DETAILED ACTION
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 1 and 7 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 limitations relating to the vertical arrangement of the batteries (claim 1) and horizontal longitudinal direction of the batteries (claim 7) remains unclear, because the claimed orientation of the batteries are being defined relative to the vertical or horizontal direction, which are not defined as part of or fixed relative to the remainder of the apparatus. It is suggested that the applicant amend each claim to either a) define a set axis of the blower and define the relative orientations of the batteries relative to the set axis or b) clarify a set orientation of the blower as a whole (i.e. “when the back frame is on the back of an upright user” or something similar).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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 (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) 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.
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.
Claims 1, 2, 5-8 and 11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Takahashi (2018/0094393) in view of Eriksen (RE37,081), Tokumaru et al. (6,105,206), Presenza (6,006,400), Yamamoto et al. (10,954,947) and Clarke (2007/0209140).
PNG
media_image1.png
657
910
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 1, Takahashi discloses (Figs. 10a-12a and 13a-b) a backpack blower working machine comprising: a back frame (11) worn to be carried on a back of a worker; a volute case (21A) mounted on the back frame; a centrifugal fan (22A) equipped in the volute case; an electric motor (23A) assembled to the volute case and configured to rotate the centrifugal fan; and a plurality of batteries (40) attached to the back frame and configured to supply the electric motor with electricity, the back frame including an upper section and a lower section (see annotated Fig. 10a below; upper and lower portions divided at any point between the mount location of the upper motor, at line X, and the lower motor at line Y), with a font of the back frame facing he back of the worker when carried and a back of the back frame facing away from the back of the worker when carried (as indicated in all Figs. 10a, 11, 12a and 13a-b) wherein: shoulder belts (13; disclosed for previous embodiments and obviously necessary for all embodiments to function as a backpack-type blower) for carrying and the volute case in which the centrifugal fan is equipped and to which the electric motor is assembled are provided on the upper section; and a battery arrangement space (portions 16 in lower section) for the batteries is provided in the lower section (any portion holding batteries below the dividing line would be considered the battery arrangement space that is in the lower section), the battery arrangement space having a plurality of battery holders configured to arrange the plurality of batteries vertically relative to one another, a plurality of upper components mounted in the upper section and having a collective first center of gravity, said plurality of upper components including said volute case in which the centrifugal fan is equipped and to which the electric motor is assembled; and a plurality of lower components mounted in the lower section and having a collective second center of gravity, said lower components including said vertically arranged plurality of batteries; wherein the collective first center of gravity of the plurality of upper components is closer to the front of the back frame than is the collective second center of gravity of the plurality of lower components (due to the lower fan and motor being positioned rearward of the upper fan and motor for each of Figs. 10a-b, 11 and 12a, and the motor of the upper portion being positioned forward of the motor of the lower portion in Figs. 13a-b, the collective center of gravity of the components of the upper portion will be positioned closer to the front of the frame than the center of gravity of the plurality of components in the lower portion).
However, Takahashi fails to disclose that the upper and lower sections of the back frame are formed individually and coupled to one another. Eriksen discloses a similar mounting structure for a vacuum cleaner, having upper and lower sections, and teaches that the sections are preferably coupled to one another via a flexible connection (4) to allow flexibility of the backpack components during operation for increased freedom of motion of the user (abstract), which will increase comfort and ease of motion for a user. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to provide a similar flexible connection between the upper and lower sections (any location therebetween will effectively form upper and lower sections relative to the flexible coupling, which must be formed separately to be joined by the flexible connection, with a separation at line X or Y would allow for components to be separated on the upper and lower portions), as taught by Eriksen, to increase comfort and ease of motion for a user.
Regarding the limitation (filed 28 March 2025) that the total weight of the batteries and the battery holders is greater than a total weight of the volute case, the centrifugal fan, and the electric motor, there are several reasons that would be commonly known in the art to anyone of ordinary skill in the art that would make this limitation obvious:
Eriksen discloses that the major weight of the vacuum cleaner may be carried by the hip strap (Col. 1, lines 61-65 and Col. 3, line 67-Col. 4, line 1), providing comfortable weight distribution to enable extended use, that the heaviest parts are positioned in the lower part of the housing, such as the batteries (Col. 2, lines 9-21) and that the batteries are positioned on the front and underside of the lower part (Col. 5, lines 60-62). Thus, Eriksen effectively teaches that the battery is considered one of the heaviest parts, that the weight is preferably distributed primarily at the bottom, and that the battery is preferably positioned on the bottom (“underside” necessitates the lowest point on the device) of the lower section.
Eriksen also discloses that the vacuum cleaner is desirably designed with a light-weight construction, and the motor should be as light and effective as possible, with a desirable total weight of the vacuum cleaner being less than 4kg. (Col. 4, lines 14-18). This cited weight is assumed to be the vacuum cleaner excluding the weight of the battery or in an embodiment where the power supply does not require batteries, such as a mains cable connection (Col. 2, lines 12-14), particularly in view of the known concept that batteries are typically the heaviest part of the cleaner and evidenced by Tokumaru, disclosing battery weights for a hand held blower in the range of 18-27lbs (substantially more than the 4kg=8.8lbs. disclosed by Eriksen).
Tokumaru also discloses a handheld vacuum cleaner, known in the art to require lower overall weight than backpack style blowers (weight capacity being the primary advantage of backpack blowers), and teaches that the size and weight of the battery will vary according to the motor being used and according to particular operating time required (Col. 5, lines 8-11).
Presenza similarly teaches that the blower includes an electric motor to reduce weight (Col. 1, line 10), the major weight of the blower may be carried by a user’s hips (Col. 1, lines 47-50), that the battery (2) is positioned in the lower part of the housing, that the fan, volute case and electric motor are positioned an upper portion of the housing.
It is commonly known in the art of battery powered appliances, particularly those that are user supported, that batteries are typically the heaviest component(s), as evidenced by Clarke (2007/0209140; “the battery pack is one of the heaviest vacuum cleaner components” in ¶6 and ¶31) and Poole et al. (2016/0198636), wherein reducing weight of batteries has been a primary focus of the battery industry for decades.
The number of batteries may be varied, as taught by Yamamoto (Col. 13, lines 16-25), which would be understood to anyone of ordinary skill in the art to be a matter of design choice to provide a desired balance of weight (less batteries for less weight) and power capacity and run time (increased with less batteries). Additionally, Takahashi discloses that it is desirable for the center of gravity to be located close to the operator at a lower position as much as possible to improve usability and reduce fatigue of the operator (paragraph 41), such that it would be obvious to provide a range of different amounts of batteries to the blower of Takahashi to reach the desired weight/power capacity balance, including either 2 or 3 batteries, as taught by Yamamoto. It would further be obvious when varying the number of batteries in a similar embodiment of Figs. 10a-10b of Takahashi, to remove the 1-2 batteries (to reach the alternative 2-3 batteries) from the upper location(s) to effectively lower the center of gravity for improved balance and comfort as taught by Yamamoto.
The examiner also hereby takes official notice that the volute case and fan for the majority of modern user supported cleaners, are formed from plastics, for the purpose of reduced weight, increased strength, easy/cheap production, with fans also almost universally being designed to be lightweight to allow for high-speed rotation required to operate effectively and reduced overall weight of the component, as taught by Eriksen.
Therefore, in view of the prior art disclosure that:
As much of the weight should be positioned, as low as possible and on the hips
Batteries are commonly the heaviest weight component of a blower and are therefore commonly positioned at the lowest point on user supported devices
A motor should be as light and effective as possible with electric motors being known to reduce weight
That batteries are commonly heavier than the remainder of the cleaner (based on 4kg cleaner of Eriksen used with any of the 18+ pound batteries taught by Tokumaru)
That differing numbers of batteries may be applied to the configuration of Takahashi (Fig. 10a-b).
The common construction and design for volute cases and fans are from lightweight material and designed to reduce overall weight.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to configure the blower of Takahashi position the batteries as low as possible to lower the center of gravity, with any known combination of batteries (size and/or quantity) to balance the overall weight with a desired power capacity, many/most of which would obviously result in the batteries being greater in weight (along with battery holders) than the combination of the volute case, fan and electric motor.
Regarding the new limitation of claim 1 (added 27 August 2025), the centrifugal fan that reads on the claimed “a centrifugal fan” for Takahashi, is the upper fan (21A), as cited in the first few lines of paragraph 6 above. Therefore, the structure disclosed by Takahashi is considered to read on the new limitation that the lower section does not include the centrifugal fan that reads on the claimed centrifugal fan (whereas Takahashi may be considered to include a second centrifugal fan that is not claimed).
Regarding claim 2, although Takahashi fails to disclose a waist belt, Eriksen further discloses the similar backpack blower, also having shoulder straps and including a waist belt (6) to carry the major part of the weight of the blower by the hips of the user (Col. 4, lines 61-62), which will be understood to anyone of ordinary skill in the art to provide a more secure connection to a user and to distribute most of the weight of the blower onto the hips of the user, as opposed to entirely supporting the weight on the shoulders and back. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to provide a similar waist belt to the blower of Takahashi, as taught by Eriksen, to provide a more secure mounting structure and to distribute the weight of the blower.
Regarding claim 5, Takahashi further discloses that a back end of components, as a whole, particularly the lower volute casing and fan) mounted on the lower section is located more backward than a back end of a component (any of the upper components) mounted on the upper section in the front-to-back direction (for Figs. 10a-12a).
Regarding claim 6, Takahashi further discloses that the centrifugal fan is disposed backward of the electric motor (Figs. 10a-11 and 13a-13b).
Regarding claim 7, Takahashi further discloses that a plurality of batteries are arranged vertically relative to one another with the longitudinal direction of the plurality of batteries facing horizontally (as seen in Fig. 10b).
Regarding claim 8, Takahashi further discloses that the lower section includes battery holders (16) configured to slidably hold the batteries in the longitudinal direction.
Regarding claim 11, Takahashi further discloses that the battery arrangement space has a length (L1; see annotated Fig. 10a above) in an up-and-down direction and a length in a right and left (L2) direction each of which is longer than a length in a front-to-back direction (L3).
Response to Arguments
The examiner acknowledges the receipt of the priority document. The amendments have also overcome the rejections under 35 U.S.C. 112. However, the applicant’s remaining arguments, see Remarks, filed 26 November 2025, with respect to the prior art rejection(s) of all pending claims under 35 U.S.C. 103 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
The applicant places the sole argument on the grounds that the applied combination of prior art would not read on the claimed invention having the separately formed upper and lower frame sections, connected by a flexible coupling part, and having the components oriented in the respective sections, as claimed. The applicant focuses on the disclosure of Eriksen, which discloses only a filter bag, along with the statement that the heaviest parts are positioned in the lower section, to suggest that it would not be obvious to have any of the components disclosed by Takahashi on the upper section of the blower to read on the claimed invention. However, Takahashi is applied as the primary reference, with Eriksen merely being relied upon for a teaching that a 2-part flexible housing being advantageous for comfort and mobility. The teaching of Eriksen is then applied to Takahashi, wherein the orientation of Takahashi is discussed in the rejections to be further modified to include less batteries, all located as low on the frame as possible. Therefore, when the 2-part flexible frame is applied to the modified version of Takahashi’s Fig. 10, the lower frame section (separated somewhere between lines X and Y as shown above) would include all of the batteries, one of the motors, and one of the blowers, with only a single motor and blower on the upper section. This weight distribution would still focus the majority of the weight, as well as the heaviest parts (being the batteries), in the lower section, particularly when using a lightweight motor as suggested by Eriksen, and with the fan/volute being known in the art to be lightweight (again, all addressed in the rejections above). Therefore, the examiner maintains that the prior art as a whole, does make obvious the claimed distribution of parts when applying a flexible frame to the blower of Takahashi.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Each of Cochran et al. (2010/0005614), Presenza (6,006,400) and Takahashi (2013/0312213) disclose blowers having similar structure as the applicant’s claimed invention.
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to BRYAN R MULLER whose telephone number is (571)272-4489. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8am-5pm.
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, Brian Keller can be reached on 571-272-8548. 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.
/BRYAN R MULLER/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3723 19 December 2025