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, 4-6, 8, 10, 12, and 13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Cocks et al. (hereafter Cocks – US 20150316069).
Claim 1 recites “a diagonal impeller.” Cocks teaches such a diagonal impeller, as will be shown.
Cocks teaches (Figs. 1-3) a diagonal impeller, comprising:
a base plate 14 connected to a drive motor (para. 0017);
a top plate 16 provided with an air inlet 18; and
a plurality of blades 12 connected between the base plate and the top plate and arranged around an axis 20 of the air inlet, an air outlet 22 being formed between the base plate and the top plate,
wherein, in an axial direction of the air inlet, diameters of circumferences enclosed by the blades are not equal (see Fig. 3), and an outer diameter of the base plate D2 is smaller than an outer diameter of the top plate (D1, see Fig. 3).
Regarding Claim 4, Cocks teaches (Figs. 1-3) the diagonal impeller according to claim 1, wherein a surface of the top plate connected to the blades is an inclined surface, and an inclination angle δ of the inclined surface satisfies: 10°<δ<50° (at least some portion of the top plate would have the claimed inclination angle, see Fig. 3).
Regarding Claim 5, Cocks teaches (Figs. 1-3) the diagonal impeller according to claim 1, wherein, in a radial direction of the air inlet, a dimension between a projection line of each blade on an axial section of the air inlet and the axis of the air inlet is gradually decreased along a direction from the top plate toward the base plate (see Fig. 3).
Regarding Claim 6, Cocks teaches (Figs. 1-3) the diagonal impeller according to claim 5, wherein each blade of the plurality of blades has a top edge connected to the top plate and a bottom edge connected to the base plate, and a maximum diameter D3 of a top circle enclosed by the top edges and an outer diameter D1 of the top plate satisfy: D1≥D3 (see Figs. 2, 3).
Regarding Claim 8, Cocks teaches (Figs. 1-3) the diagonal impeller according to claim 6, wherein each of the plurality of blades has a leading edge and a trailing edge connected between the top edge and the bottom edge, and the trailing edge is located outside the leading edge and inclined toward the leading edge (see Fig. 4).
Regarding Claim 10, Cocks teaches (Figs. 1-3) the diagonal impeller according to claim 8, wherein the trailing edge comprises an inclined section and an arcuate section, the arcuate section protrudes in a direction distant from the leading edge, one end of the arcuate section is connected to the inclined section and another end of the arcuate section is connected to the bottom edge (see Fig. 1 and Fig. 2).
Regarding Claim 12, Cocks teaches (Figs. 1-3) a fan, comprising the diagonal impeller according to claim 1.
Regarding Claim 13, Cocks teaches (Figs. 1-3) a ventilation device, comprising the fan according to claim 12.
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 2 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Cocks in view of Zhu (CN 109340179).
Regarding Claim 2, Cocks teaches (Figs. 1-3) the diagonal impeller according to claim 1.
However, Cocks does not teach an outer diameter D1 of the top plate and an outer diameter D2 of the base plate satisfy: 0.7≤D2/D1<1.
Zhu teaches (Fig. 1) a diagonal impeller comprising a top plate 1, bottom plate 2, wherein an outer diameter D1 of the top plate and an outer diameter D2 of the base plate satisfy: 0.7≤D2/D1<1 (para. 0017).
Zhu further teaches providing such a diameter D2/D1 ratio in order to make the air flowing through the flow channel 4 has better flow state as possible to optimize stress state of each centrifugal blade (para. 0017).
It would have been obvious for a person having ordinary skill in the art to apply the teachings of Zhu to the diagonal impeller of Cocks to have an outer diameter D1 of the top plate and an outer diameter D2 of the base plate satisfy: 0.7≤D2/D1<1, as both references and Applicant’s invention are directed to diagonal impellers. Doing so would result in the air flowing through the flow channel having a better flow state to optimize stress state of each centrifugal blade, as recognized by Zhu.
Claims 3 and 11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Cocks in view of Zhu et al. (hereafter Zhu ‘048 – CN 208442048).
Regarding Claim 3, Cocks teaches (Figs. 1-3) the diagonal impeller according to claim 1, wherein a surface of the base plate 40 connected to the blades is an inclined surface.
However, Cocks does not teach an inclination angle γ of the inclined surface satisfies: 10°<γ<40°.
Zhu ‘048 teaches (Fig. 4) a base plate 11 connected to the blades having an inclined surface, wherein an inclination angle γ (α) of the inclined surface satisfies: 10°<γ<40° (para. 0023-0024).
Zhu ‘048 further teaches such an inclination angle of the base plate will not produce the sharp change of the airflow. it can prevent the short circuit of the air flow phenomenon noise generated (para. 0023-0024).
It would have been obvious for a person having ordinary skill in the art to apply the teachings of Zhu ‘048 to the diagonal impeller of Cocks to have an inclination angle γ of the inclined surface satisfies: 10°<γ<40°, as both references and Applicant’s invention are directed to diagonal impellers. Doing so would result in the reducing a sharp change of the airflow and associated noise generated, as recognized by Zhu ‘048.
Regarding Claim 11, Cocks teaches (Figs. 1-3) the diagonal impeller according to claim 8, wherein the trailing edge comprises an inclined section (Fig. 1)
However, Cocks does not teach a toothed structure, and the toothed structure is formed on the inclined section.
Zhu ‘048 teaches (Fig. 1-4) a diagonal impeller comprising a blade 40 with an inclined trailing edge (Fig. 2), a toothed structure (Fig. 4), and the toothed structure is formed on the inclined section (para. 0023-0024).
Zhu ‘048 further teaches such a toothed structure can suppress generation of vortex (para. 0023-0024).
It would have been obvious for a person having ordinary skill in the art to apply the teachings of Zhu ‘048 to the diagonal impeller of Cocks to have a toothed structure, and the toothed structure is formed on the inclined section, as both references and Applicant’s invention are directed to diagonal impellers. Doing so would result in reducing vortices during operation, as recognized by Zhu ‘048.
Claim 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Cocks in view of Kim (CN 1501001).
Regarding Claim 7, Cocks teaches (Figs. 1-3) the diagonal impeller according to claim 6.
However, Cocks does not teach a maximum diameter D4 of a bottom circle enclosed by the bottom edges and an outer diameter D2 of the base plate satisfy: D4≥D2.
Kim teaches a diagonal impeller wherein a maximum diameter D4 of a bottom circle enclosed by the bottom edges and an outer diameter D2 of the base plate satisfy: D4≥D2 (see Fig. 5).
Kim further teaches such a maximum diameter D4 of a bottom circle enclosed by the bottom edges and an outer diameter D2 of the base plate satisfy: D4≥D2 has excellent effects capable of prolonging mould service life (page 6, lines 14-31).
It would have been obvious for a person having ordinary skill in the art to apply the teachings Kim to the diagonal impeller of Cocks to have a maximum diameter D4 of a bottom circle enclosed by the bottom edges and an outer diameter D2 of the base plate satisfy: D4≥D2, as both references and Applicant’s invention are directed to diagonal impellers. Doing so would result in reducing vortices during operation, as recognized by Kim.
Claim 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Cocks in view of Laurila et al. (hereafter Laurila – US 20150377247).
Regarding Claim 9, Cocks teaches (Figs. 1-3) the diagonal impeller according to claim 8, wherein the trailing edge is inclined with respect to the axis of the air inlet (Fig. 1).
However, Cocks does not teach an angle α between the trailing edge and the axis of the air inlet satisfies: 0°≤α≤45°.
Laurila teaches a diagonal impeller having a blade 5 with a trailing edge, wherein the trailing edge is inclined with respect to the axis of an air inlet 4, wherein an angle α between the trailing edge and the axis of the air inlet satisfies: 0°≤α≤45° (para. 0017, Fig. 4a).
Laurila further teaches such an angle range of the trailing edge to air inlet axis to increase in efficiency for a fan wheel in an air handling box may be achieved, while the sound power level of the fan can be kept low.
It would have been obvious for a person having ordinary skill in the art to apply the teachings Laurila to the diagonal impeller of Cocks to an angle α between the trailing edge and the axis of the air inlet satisfies: 0°≤α≤45°, as both references and Applicant’s invention are directed to diagonal impellers. Doing so would result in reducing vortices during operation, as recognized by Laurila.
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
/COURTNEY D HEINLE/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3745
Prosecution Insights