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 and May 8, 2026 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 2, 7, 12, 16, and 20 are objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 2, lines 1-2 recite “the cut-off area maintains a quadrilateral cross-sectional shape” and the phrase “a quadrilateral cross-sectional shape” should be changed to “the quadrilateral cross-sectional shape” since it was previously introduced in claim 1.
Claim 2, line 4 recites “the wedge area maintains a wedge cross-sectional shape” and the phrase “a wedge cross-sectional shape” should be changed to “the wedge cross-sectional shape” since it was previously introduced in claim 1.
Claim 2, lines 6-7 recite “the exhaust area maintains a quadrilateral cross-sectional shape” and the phrase “a quadrilateral cross-sectional shape” should be changed to “the quadrilateral cross-sectional shape” since it was previously introduced in claim 1.
Claims 12 and 16 recite the same limitations and their respective parent claims (11 and 15) both previously introduced the above features. Claims 12 and 16 should be changed accordingly.
Claim 7, line 3 recites “an outside” which should be changed to “the outside” since it was previously introduced in claim 1.
Claim 20, line 2 similarly refers to “an outside” which was introduced in claim 15, and should be changed accordingly.
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 8 and 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 8, lines 3-5 state “wherein the inclined section is within at least a predetermined angle range with respect to a line connecting a center of the intake port to the side wall, among the side walls, closest to the intake port in the inlet area”, however it is unclear how a “predetermined angle range” is formed by only a single line. An angle is formed between two intersecting lines. The claim only has a single line. It is unclear how to determine the angle. For the purpose of examination, claim 8 will be treated as requiring the inlet area to have side walls.
Claim 9 depends from claim 8 and attempts to define a range for the angle (within 330 degrees), however, without knowing where the second line which forms the angle is located, the angle is still unclear. For the purpose of examination, claim 9 requires the centrifugal fan module of claim 8. 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 § 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) 1-3, 6-9, 11, 12, 15, 16, 19, and 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 7,596,956 to Lilke in view of US 11,604,001 to Brise et al, and in further view of US 5,531,267 to Ahmed.
In Reference to Claims 1, 11, and 15
Lilke teaches:
A refrigerator (10) comprising:
a cooling device comprising:
a cooling element comprising a plate shape (42, see Figure 6), the cooling element comprising a first surface (44) configured to dissipate heat and a second surface (46) that is opposite to the first surface and that is configured to absorb heat from an outside (area above casing in Figure 6);
a heat sink (48, 68) above the cooling element and configured to dissipate heat from the first surface; and
a heat absorption portion (50) below the cooling element and configured to transfer cold air from the second surface to surrounding air; and
a storage area (space inside 10) configured to receive the cold air provided by the cooling device,
wherein the heat sink comprises a heat sink member (48) on the first surface and a fan module (68) configured to transfer outside air to the heat sink member,
wherein the fan module comprises an impeller (68) configured to rotate around a rotation axis (axis of rotation) to draw in air through an intake port (64), and to discharge the air toward an exhaust port (66) (see Figures 5 and 6);
an intake guide channel (portion of channel 62 upstream of the fan module 68, see Figure 4) configured to guide the air toward the intake port; and
an exhaust guide channel (portion of channel 62 between fan 68 and exhaust port 66, see Figure 4) configured to guide the air toward the exhaust port (see column 4, line 66 through column 5, line 37 and Figures 1, 2, 4-6).
Regarding the heat sink and the heat absorption portion, while Lilke shows the heat sink on the bottom of Figure 6 and the heat absorption portion at the top of Figure 6, the claim does not define an orientation system. Accordingly, the bottom of Figure 6 could be considered “above” the top by merely rotating the device.
PNG
media_image1.png
527
753
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Lilke fails to teach:
The fan module is a centrifugal fan module, the intake guide channel comprising an inclined section comprising a height that decreases in a direction toward the intake port and wherein the exhaust guide channel comprises a spiral radius that increases along a spiral direction toward the exhaust port; a cut-off area comprising a quadrilateral cross-sectional shape; an exhaust area connected to the exhaust port and comprising a quadrilateral cross-sectional shape; a wedge area between the cut-off area and the exhaust area along the spiral direction, wherein the wedge area is below the inclined section in a direction parallel to the rotation axis, and wherein the wedge area comprises a wedge cross-sectional shape; a first transition area between the cut-off area and the wedge area along the spiral direction, the first transition area comprising a cross-sectional shape that changes from a quadrilateral cross-sectional shape to a wedge cross-sectional shape along the spiral direction; and a second transition area between the wedge area and the exhaust area along the spiral direction, the second transition area comprising a cross-sectional shape that changes from a wedge cross-sectional shape to a quadrilateral cross-sectional shape along the spiral direction.
Brise teaches:
A centrifugal fan module (10, 16) comprising an intake guide channel (40) comprising an inclined section (48) comprising a height that decreases in a direction toward an intake port (38) (see Figure 1), and a wedge area below the inclined section in a direction parallel to the rotation axis, and wherein the wedge area comprises a wedge cross-sectional shape, wherein the wedge area is between two side areas (top and bottom of casing in Figure 2) (see column 3, lines 26-58 and Figure 1). The examiner notes Figure 1 shows the inclined section on the opposite side of the exhaust port on the right side.
PNG
media_image2.png
386
798
media_image2.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image3.png
579
600
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Ahmed teaches:
A centrifugal fan module (25) comprising an exhaust guide channel comprises a spiral radius (not shown, see annotated Figure 10) that increases along a spiral direction toward an exhaust port (29); a cut-off area (not numbered, see annotated Figure 10 below) comprising a quadrilateral cross-sectional shape; an exhaust area (49) connected to the exhaust port and comprising a quadrilateral cross-sectional shape (see column 3, lines 1-27 and Figures 5 and 6, and annotated Figure 10 below).
Figures 5 and 6 show the top and bottom casing walls are parallel to each other. Thus, when viewing a cross-section in the axial-radial plane, the cut-off area and exhaust area would both have quadrilateral shapes.
PNG
media_image4.png
581
993
media_image4.png
Greyscale
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 fan module, cooling device, and refrigerator of Lilke by forming the fan as a centrifugal fan module and adding an inclined section to the intake guide channel which decreases in height toward the intake port and forms a wedge area as taught by Brise for the purpose of increasing the pressure of the airflow by using a centrifugal fan, and being able to direct the airflow toward the intake of the fan using the inclined section.
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 fan module, cooling device, and refrigerator of Lilke by forming the exhaust guide channel with a spiral radius which increases along the spiral direction and a cut-off area and an exhaust area as taught by Ahmed which is a known technique for a known device which yields predictable results. In this case, the predictable result is a fan casing having a cutoff portion and an increasing spiral radius. The cutoff portion increases the efficiency of the fan by directing air toward the exhaust port.
When modifying the exhaust guide channel of Lilke with the teachings of Brise and Ahmed, the inclined portion would be added near where the air approaches the fan (the space below fan 68 in Figure 4 of Lilke). The cut-off portion would be between the inclined section and the exhaust port. The cut-off portion would form the cut-off area, and the exhaust port would form the exhaust area. Both of these areas have quadrilateral cross-sections as taught by Ahmed. The inclined portion forms the wedge area, which has a wedge cross-sectional shape. Thus, when combining the prior art teachings, a first transition area would be formed between the cut-off area and the wedge area which transitions from the quadrilateral cross-section to the wedge cross-section, and a second transition area would be formed between the wedge area and the exhaust area which transitions from the wedge cross-section and the quadrilateral cross-section. The transition areas allow the air blown by the fan to smoothly flow around the casing toward the exhaust port.
In Reference to Claims 2, 12, and 16#
Lilke as modified by Brise and Ahmed teaches:
The centrifugal fan module of claim 1, the cooling device of claim 11, and the refrigerator of claim 15, wherein, along the spiral direction, the cut-off area maintains the quadrilateral cross-sectional shape and comprises an increasing hydraulic diameter (diameter increases along spiral direction, see Figure 10 of Ahmed),
wherein, along the spiral direction, the wedge area maintains the wedge cross-sectional shape and comprises an increasing hydraulic diameter, and
wherein, along the spiral direction, the exhaust area maintains a quadrilateral cross-sectional shape and comprises an increasing hydraulic diameter.
The diameters of the cut-off area, wedge area, and exhaust area increase in the spiral direction (see Figure 10 of Ahmed), while the respective cross-sectional shapes are maintained.
In Reference to Claim 3#
Lilke as modified by Brise and Ahmed teaches:
The centrifugal fan module of claim 1, wherein, along the spiral direction, the first transition area comprises an increasing hydraulic diameter, and wherein, along the spiral direction, the second transition area comprises an increasing hydraulic diameter.
The diameters of the first and second transitional areas would increase in the spiral direction to maintain the smooth transition from the respective areas.
In Reference to Claims 6 and 19
Lilke as modified by Brise and Ahmed teaches:
The centrifugal fan module of claim 1 and refrigerator of claim 15, wherein the intake port is at an upper region of the impeller (see Figure 1 of Brise), the exhaust port is at a side region of the impeller (right side in Figure 1 of Brise), and the exhaust channel is on the side region of the impeller (space to the right of fan in Figure 1 of Brise), and
wherein, in the intake guide channel, the inclined section is at least partially located on an edge (left edge in Figure 1 of Brise) of the intake port.
In Reference to Claims 7 and 20
Lilke as modified by Brise and Ahmed teaches:
The centrifugal fan module of claim 6 and refrigerator of claim 19, wherein the intake guide channel further comprises:
an inlet area (inlet opening 64 of Lilke, see Figure 4) into which the air is introduced from the outside and which is configured to guide the air; and
an intake guide area (portion of passage 62 of Lilke where the inclined portion of Brise is added) connected to the inlet area, wherein the intake guide area comprises the inclined section and is configured to guide the air toward the intake port, and
wherein the intake guide area comprises the inclined section and a lowest height section (space above 36 of Brise adjacent to the intake opening 38, see annotated Figure 1 of Brise) at least partially surrounding the intake port and maintaining a minimum height of the inclined section.
PNG
media_image5.png
361
845
media_image5.png
Greyscale
In Reference to Claims 8 and 9
Lilke as modified by Brise and Ahmed teaches:
The centrifugal fan module of claim 7, wherein the inlet area comprises side walls (walls of channel 62 of Lilke adjacent to the intake opening 64).
Claim(s) 10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 7,596,956 to Lilke as modified by US 11,604,001 to Brise and US 5,531,267 to Ahmed as applied to claim 7 above, and further in view of case law.
In Reference to Claim 10
Lilke as modified by Brise and Ahmed teaches:
The centrifugal fan module of claim 7, comprising the lowest height section which has a height.
Lilke as modified by Brise and Ahmed fails to teach:
The height is 20 mm or less. Brise is silent regarding the specific dimensions of the height, at most Brise teaches the entire centrifugal fan is less than 150 mm (column 3, lines 55-58).
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, Lilke as modified by Brise and Ahmed teaches the centrifugal fan having the lowest height section which is less than 150 mm.
There is a reasonable expectation of success by sizing the lowest height section to be 20 mm or less because this is a matter of scaling the centrifugal fan. Centrifugal fans in general allow for a narrower, more compact design compared to axial fans, and a narrower centrifugal fan still have the benefit of a pressure increase compared to an axial fan.
The examiner notes paragraph 117 of the applicant’s specification recites the claim limitation but does not provide a reason for why this range is chosen. Rather, paragraph 117 further states a height of 15 mm or less is an exemplary range. Thus, there does not appear to be criticality for the claimed range.
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 fan module of Lilke as modified by Brise and Ahmed by sizing the lowest height section to be 20 mm or less in view of case law for the purpose of controlling the space occupied by the fan and having a narrower, compact design.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 4, 5, 13, 14, 17, and 18 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter: The prior art of record fails to teach an outer line of the first transition area and an outer line of the second transition area are outside of a spiral reference line as recited in claims 4, 13, and 17. Since the transition areas are formed as a result of the combination of the prior art, the shapes of the transition areas are not taught in the prior art, and thus the locations of the outer lines relative to the spiral reference line are unknown.
Claims 5, 14, and 18 depend from claims 4, 13, and 17 and contain their respective limitations, and therefore would be allowable for the same reason.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. US 9,334,875 to Sato teaches a centrifugal fan comprising a casing with a spiral radius which increases from a cut-off portion toward an exhaust port. US 8,839,631 to Lu teaches a refrigerator comprising a cooling device having a fan. JP 2,931,431 teaches a centrifugal fan comprising an intake guide channel having an inclined section (see Figure 1). EP 3,907,407 to Fournier et al teaches a centrifugal fan comprising an intake guide channel having an inclined section.
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
