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 .
Drawings
The drawings are objected to under 37 CFR 1.83(a). The drawings must show every feature of the invention specified in the claims. Therefore, the apparatus for administering bilateral nonluminous visual stimulation of claims 6-9 and 14-15 must be shown or the feature(s) canceled from the claim(s). Figures 11 and 12 show the apparatus for administering bilateral indirect cutaneous stimulation, but there are no figures showing the apparatus for administering bilateral nonluminous visual stimulation. The arrangement of the window, actuator, and roller are not featured in the assembly. Further claim 6, reads as thought the apparatus for administering bilateral nonluminous visual stimulation and the apparatus for administering bilateral indirect cutaneous stimulation are one device which is also not shown in the drawings.
Claims 9, 10, 15 and 16 reference a visual or graphical interface that is not shown in the drawings. The visual or graphical interface must be shown or the feature(s) canceled from the claim(s).
No new matter should be entered.
Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
The drawings are objected to as failing to comply with 37 CFR 1.84(p)(5) because they include the following reference character(s) not mentioned in the description:
All of the reference characters in Figures 11, 12, 13;
Figure 19: 1902, 1903, 1904;
Figures 20-25: all reference characters;
Figure 26: 2601, 2603, 2604, 2605, 2606, 2608;
Figure 27: all reference characters except 2700.
Examiner suggests that if the reference characters are not being used in the specification, to remove them from the drawing.
Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d), or amendment to the specification to add the reference character(s) in the description in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(b) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
The drawings are objected to as failing to comply with 37 CFR 1.84(p)(5) because they do not include the following reference sign(s) mentioned in the description:
Figure 9, fan “803”
Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
Claim Objections
Claims 1-16 are objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 1 recites “consisting of a duct, fan mounted” in line 9, but should read --consisting of a duct, a fan mounted--.
Claim 1 recites “driveshaft” and “drive shaft”, both are acceptable, but one should be consistently used throughout the claims.
Claim 1 recites “such unit” in line 15, but should read --said unit--.
Claim 2 recites “stimulation subject” in line 1, but should read --stimulation to the human subject--.
For dependent claims 3-5, 7-9 and 11-15, the preamble should recite --the human subject--.
Claim 3 recites “having ducted fan” in line 2, but should read --having the ducted fan--.
Claim 3 recites “its drive shaft” in line 2, but should read --having the ducted fan--.
Claim 6 recites “widow” in line 3, but should read --window--.
Claim 6 recites “by human subject” in line 9, but should read --by the human subject--.
Claim 7-9, 14, and 15 are objected to under 37 CFR 1.75(c) as being in improper form because a multiple dependent claim should refer to other claims in the alternative only. See MPEP § 608.01(n).
Claims 10 and 16 recite “micro-controller”, “micro controller” and “microcontrollers”, while all three are acceptable, they should be referenced consistently in the same manner.
Claims 10 and 16 recite “EDF” in line 5, but the acronym should be spelled out for the first occurrence in independent claims.
Claim 10 recites “such unit” in line 12, but should read --said unit--.
Claim 11 recites “a flow of air” in line 3, but should read --the flow of air-- or --said flow of air-- as antecedent basis was established in claim 10.
Claim 11 recites “such unit” in line 3, but should read --said unit--.
Claim 13 recites “wherein a both units” in line 2, but should read --wherein both units--.
Claim 16 recites “interface; cutaneous stimulation unit” in line 6, but should read -- interface; a second cutaneous stimulation unit--.
Claim 16 recites “such unit” in line 12, but should read --said unit--.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claims 6-9 and 14-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention. Claim 6 recites a device that consists of window, the cutaneous stimulation units of claim 1, a roller, a drive shaft and a motor. The specification and drawings lack any support for how the components, outside of the cutaneous stimulation units of claim 1 will function as they lack a controller and power. The use of “consisting of” limits the claim and dependent claim to only those recited parts. Further the specification and drawings do not support how the components are arranged within the device nor how the components interact with the cutaneous stimulation units of claim 1. The apparatus for administering bilateral nonluminous visual stimulation of claim 6 fails to comply with the written description requirement.
Claim 7-9 and 14-15 are dependent on claim 6.
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 1-16 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 1 recites the limitation "a pair of self-synchronizing units to apply stimulation events; a first cutaneous stimulation unit" in lines 2-3. It is unclear if the first cutaneous stimulation unit (and second cutaneous stimulation unit) are intended to be the pair of self-synchronizing units to apply stimulation events in the device or if they are secondary to another pair of units.
Claim 1 recites the limitation "the second unit " in line 5. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 1 recites the limitation "(composed of stator coils and a polarized magnetic rotor which divides rotation into a number of discrete steps)" in lines 10-11, but the use of the parentheses makes it unclear if applicant intends to positively recite the limitation.
Claim 1 recites the limitation "the stator coils” in line 12. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. See the use of parentheses rejection supra, it is unclear if the stator coils are positively recited, establishing antecedent basis.
Claim 1 recites the limitation "the skin of the person wearing” in line 15. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claims 1-9 and 14-15 inherit the same deficiencies.
Claim 2 recites the limitation "the EDF of each cutaneous stimulation unit is attached to a brushless "stepper" motor" in line 2. The limitation as written reads as thought the EDF, which already comprises a motor, is attached to a second motor, which renders the claim unclear as how to a motor attached to the EDF actuates the EDF.
Claim 3 is written as a dependent claim, but does not disclose which claim it depends from, as such, limitations “the apparatus”, “the electric motor” and “the EDF” lack antecedent basis.
Claim 3 recites the limitation "sufficiently" in line 3. The range of what is sufficient is not defined by the claims rendering it unclear.
Claim 4 inherits the same deficiencies.
Claim 4 recites the limitation "preferably" in line 2. It is unclear how the limitation “preferably” limits the claim.
Claim 5 recites the limitation "the activation sequence” in line 3. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 5 recites the limitation “the activation sequence; the first unit activated, or the first unit to be detected by the other, will synchronize both units. The second unit, having detected the first, follows the first.” in line 3-4. It is unclear if the limitations are intended to recite an activation sequence. It is also unclear if the second sentence in the claim is intended to limit the claim. The grammar in the limitation also makes it unclear what is being claimed.
Claim 6 recites the limitation "the units described in claim 1" in line 2. As claim 1 currently recites multiple units, it is unclear what units are being referenced.
Claim 6 recites the limitation "one side of which" in line 3. It is unclear what the limitation is referencing, whether it is the window or the roller.
Claim 6 recites the limitation "(composed of stator coils and a polarized magnetic rotor which divides rotation into a number of discrete steps)" in lines 4-6, but the use of the parentheses makes it unclear if applicant intends to positively recite the limitation.
Claim 6 recites the limitation "the stator coils” in line 6. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. See the use of parentheses rejection supra, it is unclear if the stator coils are positively recited, establishing antecedent basis.
Claims 7-9 and 14-15 inherit the same deficiencies.
Claim 9 recites the limitation "the rate" in 3. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 10 recites the limitation "two units with communicating microcontrollers that synchronize cutaneous stimulation events; a first cutaneous stimulation" in lines 2-3. It is unclear if the first cutaneous stimulation unit (and second cutaneous stimulation unit) are intended to be the two units with communicating microcontrollers in the device or if they are secondary to another pair of units.
Claim 10 recites the limitation "a second graphic interface" in lines 9-10. A first graphic interface is not recited, rendering the limitation unclear.
Claim 10 recites the limitation "the skin of the person” in line 11. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claims 11-15 inherit the same deficiencies.
Claim 11 recites the limitations “a reverse torque that turns the fan of the unit of which the motor is a part”. Claim 10 recites “EDF” but does not disclose the purpose or components of the EDF and since claim 10 is an independent claim, it does not carry the limitations from claim 1. As such, “reverse torque” lacks clarity within the claim. Further “the fan” and “the motor” lack antecedent basis. It is also clear what “the unit” is referencing from claim 10.
Claim 12 recites the limitation "the micro-controller of either module” in line 2. There is no reference to module in claim 10 so there is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 15 recites the limitation "the rate" in 3. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 16 recites the limitation "two units with communicating microcontrollers that synchronize cutaneous stimulation events; a first cutaneous stimulation" in lines 2-3. It is unclear if the first cutaneous stimulation unit (and second cutaneous stimulation unit) are intended to be the two units with communicating microcontrollers in the device or if they are secondary to another pair of units.
Claim 16 recites the limitation "a second graphic interface" in lines 9-10. A first graphic interface is not recited, rendering the limitation unclear.
Claim 16 recites the limitation "the skin of the person” in line 11. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 16 recites the limitation "the intensity” in line 14. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 16 recites the limitation "the level” in line 16. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
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.
The factual inquiries 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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claim(s) 1, 5, and 7-16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Jones (US20180318545A1) in view of Galbraith (“Does the Use of a Handheld Fan Improve Chronic Dyspnea? A Randomized, Controlled, Crossover Trial”, 2010), further in view of Carpenter (“EDF and Turbine” 2011)
Regarding claim 1, Jones discloses an apparatus for administering bilateral indirect cutaneous stimulation to a human subject (Abstract), said device comprising: a pair of self-synchronizing units to apply stimulation events (Paragraph [0065]); a first cutaneous stimulation unit powered by a first rechargeable battery (Paragraph [0048]) in contact with one side of the human subject (Paragraph [0061]), said first unit containing a first micro-controller (Abstract), and a first transceiver that communicates with the second unit (Abstract); a second cutaneous stimulation unit powered by a second rechargeable battery (Paragraph [0048]) in contact with the other side of the human subject (Paragraph [0061]), said second unit containing a second micro-controller (Abstract), and a second transceiver that communicates with the first unit (Abstract); providing a stimulation against the skin of the person wearing such unit (Abstract), said stimulation being perceived as a cutaneous touch by the human subject (Paragraph [0014]).
Jones discloses the use of an electric DC motor (Paragraph {0067], claim 1) to actuate the cutaneous stimulation, but does not disclose the stimulation actuator is an electric fan. Galbraith discloses that a handheld fan can be used for stimulation therapy (Page 2 “Introduction”). It would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to one having ordinary skill in the art to modify the apparatus as taught by Jones, with using a fan as the stimulation actuator as taught by Galbraith, since such a modification would provide the predictable results of an effective treatment for breathlessness.
Jones, as modified by Galbraith, does not disclose a duct, a fan mounted on a driveshaft within the duct, and a brushless electric motor mounted to the duct to turn the drive shaft fed a pulsed flow of electricity that turns the fan of the unit of which the motor is a part, forcing a flow of air through the duct. Carpenter discloses that electric ducted fans (EDF) have long been used for in the radio-controlled model aircraft, with the ability to produce a high-volume flow of air very quickly (Page 1). A POSITA looking to provide stimulation via air flow in very short burst would look to an EDF because of its ability to rapidly provide bursts of air flow in a directed manner. It would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to one having ordinary skill in the art to modify the apparatus as taught by modified Jones, with an EDF as the stimulator as taught by Carpenter, since such a modification would provide the predictable results of providing a strong burst of air flow in very short pulses.
Regarding claim 5, Jones, as modified in claim 1, further discloses the micro-controller of either unit will synchronize itself with the other based on the activation sequence; the first unit activated, or the first unit to be detected by the other, will synchronize both units wherein the second unit, having detected the first, follows the first (Paragraphs [0065]-[0066]).
Regarding claim 7, Jones, as modified in claim 1, further discloses each unit has been preprogrammed, thereby enabling the first and second unit to communicate with each other (Paragraphs [0065]-[0066]).
Regarding claim 8, Jones, as modified in claim 1, further discloses the first and second units communicate with each other using short wavelength UHF radio waves in the ISM band from 2.4 to 2.4835 Ghz through a coded communication protocol (Paragraph [0012]).
Regarding claim 9, Jones, as modified in claim 1, further discloses the rate of bilateral tactile stimulation is a function of manual input from the human subject by way of a non-toggling switch on each unit (Paragraph [0103]), Off and On can be interpreted as a rate) to select from a number of preset rates indicated by a graphic interface on each unit (Paragraph [0103]).
Regarding claim 10, Jones discloses an apparatus for administering bilateral indirect cutaneous stimulation to a human subject (Abstract), said device comprising: two units with communicating microcontrollers that synchronize cutaneous stimulation events (Abstract, Paragraph [0065]); a first cutaneous stimulation unit powered by a first rechargeable battery (Paragraph [0048]) in contact with a right side of the human subject (Paragraph [0061]), said first unit containing a first microcontroller (Abstract), a first transceiver that communicates with a second micro controller in a second unit (Abstract), a first user-activated switch and a first visual interface (paragraph [0103]); cutaneous stimulation unit powered by a second rechargeable battery (Paragraph [0048]) in contact with a left side of the human subject (Paragraph [0061]), said second unit containing a second micro-controller (Abstract), a second transceiver that communicates with the first micro controller (Abstract), a second user-activated switch and a second graphic interface (paragraph [0103]); and wherein both units are identical and provide stimulation against the skin of the person wearing such unit (Abstract), said stimulation being perceived as a cutaneous touch by the human subject (Paragraph [0014]).
Jones discloses the use of an electric DC motor (Paragraph {0067], claim 1) to actuate the cutaneous stimulation, but does not disclose the stimulation actuator is an electric fan. Galbraith discloses that a handheld fan can be used for stimulation therapy (Page 2 “Introduction”). It would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to one having ordinary skill in the art to modify the apparatus as taught by Jones, with using a fan as the stimulation actuator as taught by Galbraith, since such a modification would provide the predictable results of an effective treatment for breathlessness.
Jones, as modified by Galbraith, does not disclose an EDF forcing a flow of air through a duct and then a nozzle accelerating said flow of air. Carpenter discloses that electric ducted fans (EDF) have long been used for in the radio-controlled model aircraft, with the ability to produce a high-volume flow of air very quickly (Page 1). A POSITA looking to provide stimulation via air flow in very short burst would look to an EDF because of its ability to rapidly provide bursts of air flow in a directed manner. It would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to one having ordinary skill in the art to modify the apparatus as taught by modified Jones, with an EDF as the stimulator as taught by Carpenter, since such a modification would provide the predictable results of providing a strong burst of air flow in very short pulses.
Regarding claim 11, Jones, as modified in claim 10, discloses an electric DC motor for driving an electric ducted fan (see claim 10 rejection supra). The limitations of claim 11 state the known way an electric ducted fan driving by an electric DC motor functions, “a reverse torque that turns the fan of the unit of which the motor is a part, forcing a flow of air through the duct”. The limitation of “against the skin of the person wearing such unit, said airflow being perceived as a cutaneous touch and/or pressure differential by the human subject” is a reiteration of the limitation of claim 10.
Regarding claim 12, Jones, as modified in claim 10, further discloses the micro-controller of either module is programmed to synchronize with the other (Paragraphs [0065]-[0066]).
Regarding claim 13, Jones, as modified in claim 10, further discloses both units are programmed to wirelessly communicate with the other. (Paragraphs [0012], [0065]-[0066]).
Regarding claim 14, Jones, as disclosed in claim 13, further discloses the first and second units communicate with each other using short-wavelength UHF radio waves in the ISM band from 2.4 to 2.4835 Ghz through a coded communication protocol (Paragraphs [0012]).
Regarding claim 15, Jones, as modified in claim 10, further discloses the rate of bilateral tactile stimulation is a function of manual input from the human subject by way of a non-toggling switch on each unit (Paragraph [0103]), Off and On can be interpreted as a rate) to select from a number of preset rates indicated by a graphic interface on each unit (Paragraph [0103]).
Regarding claim 16, Jones discloses an apparatus for administering bilateral indirect cutaneous stimulation to a human subject (Abstract), said device comprising: two units with communicating microcontrollers that synchronize cutaneous stimulation events (Abstract, Paragraph [0065]); a first cutaneous stimulation unit powered by a first rechargeable battery (Paragraph [0048]) in contact with a right side of the human subject (Paragraph [0061]), said first unit containing a first microcontroller (Abstract), a first transceiver that communicates with a second micro controller in a second unit (Abstract), a first user-activated switch and a first visual interface (paragraph [0103]); cutaneous stimulation unit powered by a second rechargeable battery (Paragraph [0048]) in contact with a left side of the human subject (Paragraph [0061]), said second unit containing a second micro-controller (Abstract), a second transceiver that communicates with the first micro controller (Abstract), a second user-activated switch and a second graphic interface (paragraph [0103]); and wherein both units are identical and provide stimulation against the skin of the person wearing such unit (Abstract), said stimulation being perceived as a cutaneous touch by the human subject (Paragraph [0014]), said units synchronizing indirect cutaneous stimulation events provided by said first and second units (Paragraph [0065]), said graphic interface enables a user to change the intensity, interval and duration of the indirect cutaneous stimulation events of said first and second units, tum the units on or off, and display the level of discharge of the batteries (Paragraph [0095]).
Jones discloses the use of an electric DC motor (Paragraph {0067], claim 1) to actuate the cutaneous stimulation, but does not disclose the stimulation actuator is an electric fan. Galbraith discloses that a handheld fan can be used for stimulation therapy (Page 2 “Introduction”). It would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to one having ordinary skill in the art to modify the apparatus as taught by Jones, with using a fan as the stimulation actuator as taught by Galbraith, since such a modification would provide the predictable results of an effective treatment for breathlessness.
Jones, as modified by Galbraith, does not disclose an EDF forcing a flow of air through a duct and then a nozzle accelerating said flow of air. Carpenter discloses that electric ducted fans (EDF) have long been used for in the radio-controlled model aircraft, with the ability to produce a high-volume flow of air very quickly (Page 1). A POSITA looking to provide stimulation via air flow in very short burst would look to an EDF because of its ability to rapidly provide bursts of air flow in a directed manner. It would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to one having ordinary skill in the art to modify the apparatus as taught by modified Jones, with an EDF as the stimulator as taught by Carpenter, since such a modification would provide the predictable results of providing a strong burst of air flow in very short pulses.
Claims 2-4 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Jones (US20180318545A1), Galbraith (“Does the Use of a Handheld Fan Improve Chronic Dyspnea? A Randomized, Controlled, Crossover Trial”, 2010) and Carpenter (“EDF and Turbine” 2011), as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Gastreich (“Stepper Motors Advantages and Disadvantages“ 2018).
Regarding claim 2, Jones, as modified in claim 1, discloses the brushless electric motor, but does not disclose the motor is a stepper motor. As a stepper motor is a subset of brushless electric motor and Gastreich teaches that stepper motors provide the ability to turn a rotor in discernible steps allowing for accurate and precise movement and synchronous rotation (Pages 6-10), which make them an ideal choice for applications requiring starting and stopping (Pages 6-10). It would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to one having ordinary skill in the art to modify the apparatus as taught by modified Jones, with the motor being a stepper motor as taught by Gastreich, since such a modification would provide the predictable results of providing precise control of the starting and stopping of the fan (Pages 6-10).
Regarding claims 3 and 4, Jones, as modified in claim 2, further discloses the electrical pulses are a short duration (Paragraph [0069) resulting in a stimulation of less than one second (Paragraph [0069).
Claim 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Jones (US20180318545A1), Galbraith (“Does the Use of a Handheld Fan Improve Chronic Dyspnea? A Randomized, Controlled, Crossover Trial”, 2010) and Carpenter (“EDF and Turbine” 2011), as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Lu (CN103908347A).
Regarding claim 6, Jones, as modified in claim 1, does not disclose a roller fitting within the window, one side of which is coated with a nonluminous white coating and the other with a black coating; a drive shaft on which the roller is mounted and a brushless electric motor that turns the roller of the unit. Lu teaches a stimulation device (Abstract) wherein the user is the roller mounted on a drive shaft (chair) and is driven by a motor (Abstract) so that alternating white and black pattern is visually stimulating (Abstract). If a POSITA wanted to provide a visually stimulating alternating black and white pattern, it would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to one having ordinary skill in the art to modify the apparatus as taught by modified Jones, with an alternating pattern provided on a roller that is driven by available motor as taught by Lu, since such a modification would provide the predictable results of an easy to control, low cost apparatus for visual stimulation (Paragraph [0004]).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Brotherton-Ratcliffe (GB2589072A) discloses a small EDF that comprises the components and functions of the EDF in the instant application.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Marc D Honrath whose telephone number is (571)272-6219. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 7:30-5:00.
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, Charles A Marmor II can be reached at (571) 272-4730. 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.
/CHARLES A MARMOR II/Supervisory Patent Examiner
Art Unit 3791
/M.D.H./Examiner, Art Unit 3791