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 .
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 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.
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.
Claims 1, 2, 4-11, 14, and 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Swigert (US 2054144).
Claim 1 recites “an impeller.” Swigert teaches such an impeller, as will be shown.
Swigert teaches (Figs. 1-4) an impeller, comprising:
a first end plate 62 and a second end plate 80, the second end plate and the first end plate being sequentially spaced apart along an air intake direction of the impeller (Fig. 3), the second end plate being provided with an air inlet 84; and
a plurality of blades 74 spaced apart along a circumference of the impeller, the plurality of blades connecting the first end plate and the second end plate, the first end plate comprising a first plate portion 72 and a second plate portion 68 surrounding a periphery of the first plate portion, the second plate portion extending obliquely in the air intake direction away from an axis of the impeller (see Fig. 3).
Regarding Claim 2, Swigert teaches (Figs. 1-4) the impeller according to claim 1, wherein the second end plate comprises a third plate portion 80 and a fourth plate portion 82 surrounding a periphery of the third plate portion, the fourth plate portion extending obliquely in the air intake direction away from the axis of the impeller (see Fig. 3).
Regarding Claim 4, Swigert teaches (Figs. 1-4) the impeller according to claim 2, wherein an outer diameter of the first end plate is smaller than an outer diameter of the second end plate (see Fig. 3).
Regarding Claim 5, Swigert teaches (Figs. 1-4) the impeller according to claim 4, wherein: a ratio of the outer diameter of the first end plate to the outer diameter of the second end plate is greater than or equal to 0.7; and/or in a radial direction of the air inlet, a dimension between a projection line of a blade in the plurality of blades on an axial section of the air inlet and an axis of the air inlet gradually decreases along the air intake direction (second option, see Fig. 3).
Regarding Claim 6, Swigert teaches (Figs. 1-4) the impeller according to claim 4, wherein a blade in the plurality of blades has a first end and a second end (near 88, 78) that are sequentially distributed in the air intake direction, the second end extending outward in a radial direction of the impeller and beyond a periphery of the first end plate (see Fig. 3).
Regarding Claim 7, Swigert teaches (Figs. 1-4) the impeller according to claim 6, wherein a trailing edge of the second end extends beyond the first end plate in the air intake direction; or a trailing edge of the second end has an outwardly convex transition fillet connected to an edge of the first end plate (see Figs. 1, 4).
Regarding Claim 8, Swigert teaches (Figs. 1-4) the impeller according to claim 1, wherein in the air intake direction, a trailing edge 74b of a blade in the plurality of blades extends obliquely away from a rotation direction of the impeller (see Figs. 1, 4).
Regarding Claim 9, Swigert teaches (Figs. 1-4) the impeller according to claim 8, wherein a second reference plane is defined passing through both the axis of the impeller and a center point of the trailing edge of the blade, and an angle between the trailing edge of a blade in the plurality of blades and the second reference plane is less than or equal to 45° (see Figs. 1, 4, at least some portion of the trailing edge 74b and the second reference plane appears to be less than or equal to 45°).
Regarding Claim 10, Swigert teaches (Figs. 1-4) the impeller according to claim 1, wherein: a blade in the plurality of blades has a first end and a second end (near 88, 78) sequentially distributed in the air intake direction, and a periphery of the second end plate extends radially outward from the impeller and beyond the first end; and/or an outlet installation angle of the blade in the plurality of blades is less than 90°; and/or a surface of the first plate portion is orthogonal to the axis of the impeller (see Fig. 3).
Regarding Claim 11, Swigert teaches (Figs. 1-4) a fan, comprising: a motor 52 and the impeller according to claim 1, a rotation shaft of the motor being provided on the first end plate of the impeller (shaft not shown but described, see page 1, col. 2, ln. 26-37).
Regarding Claim 14, Swigert teaches (Figs. 1-4) an air handler, comprising: the impeller according to claim 1.
Regarding Claim 15, Swigert teaches (Figs. 1-4) an air handler, comprising the fan according to claim 11.
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.
The factual inquiries set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 148 USPQ 459 (1966), that are applied for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claim 3 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Swigert in view of Wang et al. (hereafter Wang – CN 204878053).
Regarding Claim 3, Swigert teaches (Figs. 1-4) the impeller according to claim 2, a first reference plane is defined to be perpendicular to the axis of the impeller.
However, Swigert does not teach an angle γ between the second plate portion and the first reference plane is configured to be 10°≤γ≤40°, and/or an angle δ between the fourth plate portion and the first reference plane is configured to be 10°≤δ≤40°.
Wang teaches (Figs. 1-4) an impeller wherein a first reference plane is defined to be perpendicular to the axis of the impeller and an angle γ between the second plate portion and the first reference plane is configured to be 10°≤γ≤40°, and/or an angle δ between the fourth plate portion and the first reference plane is configured to be 10°≤δ≤40° (para. 0023 and 0027, see Figs. 2, 4).
Wang further teaches providing such plate portion angle ranges results in better guiding airflow, which avoids big noise and vibration caused by rapid change of size (para. 0027).
It would have been obvious for a person having ordinary skill in the art to apply the teachings of Wang to the impeller of Swigert to have an angle γ between the second plate portion and the first reference plane is configured to be 10°≤γ≤40°, and/or an angle δ between the fourth plate portion and the first reference plane is configured to be 10°≤δ≤40°, as both references and Applicant’s invention are directed to impellers. Doing so would result in better guiding airflow, which avoids big noise and vibration caused by rapid change of size, as recognized by Wang.
Claims 12 and 13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Swigert in view of Qiu et al. (hereafter Qiu – CN 112253536) with reference made to Microsoft machine translation.
Regarding Claim 12, Swigert teaches (Figs. 1-4) the fan according to claim 11.
However, Swigert does not teach an air deflector disposed upstream of the impeller and having a cross-sectional area that gradually decreases in the air intake direction, the air deflector having a drainage end and a guide end sequentially distributed in the air intake direction, the guide end extending into the air inlet of the second end plate.
Qiu teaches (Figs. 1-3) a fan comprising an air deflector 2 disposed upstream of the impeller 1 and having a cross-sectional area that gradually decreases in the air intake direction (see Fig. 3), the air deflector having a drainage end and a guide end sequentially distributed in the air intake direction (Fig. 3), the guide end extending into the air inlet of the second end plate (Fig. 3).
Qiu further teaches providing such an air deflector helps stabilize the impeller inlet airflow and provides better conditions for the blades to efficiently do work on the gas.
It would have been obvious for a person having ordinary skill in the art to apply the teachings of Qiu to the impeller of Swigert to have an air deflector disposed upstream of the impeller and having a cross-sectional area that gradually decreases in the air intake direction, the air deflector having a drainage end and a guide end sequentially distributed in the air intake direction, the guide end extending into the air inlet of the second end plate, as both references and Applicant’s invention are directed to impellers. Doing so helps stabilize the impeller inlet airflow and provides better conditions for the blades to efficiently do work on the gas, as recognized by Qiu.
Regarding Claim 13, Swigert, as modified with Qiu in claim 12 above, teaches (Qiu Figs. 1-4) the fan according to claim 12, wherein in a radial direction of the impeller, a gap d between the guide end and an edge of the air inlet is configured to be 4 mm≤d≤10 mm; and/or a depth H of the guide end extending into the air inlet is configured to be 5 mm≤H≤15 mm (see Qiu t3 and t1 in Fig. 3, para. 0018).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. See cited references.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ANDREW BUI whose telephone number is (571) 272-0685. The examiner can normally be reached on 7:30 AM - 4:30 PM.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Courtney Heinle can be reached on (571) 270-3508. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is (571) 273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free).
/ANDREW THANH BUI/Examiner, Art Unit 3745
Prosecution Insights