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 .
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Information Disclosure Statement
The Information Disclosure Statement(s) submitted November 13, 2025 is/are in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97 and 1.98. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement(s) is/are being considered by the examiner.
Claim Objections
Claims 1, 6, 11, and 12 are objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 1, lines 2-3 recite “at least one air inlet on an axial direction and at least one air outlet on a radial direction” and the word “on” in each instance appears to be a typo which should recite “in” to be grammatically correct.
Claim 6, line 1 recites “the ratio” which should be changed to “a ratio” to create proper antecedent basis.
Claim 11, line 1 recites “the ends of the blades” and the word “the” before “end” should be deleted to create proper antecedent basis for “ends”.
Claim 12, line 2 recites “the distribution numbers” and the word “the” should be deleted to create proper antecedent basis.
Appropriate correction is required.
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 4, 5, and 7-9 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 applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claim 4 states “a rotation axis of the hub is equidistant from at least part of an inner wall of the housing”, however the applicant’s use of the word “equidistant” is unclear. The plain and ordinary meaning of “equidistant” is “equally distant” (first definition from merriam-webster.com), which is a comparison between two distances. As the claim is written, there is only a single distance (dimension between the rotation axis and at least part of an inner wall). There is not a second distance to compare the first distance, and thus it is unclear how to determine the scope of the claim. For the purpose of examination, the rotation axis will be treated as being spaced from the inner wall.
Claim 5 recites “the at least one air inlet comprises a plurality of air outlets” which is contradictory and appears to contain a typo. Either the at least one air inlet comprises a plurality of air inlets or the at least one air outlet comprises a plurality of air outlets. Upon inspection of the specification, Figure 1B shows a plurality of air inlets (111, 112) and a plurality of air outlets (113). For the purpose of examination, the claim will be treated as reciting “the at least one air outlet comprises a plurality of air inlets located in different radial directions”.
Claim 7 recites “the blades comprise two lengths” however claim 7 depends from claim 1 which previously introduced “at least two lengths” and it is unclear whether the “two lengths” are part of the “at least two” or are a separate feature (resulting in the blades having at least four lengths total). For the purpose of examination, the “two lengths” will be treated as being part of the at least two lengths.
Claim 8 similarly introduces “a length” which raises the same issue. For the purpose of examination, the “length” will be treated as being part of the at least two lengths.
Claim 9 similarly introduces “a length” which raises the same issue. For the purpose of examination, the “length” will be treated as being part of the at least two lengths.
Any and all claims rejected above under 35 USC 112(b), if rejected with art below under sections 35 USC 102 and/or 103, is/are rejected as best understood.
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) 1-4, 7, and 10-13 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by US 9,568,022 to Chiou.
In Reference to Claim 1#
Chiou teaches:
A centrifugal heat dissipation fan (100’), comprising:
a housing (110’), having at least one air inlet (111, 119) in an axial direction (into and out of the plane of the page of Figure 6) and at least one air outlet (113) in a radial direction (up and down in Figure 6); and
an impeller (120), having a hub (122) and a plurality of blades (124, 126) surrounding the hub, each of the blades extends from the hub, and the hub is rotatably disposed in the housing along the axial direction, the hub drives the blades to rotate in the housing to generate an airflow flowing into the housing via the air inlet and out of the housing via the air outlet, and
the blades have at least two lengths (R1’ through R5’, see Figure 6) to generate a variation of pressure change of the airflow (see and Figures 4-6).
PNG
media_image1.png
700
816
media_image1.png
Greyscale
In Reference to Claim 2#
Chiou teaches:
The centrifugal heat dissipation fan according to claim 1, wherein a rotating axis of the hub coincides with a central axis of the housing. Both the rotating axis and central axis are centered on point O (see Figure 6).
In Reference to Claim 3#
Chiou teaches:
The centrifugal heat dissipation fan according to claim 1, wherein the impeller and the housing are circular outlines concentric to each other (see Figure 6). The examiner notes Figure 6 of appears similar to applicant’s Figure 4, which paragraph 25 of the applicant’s specification states has a “circular outline”.
In Reference to Claim 4#
Chiou teaches:
The centrifugal heat dissipation fan according to claim 1, wherein a rotation axis of the hub is spaced from at least part of an inner wall of the housing (see Figure 6).
In Reference to Claim 7#
Chiou teaches:
The centrifugal heat dissipation fan according to claim 1, wherein the blades comprise two lengths arranged in a staggered manner around the hub. Figure 6 shows two lengths (R1’ and R5’) which are spaced from each other in a staggered manner.
In Reference to Claim 10#
Chiou teaches:
The centrifugal heat dissipation fan according to claim 1, wherein the impeller is non-circular (see Figure 6).
In Reference to Claim 11#
Chiou teaches:
The centrifugal heat dissipation fan according to claim 1, wherein the ends of the blades sequentially pass through an inner wall (inner surface of 114) of the housing to form an airflow compression area (not numbered, see annotated Figure 6), which is tapered along a movement direction of the blades.
PNG
media_image2.png
683
790
media_image2.png
Greyscale
In Reference to Claim 12#
Chiou teaches:
The centrifugal heat dissipation fan according to claim 1, wherein the blades form at least two annular areas (area inside R1’, area between R1’ and R5’) centered on the axial direction, and distribution numbers of the blades in the at least two annular areas are different from each other (see Figure 6).
In Reference to Claim 13#
Chiou teaches:
The centrifugal heat dissipation fan according to claim 12, wherein the number of the blades located in the annular area away from the center is less than the number of the blades located in the annular area close to the center. Figure 6 shows every blade is within the area of R1’, however only blades whose length are longer than R1’ are in the outer area.
Claim(s) 1-4, 8, and 10-13 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by US 10,422,350 to Herrou.
In Reference to Claim 1#
Herrou teaches:
A centrifugal heat dissipation fan (200), comprising:
a housing (210), having at least one air inlet (212) in an axial direction (202) and at least one air outlet (222) in a radial direction; and
an impeller (220), having a hub (224) and a plurality of blades (230) surrounding the hub, each of the blades extends from the hub, and the hub is rotatably disposed in the housing along the axial direction, the hub drives the blades to rotate in the housing to generate an airflow flowing into the housing via the air inlet and out of the housing via the air outlet, and
the blades have at least two lengths (242, 244, 246, 248) to generate a variation of pressure change of the airflow (see column 5, lines 11-29, 41 through column 6, line 28, and Figures 2 and 4).
In Reference to Claim 2#
Herrou teaches:
The centrifugal heat dissipation fan according to claim 1, wherein a rotating axis of the hub coincides with a central axis of the housing (see Figure 2).
In Reference to Claim 3#
Herrou teaches:
The centrifugal heat dissipation fan according to claim 1, wherein the impeller and the housing are circular outlines concentric to each other (see Figure 2). The examiner notes Figure 2 of appears similar to applicant’s Figure 4, which paragraph 25 of the applicant’s specification states has a “circular outline”.
In Reference to Claim 4#
Herrou teaches:
The centrifugal heat dissipation fan according to claim 1, wherein a rotation axis of the hub is spaced from at least part of an inner wall of the housing (see Figure 2).
In Reference to Claim 8#
Herrou teaches:
The centrifugal heat dissipation fan according to claim 1, wherein a length of the blades changes as a periodic function (270) (column 6, lines 29-39).
In Reference to Claim 10#
Herrou teaches:
The centrifugal heat dissipation fan according to claim 1, wherein the impeller is non-circular (see Figure 4).
In Reference to Claim 11#
Herrou teaches:
The centrifugal heat dissipation fan according to claim 1, wherein the ends of the blades sequentially pass through an inner wall (inner surface of side wall of 210) of the housing to form an airflow compression area (not numbered, see annotated Figure 4), which is tapered along a movement direction (226) of the blades.
PNG
media_image3.png
713
515
media_image3.png
Greyscale
In Reference to Claim 12#
Herrou teaches:
The centrifugal heat dissipation fan according to claim 1, wherein the blades form at least two annular areas (area within radially outer end of blade 232 having length 242, area between radially outer end of blade 232 having length 242 and blade 236 having length 246) centered on the axial direction, and the distribution numbers of the blades in the at least two annular areas are different from each other.
In Reference to Claim 13#
Herrou teaches:
The centrifugal heat dissipation fan according to claim 12, wherein the number of the blades located in the annular area away from the center is less than the number of the blades located in the annular area close to the center. Figure 4 shows every blade is within the inner area, but only the blades radially outward of blade 232 are in the outer area.
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) 5 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 9,568,022 to Chiou as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of US 2013/0115066 to Lin.
In Reference to Claim 5
Chiou teaches:
The centrifugal heat dissipation fan according to claim 1, comprising an air outlet.
Chiou fails to teach:
The at least one air outlet comprises a plurality of air outlets located in different radial directions.
Lin teaches:
A centrifugal heat dissipation fan (2f) comprising a plurality of air outlets (46) located in different radial directions (see paragraph 51 and Figure 5).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the centrifugal heat dissipation fan of Chiou by adding a second air outlet as taught by Lin for the purpose of being able to exhaust air in the desired directions and enhancing heat dissipation (paragraph 51 of Lin).
Claim(s) 5 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 10,422,350 to Herrou as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of US 2013/0115066 to Lin.
In Reference to Claim 5
Herrou teaches:
The centrifugal heat dissipation fan according to claim 1, comprising an air outlet.
Herrou fails to teach:
The at least one air outlet comprises a plurality of air outlets located in different radial directions.
Lin teaches:
A centrifugal heat dissipation fan (2f) comprising a plurality of air outlets (46) located in different radial directions (see paragraph 51 and Figure 5).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the centrifugal heat dissipation fan of Herrou by adding a second air outlet as taught by Lin for the purpose of being able to exhaust air in the desired directions and enhancing heat dissipation (paragraph 51 of Lin).
Claim(s) 6 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 9,568,022 to Chiou as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of case law.
In Reference to Claim 6
Chiou teaches:
The centrifugal heat dissipation fan according to claim 1, comprising a ratio of an outer diameter of the impeller to an outer diameter of the housing.
Chiou fails to teach:
The ratio is greater than or equal to 80%.
The Court has 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 dimensions would not perform differently than the prior art device, the claimed device was not patentably distinct from the prior art device (Gardner v. TEC Syst., Inc., 725 F.2d 1338 220 USPQ 777 (Fed. Cir. 1984), see MPEP §2144.04 IV A for further clarification).
In Gardner v TEC Syst., Inc., Gardner received a patent for an apparatus used to dry ink applied to high-gloss papers by supporting the paper with wet ink over a field of static air. The applied prior art taught the claimed apparatus except for dimensional limitations. The trial Court held the opinion that the dimensional limitations had no impact on the function of the apparatus and no evidence was shown that departing from the claimed dimensions would cause the apparatus to fail.
In the instant case, Chiou teaches an impeller whose outer diameter is less than 100% of the outer diameter of the housing, however Chiou is silent regarding the specific ratio.
There is a reasonable expectation of success when increasing the size of the impeller because minimizing the distance between the impeller and housing maximizes the volume of air driven by the impeller, which increases the efficiency of the fan.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the centrifugal heat dissipation fan of Chiou by sizing the impeller such that the ratio is greater than or equal to 80% in view of case law for the purpose of maximizing the volume of air driven by the fan and increasing the efficiency of the fan.
Claim(s) 6 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 10,422,350 to Herrou as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of case law.
In Reference to Claim 6
Herrou teaches:
The centrifugal heat dissipation fan according to claim 1, comprising a ratio of an outer diameter of the impeller to an outer diameter of the housing.
Herrou fails to teach:
The ratio is greater than or equal to 80%.
The Court has 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 dimensions would not perform differently than the prior art device, the claimed device was not patentably distinct from the prior art device (Gardner v. TEC Syst., Inc., 725 F.2d 1338 220 USPQ 777 (Fed. Cir. 1984), see MPEP §2144.04 IV A for further clarification).
In Gardner v TEC Syst., Inc., Gardner received a patent for an apparatus used to dry ink applied to high-gloss papers by supporting the paper with wet ink over a field of static air. The applied prior art taught the claimed apparatus except for dimensional limitations. The trial Court held the opinion that the dimensional limitations had no impact on the function of the apparatus and no evidence was shown that departing from the claimed dimensions would cause the apparatus to fail.
In the instant case, Herrou teaches an impeller whose outer diameter is less than 100% of the outer diameter of the housing, and states the distance between the tip of a blade and the inner diameter of the housing is minimized in order to maximize the volume of air driven by the impeller blades (column 4, lines 17-19); however Herrou is silent regarding the ratio of the impeller outer diameter to the housing outer diameter.
There is a reasonable expectation of success when increasing the size of the impeller because minimizing the distance between the impeller and housing maximizes the volume of air driven by the impeller, which increases the efficiency of the fan.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the centrifugal heat dissipation fan of Herrou by sizing the impeller such that the ratio is greater than or equal to 80% in view of case law for the purpose of maximizing the volume of air driven by the fan and increasing the efficiency of the fan.
Claim(s) 9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 9,568,022 to Chiou as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of US 2019/0128278 to Chan.
In Reference to Claim 9
Chiou teaches:
The centrifugal heat dissipation fan according to claim 1, wherein the blades comprise the at least two lengths.
Chiou fails to teach:
The at least two lengths vary randomly.
Chan teaches:
A centrifugal heat dissipation fan (1) comprising a plurality of blades (11), wherein a length of the blades vary randomly (see paragraphs 8 and 23-25 and Figure 2A).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the centrifugal heat dissipation fan of Chiou by arranging the blades with the different lengths randomly as taught by Chan for the purpose of dispersing energy of the blades as an irregular spectrum to avoid multi-frequencies noise during operation (paragraph 8 of Chan).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. US 4,838,760 to Brackett teaches a fan comprising blades of different lengths. US 2024/0410396 to Sen teaches a fan comprising blades of different lengths.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JASON GREGORY DAVIS whose telephone number is (571)270-3289. The examiner can normally be reached M-Th: 8:00-5:00, F: 8:00-12:00.
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, Nathan 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.
/JASON G DAVIS/Examiner, Art Unit 3745
/NATHANIEL E WIEHE/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3745
Prosecution Insights