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 .
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) 2-12, 14-15, 19 and 23 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US Pre-Grant Publication 2018/0187687 to Yakubova et al. (Yakubova hereinafter) in view of US Pre-Grant Publication 2008/0127979 to Becker et al. (Becker), US Pre-Grant Publication 2012/0153876 to Binder et al. (Binder), and US Pre-Grant Publication 2009/0314295 to Hatmaker (Hatmaker).
Regarding claims 2 and 23, Yakubova teaches a blower (10) comprising a housing (22, 30) including a suction port (106) and a discharge port (80) communicating an inside of the housing with an outside of the housing, a motor (14), and a fan (18) configured to be rotationally driven by the motor to generate an airflow from the suction port to the discharge port (paragraph 29). Yakubova further teaches a manual switch (46) for motor control. Yakubova does not teach drive and control circuits configured as claimed. Becker teaches another blowing apparatus generally, and particularly teaches that a motor drive circuit (PWM) is provided with power (see e.g. paragraph 24) and drives the motor (6) based on an operation parameter (speed, n) and particularly teaches that speed is inversely proportional to air volume delivered (paragraph 22) and that motor speed must be changed via PWM signal to keep airflow constant (again paragraph 22). Accordingly, in a constant volume control system, insufficient flow will be detected and met with a reduction of rotational frequency of the motor to increase airflow back to the desired value. Becker teaches that this system provides constant air flow. One of ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious before the effective filing date of the application to provide a control system as taught by Becker to the pump of Yakubova in order to deliver constant air flow.
Yakubova also does not teach that the manual switch is a throttle. Binder teaches a speed setter in the form of a trigger switch (15, see paragraph 28) for controlling the speed of a blower apparatus. One of ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious before the effective filing date of the application to use the trigger of Yakubova as a throttle as taught by Binder in order to allow the user to control flow.
Finally, Yakubova does not teach notifying the user that insufficient flow has been detected. Hatmaker teaches another blower apparatus generally and particularly teaches providing an alarm upon low flow conditions (see Fig. 6, paragraph 28) in order to warn a user. One of ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious before the effective filing date of the application to provide an alarm as taught by Hatmaker to the blower of Yakubova in order to inform a user of a low flow condition.
Regarding claim 3, Becker teaches a detection circuit (21) which provides actual rotational frequency as part of the operational parameter.
Regarding claim 4, Yakubova teaches a motor (14) in a housing (22, 30) and Becker teaches that the motor includes the detection circuit.
Regarding claim 5, Becker teaches that it is known to use operating current to control output of a blower (paragraph 6). One of ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious before the effective filing date of the application to provide a current detection unit as taught by Becker and generally known in the art in order to improve responsiveness of the control circuit in the pump of Yakubova.
Regarding claims 6-7 and 9, Becker teaches a power designating signal (PWM) with a desired duty ratio to drive the motor.
Regarding claim 10, Yakubova teaches a manual switch (46). The examiner takes Official Notice that it is known to use a manual switch in a hand tool as a throttle on a motor therein. The examiner bases this assertion on his personal battery powered drill which was purchased before the effective filing date of this application. These are known to provide feedback and control of a hand tool generally, and it would have been obvious to so configure the hand tool of Yakubova in order to allow control of the flow rate thereof.
Regarding claims 11-12, Yakubova teaches a suction portion (at the top of the apparatus in Fig. 1), and configuration for attachment to various accessories (at 76) which may include an appropriately configured air needle. The examiner notes that the attachment is not positively claimed.
Regarding claim 14, Yakubova teaches a handheld blower (10).
Regarding claim 15, Yakubova teaches a handle (26).
Regarding claim 19, Yakubova does not teach the specified operation parameter. Becker teaches the use of motor speed, which is tantamount to rotational frequency (see the drawing figure, sensor 21 measuring speed “n”) and relates to the airflow (paragraph 25). One of ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious before the effective filing date of the application to use the correlations of speed and airflow taught by Becker to inform the low flow alarm of Hatmaker of flow conditions so that alarm conditions may be detected based thereon.
Regarding claim 22, Yakubova teaches control generally, but does not teach control via distinct PCB elements. However, as Becker teaches a circuit board (5) having the control components thereon, the mere separation of parts of that board into different pieces does not patentably distinguish the blower of claim 22 from the Yakubova blower as modified herein. See MPEP 2144.04 V. C.
Regarding claim 23, again, Yakubova teaches a trigger switch (46).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 8 is allowable in view of the prior art of record. Claims 20-21 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter: the limitations of a blower as in claim 8 in which low flow is detected and in response motor frequency is reduced or stopped and wherein a motor drive circuit is configured to perform a constant power control that maintains a magnitude of the electric power provided to the motor, in combination with the remaining limitations of claim 8. Furthermore, the limitations of the circuit arrangements as in claim 20 are not shown in or suggested by the prior art in combination with the remaining limitations of that claim.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, see page 8, filed 19 December 2025, with respect to the rejection(s) of claim(s) under 35 U.S.C. 103 and 112 have been fully considered and are persuasive. Therefore, the rejection has been withdrawn. However, upon further consideration, a new ground(s) of rejection is made in view of Binder and Hatmaker.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). 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 PHILIP E STIMPERT whose telephone number is (571)270-1890. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday, 8a-4p.
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, Chelsea Stinson can be reached at 571-270-1744. 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.
/PHILIP E STIMPERT/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3783 29 April 2026
Prosecution Insights