Election/Restrictions
Applicant's election with traverse of Species I (FIG. 7A-8B) in the reply filed on 29 July 2026 is acknowledged. The traversal is on the ground(s) that there is no serious search burden. This is not found persuasive because the reasons for serious search burden were already provided on Page 3 of the Requirement for Restriction/Election mailed on 27 November 2026.
The requirement is still deemed proper and is therefore made FINAL.
Claims 3-4 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b), as being drawn to a nonelected Species, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Applicant timely traversed the restriction (election) requirement in the reply filed on 29 July 2026.
DETAILED ACTION
Status of Claims
This action is in reply to the communication(s) filed on 29 July 2026.
Claims 1-6 are currently pending.
Claims 1-2 and 5-6 are being considered.
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 .
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement(s) (IDS) submitted was/were considered by the Examiner.
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.
Examiner note: no 112(f) invocations have been identified by the Office.
Drawings
Figures 1, 2A, 2B, and 3 should be designated by a legend such as --Prior Art-- because only that which is old is illustrated. See MPEP § 608.02(g). Corrected drawings in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. The replacement sheet(s) should be labeled “Replacement Sheet” in the page header (as per 37 CFR 1.84(c)) so as not to obstruct any portion of the drawing figures. If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
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 1-2 and 5-6 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 pre-AIA the applicant regards as the invention.
Regarding Claim 1:
Where applicant acts as his or her own lexicographer to specifically define a term of a claim contrary to its ordinary meaning, the written description must clearly redefine the claim term and set forth the uncommon definition so as to put one reasonably skilled in the art on notice that the applicant intended to so redefine that claim term. Process Control Corp. v. HydReclaim Corp., 190 F.3d 1350, 1357, 52 USPQ2d 1029, 1033 (Fed. Cir. 1999). The term “turbofan” in claim 1 is used by the claim to mean “it is not clear what the claim language is intended to mean,” while the accepted meaning is “a fan that is directly connected to and driven by a turbine and is used to supply air for cooling, ventilation, or combustion.” The term is indefinite because the specification does not clearly redefine the term.
Regarding Claim 2:
The claim language "the suction portion," renders the claim indefinite because the language lacks antecedent basis for the limitation in the claim. It is not clear if the suction portion is meant to refer to the suction port, or if an additional structure is required. For purposes of examination the Examiner interprets the claim language to instead be, " the suction port [[portion]]."
Regarding claims 2 and 5-6:
Claims 2 5-6 are rejected by virtue of dependence on rejected claims.
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 1-2 and 5-6 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wagner et al (US 5536140), hereafter referred to as Wagner, in view of Davidson (US 0820398).
Regarding Claim 1, Wagner discloses the following:
A blower (10) comprising:
a motor (having shaft 24; FIG. 3);
a closed impeller (11) that is rotated by the motor (having shaft 24; FIG. 3) and is a turbofan; and
a fan case (12) that accommodates the closed impeller (11),
wherein
the fan case (12) includes
a scroll portion (31) surrounding the closed impeller (11), and
a duct portion (36) extending from the scroll portion (31),
the scroll portion (31) includes a suction port (center of 27) through which a rotation axis of the motor (having shaft 24; FIG. 3) passes and through which gas is sucked,
the duct portion (36) includes a discharge port (14) that discharges gas,
Wagner does not explicitly disclose the following:
an inner peripheral edge of the suction port includes
an arc edge extending in an arc shape about the rotation axis, and
a straight edge extending in a straight line shape continuously from the arc edge when viewed in a direction of the rotation axis.
However Davidson teaches the following:
an inner peripheral edge of the suction port (C) includes
an arc edge (as seen in FIG. 6) extending in an arc shape about the rotation axis, and
a straight edge (as seen in FIG. 6) extending in a straight line shape continuously from the arc edge (as seen in FIG. 6) when viewed in a direction of the rotation axis.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to substitute the blower inlet as disclosed by Wagner, with the blower inlet as disclosed by Davidson, with the reasonable expectation of successfully improving the efficiency of the fan (see Davidson, Page 1, lines 27-44). The Examiner notes, the simple substitution of the inlet arrangement of Wagner with the inlet arrangement of Davidson yields the predictable result of providing a known inlet (i.e. substituting one known means to provide a blower inlet for another known means to provide a blower inlet). This rationale further supports a conclusion of obviousness to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention (see MPEP 2143, I, B).
Regarding Claim 2 Wagner as modified by Davidson discloses the following:
The blower (10) of claim 1,
Davidson continues to teach the following:
wherein the arc edge (as seen in FIG. 6) included in the inner peripheral edge of the suction port (C) is a single, and the straight edge (as seen in FIG. 6) in the inner peripheral edge of the suction portion (C) is a single.
Regarding Claim 5 Wagner as modified by Davidson discloses the following:
The blower (10) of claim 1,
Wagner continues to teach the following:
wherein the scroll portion (31) includes a constant width scroll flow passage that communicates with the suction port (C; as modified by Davidson) and has a constant width in a circumferential direction about the rotation axis (as seen in FIG. 1 of Wagner).
Regarding Claim 6 Wagner as modified by Davidson discloses the following:
The blower (10) of claim 1,
Wagner as modified by Davidson does not disclose the following:
wherein an area of the suction port is larger than an area of the discharge port.
However the Examiner notes the following:
Wagner as modified by Davidson discloses a blower having a suction port and discharge port, but is silent on the specific dimensions of the relative dimensions of the areas of the suction port and the discharge port. In other words, Wagner as modified by Davidson discloses the same structure as the Applicant, except the relative dimensions claimed. The Instant Application has not disclosed the limitation(s) of: wherein an area of the suction port is larger than an area of the discharge port (claim 6); provides any criticality. Note that the mere existence of these relative dimensions themselves in the claim cannot impart criticality as any blower could be described in such a way. Therefore without explicit support for the relative dimensions of the claim(s) providing a critical result, it appears Wagner as modified by Davidson would perform equally well with the relative values as claimed by Applicant. Since the courts have held that, “where the only difference between the prior art and the claims was a recitation of relative dimensions of the claimed device and a device having the claimed relative dimensions would not perform differently than the prior art device, the claimed device was not patentably distinct from the prior art device,” it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the blower having a suction port and discharge port, as disclosed by Wagner as modified by Davidson, by utilizing the specific value(s) (relative dimensions) as described above, with the reasonable expectation of successfully specifically providing relative dimensions for the inlet and outlet of the blower (see MPEP 2144.04, IV, A).
Conclusion
See form No. 892 for other references pertinent to the application that may not have been cited within the Office Action.
For references which show similar blower arrangements see Pages 1-2.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to BRIAN C DELRUE whose telephone number is (313)446-6567. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday; 9:00 AM - 5:00 PM (Eastern).
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.
/BRIAN CHRISTOPHER DELRUE/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3745
Prosecution Insights