at least one swirl flow suppressor has an another-side end surface, which faces the another side in the rotational direction (must exist as defined),
wherein the one-side end surface is formed in a curved shape that is convex in the intersecting direction toward the one side in the rotational direction (Figs 1-2); and
wherein the another-side end surface is formed in a curved shape that is convex in the intersecting direction toward the one side in the rotational direction (Figs 1-2).
(v) It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the one-side end surface and another-side end surface of the at least one swirl flow suppressor as taught by the combined teachings of Maeda as modified by Stommel to be formed in a curved shape that is convex in the intersecting direction toward the one side in the rotational direction as taught by Takemoto for the purpose of efficiently sending air flow in the axial direction and reducing wind noise (Par 0025, Lines 55-57).
(d) Regarding claims 14 and 16:
(i) Maeda as modified by Stommel teaches the blower device according to claims 1 and 2.
(ii) Stommel further teaches wherein: the blower fan is configured to rotate toward one side in a rotational direction about the axis (Col 1 Lns 14-15).
(iii) Maeda as modified by Stommel does not teach wherein an another-side end portion of the at least one swirl flow suppressor, which faces another side opposite to the one side in the rotational direction, is formed to extend toward the another side in the rotational direction as the another-side end portion extends from a radially inner side toward the radially outer side in the radial direction.
(iv) Takemoto is also in the field of blowers (see title) and teaches a plurality of swirl flow suppressors (wing units 51, Figs 3-4) each having an another-side end portion, which faces another side (opposite to direction of rotation R0, Figs 3-4) opposite to one side in the rotational direction (direction of rotation R0, Figs 3-4), formed to extend toward the another side in the rotational direction as the another-side end portion extends from a radially inner side toward a radially outer side in the radial direction (Fig 3).
(v) It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the at least one swirl flow suppressor as taught by the combined teachings of Maeda as modified by Stommel with the another-side end portion as taught by Takemoto for the purpose of converging the airflow to create a strong wind (Par 0029).
(e) Regarding claims 15 and 17:
(i) Maeda as modified by Stommel teaches the blower device of claims 1 and 2.
(ii) Stommel further teaches wherein: the blower fan is configured to rotate toward one side in a rotational direction about the axis (Col 1 Lns 14-15).
(iii) Maeda as modified by Stommel does not teach wherein an another-side end portion of the at least one swirl flow suppressor, which faces another side opposite to the one side in the rotational direction, is formed to extend toward the one side in the rotational direction as the another-side end portion extends from a radially inner side toward the radially outer side in the radial direction.
(iii) Takemoto is also in the field of blowers (see title) and teaches a plurality of swirl flow suppressors (wing units 51, Figs 3-4) each having an another-side end portion, which faces another side (opposite to direction of rotation R0, Figs 3-4) opposite to one side in the rotational direction (direction of rotation R0, Figs 3-4), formed to extend toward the one side in the rotational direction as the another-side end portion extends from a radially inner side toward a radially outer side in the radial direction (Fig 4).
(iv) It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the at least one swirl flow suppressor as taught by the combined teachings of Maeda as modified by Stommel with the another-side end portion as taught by Takemoto for the purpose of diffusing the air flow (Par 0030).
Claim(s) 6 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over JP 2021187286 to Maeda (see machine translation in file wrapper) in view of US 7811055 to Stommel in further view of JP 6488612 to Takemoto (see machine translations in file wrapper) as applied to claim 4 above, and further in view of JP 2002081695 to Yoshiki (see machine translation in file wrapper).
(a) Regarding claim 6:
(i) Maeda as modified by Stommel as further modified by Takemoto teaches the blower device according to claim 4.
(ii) Stommel further teaches wherein:
an end part of the another-side end portion of the at least one swirl flow suppressor, which faces the another side in the rotational direction and is located radially innermost in the radial direction in the another-side end portion, is defined as a radially inner end part (must exist as defined);
an end part of the another-side end portion of the at least one swirl flow suppressor, which faces the another side in the rotational direction and is located radially outermost in the radial direction in the another-side end portion, is defined as a radially outer end part (must exist as defined);
a distance between the radially inner end part and the radially outer end part measured in the rotational direction is defined as a rotational distance (must exist as defined); and
the at least one swirl flow suppressor is a plurality of swirl flow suppressors that include two or more swirl flow suppressors (at least two, Figs 3-4).
(iii) Maeda as modified by Stommel as further modified by Takemoto does not teach wherein the rotational distances of the two or more swirl flow suppressors are different from each other.
(iv) Yoshiki is also in the field of blower devices (see abstract) and teaches:
at least one swirl flow suppressor (stationary blade 13, Fig 9),
a distance between a radially inner end part (radially inner end of a respective stationary blade 13, Fig 9) and a radially outer end part (radially outer end of the respective stationary blade 13, Fig 9) measured in the rotational direction is defined as a rotational distance (respective angle β, Fig 9); and
the at least one swirl flow suppressor is a plurality of swirl flow suppressors that include two or more swirl flow suppressors (Fig 9),
wherein the rotational distances of the two or more swirl flow suppressors are different from each other (Par 0039).
(iv) It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the two or more swirl flow suppressors as taught by the combined teachings of Maeda as modified by Stommel as further modified by Takemoto to have different rotational distances as taught by Yoshiki for the purpose of reducing the level of a harmonic range (Par 0040).
Claim(s) 8 and 10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over JP 2021187286 to Maeda (see machine translation in file wrapper) in view of US 7811055 to Stommel in further view of US 11078924 to Schafer.
(a) Regarding claim 8:
(i) Maeda discloses:
an air conditioning case (casing 20, Fig 11) that has an inner wall (inner surface of casing 20, Fig 11), wherein the inner wall forms an air passage (cavity within casing 20, Fig 11) which is configured to conduct air (Par 0020);
a blower fan (fan 31, Fig 11) that is a centrifugal fan (Par 0022) and is disposed in the air passage (Fig 11),
wherein a direction, in which an axis of the blower fan (axis S, Fig 1) extends, is defined as an axial direction (as defined), and
the blower fan is configured to rotate about the axis (Par 0022) to draw in the air from one side in the axial direction (side having inlet 32a, Fig 11) and to blow the air out toward a radially outer side in a radial direction about the axis (Par 0022);
a cover (cover 34, Fig 11) that is disposed on another side in the axial direction with respect to the blower fan in the air passage (Fig 11) and is formed to entirely cover an axial side of the blower fan from the another side in the axial direction (Fig 11),
wherein the cover forms, between the cover and the inner wall, a through-passage (air passage 22, Fig 11) that is entirely located on a radially outer side over the cover (Fig 11) and is configured to conduct the air blow out from the blower fan toward the another side in the axial direction (Par 0020).
(ii) Maeda does not disclose:
at least one swirl flow suppressor that is disposed in the through-passage and is elongated along the radial direction, wherein:
(iii) Stommel teaches a blower device (see abstract) comprising:
a cover (unlabeled cover corresponding to retaining ring 5, Figs 1/3-4) that is disposed on another side in the axial direction with respect to the blower fan in the air passage (Figs 3-4) and is formed to cover the blower fan from the another side in the axial direction (Figs 3-4),
wherein the cover forms, between the cover and the inner wall, a through-passage (space between retaining ring 5 and fan housing 2, Figs 1/3-4) that is configured to conduct the air blown out from the blower fan toward the another side in the axial direction (flow direction L, Figs 1/3-4); and
at least one swirl flow suppressor (struts 9/10 Figs 3-4) that is disposed in the through-passage and is elongated along the radial direction (Figs 3-4).
(iv) It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the cover as disclosed by Maeda with the above aforementioned at least one swirl flow suppressor as taught by Stommel for the purpose of providing axial and radial rigidity (Col 1 Ln 66 – Col 2 Ln4; Col 2 Lns 34-37/47-55).
(v) Maeda as modified by Stommel does not teach wherein: a dimension of the at least one swirl flow suppressor, which is measured in a rotational direction of the blower fan, decreases as the at least one swirl flow suppressor extends from a radially inner side toward the radially outer side in the radial direction.
(iii) Schafer is also in the field of blower devices (see title) and teaches at least one swirl flow suppressor (struts 16 comprising profile 26, Figs 2/4-5) wherein a dimension of the at least one swirl flow suppressor, which is measured in a rotational direction of the blower fan, decreases as the at least one swirl flow suppressor extends from a radially inner side toward the radially outer side in the radial direction (reasonably disclosed in Figs 2 and 4-5; Col 6 Lns 9-14).
(iv) It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the at least one swirl flow suppressor as taught by the combined teachings of Maeda as modified by Stommel with the above aforementioned dimension as taught by Schafer for the purpose of adapting to strength requirements (Col 6 Lns 7-14).
(v) The Examiner notes “to suppress a swirl flow of the air generated by rotation of the blower fan, and thereby to generate an airflow that flows toward the another side in the axial direction” is a functional limitation and since the prior art teaches all structural limitations of the claim the at least one swirl flow suppressor of the prior art can perform the claimed function.
(b) Regarding claim 10:
(i) Maeda as modified by Stommel teaches the blower device according to claim 1.
(ii) Maeda as modified by Stommel does not teach wherein: the at least one swirl flow suppressor has an end surface, which faces in the axial direction and is elongated along a rotational direction of the blower fan; and the end surface is formed such that an acute angle, which is defined between the end surface and a virtual plane that is parallel to the rotational direction and is perpendicular to the axial direction, decreases as the end surface extends from the radially inner side toward the radially outer side.
(iii) Schafer is also in the field of blower devices (see title) and teaches at least one swirl flow suppressor (struts 16 comprising profile 26, Figs 2/4-5) wherein: the at least one swirl flow suppressor has an end surface (surface of profile 26 substantially parallel to profile center line 22, Figs 4-5), which faces in the axial direction and is elongated along a rotational direction of the blower fan (axial direction perpendicular to a rotational direction, the rotational direction which is parallel to dashed line in Figs 4-5); and the end surface is formed such that an acute angle (angle between dashed line and profile center line 22, i.e. complementary angle to angle β, Figs 4-5), which is defined between the end surface and a virtual plane that is parallel to the rotational direction and is perpendicular to the axial direction (Figs 4-5), decreases as the end surface extends from the radially inner side toward the radially outer side (angle β grows larger from a radially inner end to a radially outer end, Col 5 Lns 35-39/56-59; the acute angle must decrease as angle β grows larger).
(iv) It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the at least one swirl suppressor as taught by the combined teachings of Maeda as modified by Stommel with the above aforementioned end surface as taught by Schafer for the purpose of having the lowest possible flow resistance (Col 2 Lns 24-30) and adapting the acute angle to the path of air flowing out through the blower fan (Col 5 Lns 31-34/49-55
Claim(s) 12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over JP 2021187286 to Maeda (see machine translation in file wrapper) in view of US 7811055 to Stommel as applied to claim 11 above, and further in view of JP 2002081695 to Yoshiki (see machine translation in file wrapper).
(a) Regarding claim 12:
(i) Maeda as modified by Stommel teaches the blower device according to claim 11.
(ii) Maeda as modified by Stommel does not teach wherein the plurality of swirl flow suppressors are arranged in the circumferential direction such that the intervals include at least two different intervals which are different from each other.
(iv) Yoshiki is also in the field of blower devices (see abstract) and teaches:
a plurality of flow suppressors (stationary blade 13, Fig 9),
a distance between a radially inner end part (radially inner end of a respective stationary blade 13, Fig 9) and a radially outer end part (radially outer end of the respective stationary blade 13, Fig 9) arranged in the circumferential direction (Fig 9) such that the intervals include at least two different intervals include at least two different intervals which are different from each other (intervals corresponding to respective angles β, Fig 9, Par 0039)
(iv) It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the plurality of swirl flow suppressors as taught by the combined teachings of Maeda as modified by Stommel to have different intervals as taught by Yoshiki for the purpose of reducing the level of a harmonic range (Par 0040).
Claim(s) 13 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over JP 2021187286 to Maeda (see machine translation in file wrapper) in view of US 7811055 to Stommel as evidenced by JP 2002081695 to Yoshiki (see machine translation in the file wrapper).
(a) Regarding claim 13:
(i) Maeda as modified by Stommel teaches the blower device according to claim 11.
(ii) Maeda as modified by Stommel does not teach wherein the plurality of swirl flow suppressors are arranged so as to avoid overlap of respective shadows of the plurality of swirl flow suppressors that are generated when the plurality of swirl flow suppressors are optically projected from the one side in the axial direction.
(iii) The Office is taking official notice that having a plurality of swirl flow suppressors avoid overlap of respective shadows is well known in the art as evidenced by Yoshiki (Figs 2/4/9).
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 Justin A Pruitt whose telephone number is (571)272-8383. The examiner can normally be reached T-F 8:30am - 6:30pm.
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 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.
/JUSTIN A PRUITT/Examiner, Art Unit 3745
/NATHANIEL E WIEHE/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3745
Prosecution Insights