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 .
Specification
The disclosure is objected to because of the following informalities: Instant Application Page 7, line 24 recites “the fan 1 is much quitter” examiner presumes Applicant intended “quieter”.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Objections
Claims objected to because of the following informalities: Claims 13-16 appear to show values that are using a comma instead of a period to indicate a decimal place. These formulas should all be corrected to use a period to show the decimal place. 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 12 and 14 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.
The term “substantially complimentary” in claim 12 is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “substantially” is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention. Examiner notes it is unclear as to what degree of complimentary would fail to be substantially.
Claim 14 recites the limitation "ZW" twice in its final line. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. As Applicant has depended claim 14 from 11 instead of 13, there is no basis for limitation ZW to direct the applicant to its claimed meaning/limitation. Examiner notes both Claims 15 and 16 include features such as GH or ZW from claim 13 and properly depend from said claim, and so suggests this correction be applied.
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) 11-12, 17-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(A1) as being anticipated by DE 102013212341 A1 to Bielesch et al. (B1). [Citations are made to the Machine translation provided.]
In Re Claim 1:
B1 shows:
A fan(Fig. 2, 2) comprising: a fan wheel(2) with a plurality of blades(12) and an outer ring(Fig. 1, 8-9), wherein: [Page 6 lays out these elements under “Preferred Embodiment of the Invention.”]
The fan wheel comprises a ring(11) encircling the ends of each of the plurality of blades, [Same section as above, Page 6.]
The fan wheel ring has an outer surface(Fig. 2, 4) and the outer ring has an inner surface(8), and [Per Page 6 these are the axially extending surfaces.]
The outer surface is opposite the inner surface, [Review Figure 1 it can be seen the two axial faces oppose each other.]
Further comprising a raised contour (10) on the inner surface of the outer ring facing the outer surface of the fan wheel ring. [Figure 1 shows the knob contour on the casing inner axial surface.]
In Re Claims 12 and 17-20:
B1 shows:
The fan of claim 11, wherein:
(Claim 12) The fan further comprising a collar(Fig. 1, 5) on the upstream edge of the fan wheel ring, wherein the fan wheel ring and the collar form a corner(region where elements 6 is located) that has a first edge(5) delimiting the outer surface, [See figure 1. Also note with Figure 2, the collar is on the side of the axial blade ring that corresponds to the smooth face of the hub(13) opposite the side facing the viewer, the smooths ide being the inlet wind facing face of the hub.]
The outer ring has a contour that is complimentary to this corner, which has a second edge(9) and the inner surface, wherein the first edge is opposite the second edge. [Figure 1 and Page 6 note the radial extending elements of the blade ring and casing ring, and it can be seen they oppose and form a complimentary shape at the bend.]
(Claim 17) the contour is formed as an integral part of the outer ring. [Per Page 3 last few lines, the knob-like elements are made as one piece with the fan or frame.]
(Claim 18) The upstream side and downstream side of the contour are angled in relation to the inner surface. [Figures 1 shows the knobs can have a rounded inclination with a flat top similar to that of Applicant’s shape, further, Page 7, the knoblike elements can be for example, conical, i.e. linear angled/inclined.]
(Claim 19) claim 12, the inner surface is parallel to the outer surface, and/or the first edge is parallel to the second edge. [It can be seen in Figure 1, the axial and radial faces of the inner and outer surfaces are each parallel to their respective faces.]
(Claim 20) An air conditioner for a motor vehicle that has a fan according to claim 10. [Page 7, notes this fan is for use with electronic controls and heat exchangers in a motor vehicle. Examiner takes official notice that one such use for fans with electronic controls and heat exchangers in a motor vehicle is for air conditioning. Further with the heat exchanger, this fan is to condition air within the motor vehicle.]
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) 13 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over B1 in view of US 2016/0305448 to Hong (H1) and US 2005/074333 to Iwasaki et al. (I1).
In Re Claim 13:
B1 teaches:
The inner surface of the outer ring has an axial length and there is a radial spacing between the inner surface and the outer surface. [See Figures 1.]
B1 is silent to:
The specific length of the outer ring and the radial spacing between it and the fan wheel ring outer surface.
H1 teaches:
When dealing with cooling fans it is known for cooling fans having a diameter of 400mm, to have for example a 6mm clearance between a fan ring and a and the frame around it. [Figure 8-9a show a fan clearance in radial and axial direction, Page 2, ¶24 gives the general fan diameter, and Page 5, ¶83 gives the known conventional fan clearances, i.e. radial and or axial gap between said fan blade ring and the casing frame.]
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to select the sizing of the fan, blade ring, and casing housing, of B1, to use a known in the art values of such as taught by H1, with the expectation of successfully selecting known in the art values which would perform with an expectation of success and further provide a suitable gap of 6mm in the casing and fan ring for an established and desirable gap size for operation. [Page 2, ¶24 and Page 5, ¶83.] This would yield the gap between the fan and blade ring of 6mm, and a known in the art fan size of 400mm.
B1 as modified by H1 does not teach:
The axial length of the inner surface of the outer ring is between 14 and 16mm.
I1 teaches:
When working with a cooling fan with a blade ring and housing frame around, with the known diameters of for example 400mm, the axial length of the blade ring(Fig. 4, RW) is roughly the same as the axial length of the casing prior to its turn, and can be for example, 13mm, if the blade with is 28mm, which is a ratio of 46% but other acceptable values for the ratio of the blade with to axial ring width would fit between 20% and 80%, thus with the known in the art blade with of 28mm, values of 14mm to 16mm, i.e. 50% to 57% is well within the ratio of suitable established in the art value.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to select the sizing of the fan, blade ring, and casing housing, of B1, that when using a fan of established size 400mm diameter, it would be a known value of ranges of the blade size to blade ring, and axial housing length of similar size as taught by I1, to use a known in the art values of such as taught by I1, with the expectation of successfully selecting known in the art values, under the obvious to try known in the art values which would perform with an expectation of success and further provide a suitable gap range of 20%-80% of the blade ring size to the blade size of 28mm, including values between 50-57% of 14-16mm for the length of the blade fan ring and the similarly sized inner surface of the outer ring, it would further consider larger and smaller sizes such that the discrepancy in relative size of the fan blade ring and housing inner surface ring was precisely sized in the claimed range. This would yield the limitation of axial length as claimed being between 14 and 16mm.
Claim(s) 14-16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over H1, B1, and I1 as applied to claim 13 above, and further in view of an Optimization.
In Re Claim 14:
EXAMINER’S NOTE: Per the 112 above, this claim should be properly depending form claim 13 for antecedence and so it’s presented as such here, it should be noted claim 11 could be modified similar to the manner claim 13 was to provide support for any feature to meet claim 14 should applicant not correct the antecedence error by depending claim 14 from claim 13.]
H1 as modified in claim 13 teaches:
Wherein there is an axial length of the raised contour. [See Figure 1 of H1, where it appears contoured knob(10) would appear to be less than 50% of the axial length, but more than a fourth, and while one cannot pull exact dimensions from a figure the examiner is allowed to infer relative dimensions.]
H1 as modified in claim 13 is silent as to:
The specific value of the knob length and it being between 15% and 40% of the length of the axial projecting inner surface of the casing it extends from.
H1 further teaches:
Per H1, Page 2, the efficiency of the fan device and acoustic impairment (noise) are kept as desirable as possible with the smallest air gap between the fan and frame, the contoured knobs are used to achieve this per Pages 3-4, because where they protrude leakage is reduced and acoustic interreference is reduced. The same pages note, if radially opposed knobs are kept slightly spaced, there’s reduced chance of impact between them and the fan/case. Distribution radially and circumferentially, and in denser/tighter arrangements provides more mass for removing for imbalance and for reducing said space. Page 4 notes hemispherical and dome shapes are advantageous. As such its radial height is also its axial extent. Per the disclosure the radial height (and axial extent as they are hemispheres), and axial spacing of the elements are a results effective variables as it teaches that increasing the radial height and axial extent and reducing distance between rows provides for reducing air leakage and thus reducing noise and improving efficiency and providing more mass reduceable elements for balancing, while keeping their radial extent(and axial extent) and nearness from being too close reduces the chance of contact. Thus the axial/radial extent and nearness of the elements meet the requirement of a results effective variable In re Antonie, 559 F.2d 618 (CCPA 1977), MPEP § 2144.05(II)(B). It is noted that reducing the size of some contours is ALSO advantageous for reducing the mass imbalance during final formation steps.
Based on the teachings above that the axial/radial extent of the hemispheres is a result effective variable based on the desired reducing noise and air leakage and improving efficiency by increasing the axial extent/radial height or reducing the radial height and axial extent slightly to reduce the risk of impact between fan and casing, and thus it would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill, in the art at the time the invention to design the axial extent of the hemispherical contours to meet the claimed feature of its axial extent between 15 and 40% of the axial extent of the inner surface of the outer casing ring, in particular as it visually appears it might fall within this value or near it by relative size in the Figure 1 anyway. It has been held that "[W]here the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation.” In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955), MPEP §2144.05(II)(A). This would yield the limitation of the knob length and it being between 15% and 40% of the length of the axial projecting inner surface of the casing it extends from.
In Re Claim 15:
H1 as modified in claim 13 teaches:
Wherein there is an a radial height of the raised contour. [See Figure 1 of H1, where the contoured knob(10) extends into the gap region.]
H1 as modified in claim 13 is silent as to:
The specific value of the knob height and it being between 5 and 40% of the gap height it extends across.
H1 further teaches:
Per H1, Page 2, the efficiency of the fan device and acoustic impairment (noise) are kept as desirable as possible with the smallest air gap between the fan and frame, the contoured knobs are used to achieve this per Pages 3-4, because where they protrude leakage is reduced and acoustic interreference is reduced. The same pages note, if radially opposed knobs are kept slightly spaced, there’s reduced chance of impact between them and the fan/case. Distribution radially and circumferentially, and in denser/tighter arrangements provides more mass for removing for imbalance and for reducing said space. Page 4 notes hemispherical and dome shapes are advantageous. As such its radial height is also its axial extent. Per the disclosure the radial height (and axial extent as they are hemispheres), and axial spacing of the elements are a results effective variables as it teaches that increasing the radial height and axial extent and reducing distance between rows provides for reducing air leakage and thus reducing noise and improving efficiency and providing more mass reduceable elements for balancing, while keeping their radial extent(and axial extent) and nearness from being too close reduces the chance of undesirable contact. Thus the axial/radial extent and nearness of the elements meet the requirement of a results effective variable. ). It is noted that reducing the size of some contours is ALSO advantageous for reducing the mass imbalance during final formation steps.
In re Antonie, 559 F.2d 618 (CCPA 1977), MPEP § 2144.05(II)(B
Based on the teachings above that the axial/radial extent of the hemispheres is a result effective variable based on the desired reducing noise and air leakage and improving efficiency by increasing the axial extent/radial height or reducing the radial height and axial extent slightly to reduce the risk of impact between fan and casing and further reducing the size partially of some for reducing the mass imbalance, and thus it would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill, in the art at the time the invention to design the radial extent of the hemispherical contours to meet the claimed feature of its radial extent between 5 and 40% of the gab height they extend between,. It has been held that "[W]here the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation.” In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955), MPEP §2144.05(II)(A). This would yield the limitation of the knob height and it being between 5% and 40% of the gap height it extends into.
In Re Claim 16:
H1 as modified in claim 13 teaches:
Wherein the contour(10) is spaced from the flat upstream end of the inner surface of the outer band(8). [See Figure 1 of H1, where it appears contoured knob(10) would appear to be spaced closer to the upstream end(9) than the downstream end and less than a third of the way in particular and while one cannot pull exact dimensions from a figure the examiner is allowed to infer relative dimensions.]
H1 as modified in claim 13 is silent as to:
The knob length being spaced 3-30% of the axial length of the inner surface of the outer ring spaced from the upstream edge (edge near 9).
H1 further teaches:
Per H1, Page 2, the efficiency of the fan device and acoustic impairment (noise) are kept as desirable as possible with the smallest air gap between the fan and frame, the contoured knobs are used to achieve this per Pages 3-4, because where they protrude leakage is reduced and acoustic interreference is reduced. The same pages note, if radially opposed knobs are kept slightly spaced, and in particular on page 4 it is noted, “opposite knob like elements in a plane are particularly advantageous,” and further “the knob-like elements of the first edge region and the knob-like elements of the second edge region have an axial offset to each other, wherein the offset is smaller than the axial extent of the knob-like elements of the first edge region and/or the axial extent of the knob-like elements of the second border area. As it can be seen in Fig. 1 the knobs(6) are opposed to the knobs(8) and located at the upstream edge of the axial insert, and thus a space between them and the axial knobs(8) is desirably small per this quoted section. Thus the nearness of the elements (and the element to the upstream edge meets the requirement of a results effective variable In re Antonie, 559 F.2d 618 (CCPA 1977), MPEP § 2144.05(II)(B).
Based on the teachings above that the axial spacing between the upstream edge of the axial inner surface of the outer band, and the contour, (as the upstream edge has the radially opposed knobs on it) is a result effective variable based on the desired reducing noise and air leakage and improving efficiency by reducing the size of this space while keeping it large enough to prevent the impact between elements as they are part of the opposing fan and casing, and thus it would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill, in the art at the time the invention to design the spacing distance from the contour to the upstream edge of the inner surface of the outer ring between 3 and 30% of the axial extent, in particular as it visually appears it might fall within this value or near it by relative size in the Figure 1 anyway. It has been held that "[W]here the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation.” In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955), MPEP §2144.05(II)(A). This would yield the limitation of the axial distance from the contour to the upstream edge of the inner surface being between 3 and 30% of the axial extent of the inner surface radial band.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. US 9,228,591 to Choi et al. teachers a fan with contours (Fig. 7, 122) on and outer housing band that opposed a fan blade band outer surface(132). US 2020/0141418 to Aiello teaches a fan (Fig. 44) with a blade ring(84) that opposed a casing band (50) which has projecting contours (384) serving to seal and reduce the size of the gap. US 2022/0316496 to Froh et al. discloses in Fig. 15, a fan blade outer ring(36) which opposed a casing outer ring inner surface which includes contours(30) and a circumferentially extending contour(50) [labelled as a circumferential contour in Page 7, ¶88-89.] US 2004/0156712 to Nadeau taches a fan with a fan blade ring(22) opposing an outer ring(32) which includes contours(28, 37) on its inner surface.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JOSHUA R BEEBE whose telephone number is (571)272-9968. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 10-6.
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.
/JOSHUA R BEEBE/Examiner, Art Unit 3745
/NATHANIEL E WIEHE/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3745
Prosecution Insights