The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
DETAILED ACTION
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, “a projection area of an orthographic projection of the air inlet shield falling, in the longitudinal direction, in a plane where the rotation surface is located is S1; a projection area of an orthographic projection of the end of the extension rod connected with the air inlet shield falling, in the longitudinal direction, in the plane where the rotation surface is located is S2, wherein 6≤S1/S2≤16” from Claim 2 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 under 37 CFR 1.83(a). The drawings must show every feature of the invention specified in the claims. Therefore, “the orthographic projection of the first end falling, in the longitudinal extension direction of the extension rod” from Claim 3 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 under 37 CFR 1.83(a). The drawings must show every feature of the invention specified in the claims. Therefore, “an orthographic projection of the first connecting structure falling in the plane where the rotation surface is located does not basically coincide with orthographic projections of the shield holes falling in the plane where the rotation surface is located” from Claim 4 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.
Claim Objections
Claim 9 is objected to because of the following informalities: the phrase “a auxiliary blowing tube” is misspelled. It should be “[[a]] an auxiliary blowing tube” for accuracy. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 9 is objected to because of the following informalities: the phrase “a auxiliary inlet” is misspelled. It should be “[[a]] an auxiliary inlet” for accuracy. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that use the word “means”, “step”, or a generic placeholder but are nonetheless not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph because the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure, materials, or acts to entirely perform the recited function. Such claim limitation(s) is/are: “means of the extension rod” in Claim 1.
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are not being interpreted to cover only the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant intends to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to remove the structure, materials, or acts that performs the claimed function; or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) does/do not recite sufficient structure, materials, or acts to perform the claimed function.
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 2, 3, 4, and 15, and therefore dependent Claims 5-8, 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 pre-AIA the applicant regards as the invention.
Claim 2 recites the limitation "the air inlet shield falling". There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claims since an "air inlet shield falling" has not been previously claimed.
Claim 3 recites the limitation "the orthographic projection of the first end falling". There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claims since an "orthographic projection of the first end falling" has not been previously claimed.
Claim 15 recites the limitation " the highest point of the operating handle". There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claims since a "highest point of the operating handle" has not been previously claimed.
Claim 15 recites the limitation " the lowest point of the extension rod". There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claims since a "lowest point of the extension rod" has not been previously claimed.
Claim 2 is 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. Specifically, Claim 2 recites “a projection area of an orthographic projection of the air inlet shield falling, in the longitudinal direction, in a plane where the rotation surface is located is S1; a projection area of an orthographic projection of the end of the extension rod connected with the air inlet shield falling, in the longitudinal direction, in the plane where the rotation surface is located is S2, wherein 6≤S1/S2≤16”. This claim language is confusing and, since it is not further explained in the Specification or presented in the Drawings, it is unclear what limitations are really being required. Therefore, the scope of Claim 2 is indefinite.
Claim 3 is 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. Specifically, Claim 3 recites “the orthographic projection of the first end falling, in the longitudinal extension direction of the extension rod”. This claim language is confusing and, since it is not further explained in the Specification or presented in the Drawings, it is unclear what limitations are really being required. Therefore, the scope of Claim 3 is indefinite.
Claim 4 is 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. Specifically, Claim 4 recites “an orthographic projection of the first connecting structure falling in the plane where the rotation surface is located does not basically coincide with orthographic projections of the shield holes falling in the plane where the rotation surface is located”. This claim language is confusing and, since it is not further explained in the Specification or presented in the Drawings, it is unclear what limitations are really being required. Therefore, the scope of Claim 4 is indefinite.
Claim 15 is 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. Specifically, Claim 15 recites “wherein a linear distance between the highest point of the operating handle and the lowest point of the extension rod is less than 140 mm and greater than 40 mm”. Since the blower has no referenced special orientation, it is unclear how this is measured. Therefore, the scope of Claim 2 is indefinite.
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 of this title, 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:
Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
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.
Claims 1, 14, and 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tokumaru et al. US 6,105,206 in view of obvious routine optimization.
Regarding Claim 1, Tokumaru et al. teaches:
1. A garden blower (handheld blower 11), capable of gathering scattered foreign objects, wherein the garden blower comprising:
an air duct portion (air duct 17), comprising an axial inlet (duct’s inlet 23) communicating with the outside;
a motor (motor 19), providing a drive force to the garden blower;
an axial fan (fan assembly 21), provided in the air duct portion (Figure 2);
an air inlet shield (preswirl support vanes 37), connected onto the axial inlet (Figure 2), the motor driving the axial fan to rotate about a fan axis and introduce outside air from the axial inlet through the air inlet shield (Figure 2), the air inlet shield being connected with the axial inlet (Figure 2), and comprising a plurality of shield holes (openings between preswirl support vanes 37) for airflow to flow through, and the sum of the ventilation area of the plurality of shield holes defining a total effective ventilation area of the air inlet shield:
an operating handle (handle 15), used for a user to operate and hold (Figure 1);
a battery pack mounting portion (backpack 33), detachably connected (through cable 31) with a battery pack (portable battery pack) for supplying power to the motor, the battery pack mounting portion being provided close to the operating handle (shown in Figure 1); and
an extension rod (elongated support tube 13), extending in a longitudinal direction, the operating handle and the air duct portion being separated from each other in the longitudinal direction by means of the extension rod (Figure 2), wherein
a linear velocity of a blade edge of the axial fan (tangential velocity – v of outer blade edge) being greater than 80 m/s (diameter of fan assembly is about 6in (radius = .0762m), rotating speed of motor (angular velocity - ꙍ) is between 10000 rpm (1,047.2 rad/s) and 25000 rpm (2,618.0 rad/s) using tangential velocity equation “v= ꙍ r” results in a range of 79.8m/s to 199.5m/s), and the total effective ventilation area of the air inlet shield being less than 12000 mm2 (Column 3, Lines 44-46 and Column 5, Lines 25-30, see discussion below).
Tokumaru et al. discloses substantially all the limitations of the claim(s) except for the total effective ventilation area of the air inlet shield being less than 12000 mm2. Tokumaru et al. provides a diameter of the fan assembly of about 6 inches, however, does not provide any other dimensions that would allow the calculation to be accurately determined. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to size the components of the device to achieve a desired overall size with a desired flow rate and flow velocity, since it has been held that discovering an optimum value of a result effective variable involves only routine skill in the art. In re Boesch, 617 F.2d 272, 205 USPQ 215 (CCPA 1980). In this case sizing the total effective ventilation area being less than 12000mm2 would have been obvious modification of component sizes.
Regarding Claim 14, Tokumaru et al. teaches:
14. The garden blower according to claim 1, wherein an interstice is provided between an outer edge of a blade of the axial fan (fan assembly 21) and an inner wall of the air duct portion (air duct 17); and
the dimension of the interstice in the radial direction is less than 1 mm (see discussion below).
Tokumaru et al. discloses an axial fan 21 that rotates within a gap between the outermost tip of the impeller blades and the internal surface of the air inlet to prevent interference. Tokumaru et al. does not provide a dimension for the gap. It would have been an obvious matter of design choice to one having ordinary skill before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the Tokumaru et al. device to select a gap dimension such as 1mm or less which would maximize the impeller diameter relative to the internal duct walls with the motivation to provide maximum pressure and flow creation without interference.
Regarding Claim 15, Tokumaru et al. teaches:
15. The garden blower according to claim 1, wherein a linear distance between the highest point of the operating handle and the lowest point of the extension rod is less than 140 mm and greater than 40 mm (this limitation can be met by rotating the Tokumaru et al. blower into a more vertical orientation).
Claims 1-5 and 9-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Liu et al. CN 111749912 A in view of obvious routine optimization and design choice.
Regarding Claim 1, Liu et al. teaches:
1. A garden blower (garden blower 200), capable of gathering scattered foreign objects, wherein the garden blower comprising:
an air duct portion (air channel part 206), comprising an axial inlet (air inlet 2061) communicating with the outside;
a motor (motor 103), providing a drive force to the garden blower;
an axial fan (axial flow fan 202), provided in the air duct portion (Figure 6);
an air inlet shield (air inlet shroud 208), connected onto the axial inlet (Figure 6), the motor driving the axial fan to rotate about a fan axis and introduce outside air from the axial inlet through the air inlet shield (Figure 6), the air inlet shield being connected with the axial inlet (Figure 6), and comprising a plurality of shield holes for airflow to flow through (passageways between ribs best shown in Figure 3), and the sum of the ventilation area of the plurality of shield holes (shroud holes 2081) defining a total effective ventilation area of the air inlet shield (shown in Figure 3):
an operating handle (operating handle 207), used for a user to operate and hold (Figure 14);
a battery pack mounting portion (portion with battery pack mounting part 204 and battery pack 105, Figures 6 and 9), detachably connected with a battery pack (battery pack 105) for supplying power to the motor, the battery pack mounting portion being provided close to the operating handle (shown in Figures 6 and 9); and
an extension rod (extension rod 209), extending in a longitudinal direction, the operating handle and the air duct portion being separated from each other in the longitudinal direction by means of the extension rod (Figure 6), wherein
a linear velocity of a blade edge of the axial fan (tangential velocity – v of outer blade edge) being greater than 80 m/s (diameter of fan 202 is between 32mm (radius = .016m) and 67mm (radius = .0335m), rotating speed of motor (angular velocity - ꙍ) is between 35000 rpm (3,665.2 rad/s) and 80000 rpm (8,377.6 rad/s) using tangential velocity equation “v= ꙍ r” results in a range of 58.6m/s to 280.6m/s), and the total effective ventilation area of the air inlet shield being less than 12000 mm2 (see discussion below).
Liu et al. discloses a maximum cross-sectional area of tube body surrounding the main machine shell 20x102mm, the maximum cross sectional area of the part of the air duct part 206 corresponding to the axial flow fan 202 in the vertical direction of the longitudinal direction is not greater than that of the 2826mm2. Additionally, Liu et al. the maximum cross-sectional area of each shroud hole 2081 is greater than or equal to 4mm2, and less than or equal to 6mm2. Liu et al. does not disclose the total effective ventilation area of the air inlet shield. However, Liu et al. would require more than 2000 6mm2 holes or 3000 4mm2 holes in order to exceed the claimed area. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to select a desired number of shroud holes that create a desired flow rate through the air inlet shroud, since it has been held that discovering an optimum value of a result effective variable involves only routine skill in the art. In re Boesch, 617 F.2d 272, 205 USPQ 215 (CCPA 1980).
Regarding Claim 2, Liu et al. teaches:
2. The garden blower according to claim 1, wherein the air inlet shield (air inlet shroud 208) is configured to extend longitudinally in the fan axis of the axial fan (axial flow fan 202);
one end (downstream end, Figure 6) of the air inlet shield is connected with the axial inlet (air inlet 2061), and the other end (upstream end, Figure 6) is supported on the extension rod (extension rod 209): the axial fan rotates to form a rotation surface;
a projection area of an orthographic projection of the air inlet shield falling, in the longitudinal direction, in a plane where the rotation surface is located is S1; a projection area of an orthographic projection of the end of the extension rod connected with the air inlet shield falling, in the longitudinal direction, in the plane where the rotation surface is located is S2,
wherein 6≤S1/S2≤16 (it is unclear what this limitation requires – however, prior art seems to show it in Figure 6 as best interpreted).
Regarding Claim 3, Liu et al. teaches:
3. The garden blower according to claim 1, wherein the extension rod (extension rod 209) is provided with a first end (end that connects to air channel part 206) and a second end (end that connects to operating handle 207) opposite to each other in the longitudinal direction (Figure 6), the extension rod is connected with the air inlet shield (air inlet shroud 208) by the first end, and the extension rod is connected with the operating handle (operating handle 207) by the second end (Figure 6); and
the axial fan (axial flow fan 202) rotates to form a rotation surface; the orthographic projection of the first end falling, in the longitudinal extension direction of the extension rod, in the plane where the rotation surface is located is always located within an outer contour boundary of the rotation surface; and a cross-sectional area of the air inlet shield is less than 13300 mm2 (see discussion below).
Liu et al. discloses a maximum cross-sectional area of tube body surrounding the main machine shell 20x102mm, the maximum cross sectional area of the part of the air duct part 206 corresponding to the axial flow fan 202 in the vertical direction of the longitudinal direction is not greater than that of the 2826mm2. Additionally, Liu et al. the maximum cross-sectional area of each shroud hole 2081 is greater than or equal to 4mm2, and less than or equal to 6mm2. Liu et al. does not disclose the total effective ventilation area of the air inlet shield. However, Liu et al. would require more than 2000 6mm2 holes or 3000 4mm2 holes in order to exceed the claimed area. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to select a desired number of shroud holes that create a desired flow rate through the air inlet shroud, since it has been held that discovering an optimum value of a result effective variable involves only routine skill in the art. In re Boesch, 617 F.2d 272, 205 USPQ 215 (CCPA 1980).
Regarding Claim 4, Liu et al. teaches:
4. The garden blower according to claim 3, wherein the air inlet shield (air inlet shroud 208) is provided with a plug-in portion (rounded portion with opening that allows it to slide onto extension rod 209, Figure 5) that extends for a preset distance in the extension direction of the extension rod (extension rod 209), and the shield holes (protective cover holes 2081) are distributed circumferentially in the periphery of the plug-in portion (Figure 3); and
the garden blower further comprises a first connecting structure (motor supporting section 2092), the first end (end that connects to air channel part 206) of the extension rod being locked-connected with the plug-in portion of the air inlet shield through the first connecting structure (shown in Figures 5 and 6),
wherein in the extension direction of the extension rod, an orthographic projection of the first connecting structure falling in the plane where the rotation surface is located does not basically coincide with orthographic projections of the shield holes falling in the plane where the rotation surface is located (shown in Figure 6).
Regarding Claim 5, Liu et al. teaches:
5. The garden blower according to claim 4, wherein the plug-in portion (rounded portion with opening that allows it to slide onto extension rod 209, Figure 5) is configured as a hollow plug-in pore passage (shown in Figure 5), and the first connecting structure (motor supporting section 2092) comprises:
a positioning hole (hole that receives extension rod 209), provided on the plug-in pore passage; and
a positioning piece (outer cylindrical tip of extension rod 209), provided on the extension rod,
wherein the positioning piece has a locking state of being clamped with the positioning hole to restrict the extension rod from coming off backwards from the plug-in portion (latching mechanism shown in Figure 6).
Regarding Claim 9, Liu et al. teaches:
9. The garden blower according to claim 1, wherein the air duct portion (air channel part 206) comprises a primary blowing tube (main blowing pipe 2063) and a auxiliary blowing tube (auxiliary blowing pipe 2066) communicating with the primary blowing tube; the primary blowing tube is provided with the axial inlet and a primary blow hole opposite to the axial inlet (shown in Figure 6); the auxiliary blowing tube is provided with a auxiliary inlet communicating with the primary blow hole; in a direction perpendicular to the longitudinal direction, the cross-sectional area of the auxiliary inlet is greater than that of the primary blow hole; and there is a gap for external airflow to enter the auxiliary blowing tube between the primary blow hole and the auxiliary inlet (shown in Figure 6).
Regarding Claim 10, Liu et al. teaches:
10. The garden blower according to claim 9, wherein the garden blower can be switched (with control switch 2072) between a first operating mode in which air is exhausted at a relatively high air speed and a relatively low air volume and a second operating mode in which air is exhausted at a relatively low air speed and a relatively high air volume (controls the rotating speed of the motor 103), through the auxiliary blowing tube;
the auxiliary blowing tube is movably connected with the primary blowing tube (“auxiliary blowing pipe 2066 is movably connected with the main blowing pipe 2063”), and the auxiliary blowing tube can be retracted backward or stretch out forward in the longitudinal direction, so that the garden blower can be switched between the first operating mode (first working mode) and the second operating mode (second working mode).
Regarding Claim 11, Liu et al. teaches:
11. The garden blower according to claim 10, wherein a nominal output voltage of the battery pack is less than or equal to 20 V, a capacity of the battery pack is between 2 Ah and 9 Ah, a maximum rotational speed of the motor is between 18000 rpm and 35000 rpm, a weight of the garden blower without the battery pack connected is not more than 1.5 kg, a maximum air speed of the garden blower in the first operating mode is between 90 mph and 110 mph, and a maximum air volume of the garden blower in the second operating mode is between 350 cfm and 500 cfm (this configuration is not selected); alternatively
the nominal output voltage of the battery pack (battery pack 105) is greater than 20 V (20V) and less than 56 V, the capacity of the battery pack is between 2 Ah and 9 Ah (5Ah), the maximum rotational speed of the motor is between 20000 rpm and 38000 rpm (35000-80000 rpm), the weight of the garden blower without the battery pack connected is not more than 1.8 kg (not more than 1.2kg), the maximum air speed of the garden blower in the first operating mode is between 110 mph and 180 mph (130-190 mph), and the maximum air volume of the garden blower in the second operating mode is between 420 cfm and 650 cfm.
Regarding Claim 12, Liu et al. teaches:
12. The garden blower according to claim 11, wherein the length of the air duct portion (air channel part 206) is not more than 600 mm (not more than 500mm).
Regarding Claim 13, Liu et al. teaches:
13. The garden blower according to claim 10, wherein a nominal output voltage of the battery pack is less than or equal to 20 V, a capacity of the battery pack is between 2 Ah and 9 Ah, a maximum rotational speed of the motor is between 18000 rpm and 35000 rpm, a diameter of the motor is less than or equal to 40 mm, a maximum effective ventilation area of a cross section of the axial inlet perpendicular to the fan axis is less than 9000 mm2, and an outer diameter of the axial fan is greater than or equal to 50 mm, less than or equal to 67 mm (this configuration is not selected); alternatively
the nominal output voltage of the battery pack (battery pack 105) is greater than 20 V (20V) and less than 56 V, the capacity of the battery pack is between 2 Ah and 9 Ah (5Ah), the maximum rotational speed of the motor is between 20000 rpm and 38000 rpm (35000-80000 rpm), the diameter of the motor is less than or equal to 45 mm (36-44mm), the maximum effective ventilation area of the cross section of the axial inlet perpendicular to the fan axis is less than 13000 mm2, and the outer diameter of the axial fan is greater than or equal to 50 mm (32mm), less than or equal to 67 mm (67mm).
Regarding Claim 14, Liu et al. teaches:
14. The garden blower according to claim 1, wherein an interstice is provided between an outer edge of a blade of the axial fan (axial flow fan 202) and an inner wall of the air duct portion (air channel part 206); and
the dimension of the interstice in the radial direction is less than 1 mm (see discussion below).
Liu et al. discloses an axial flow fan 202 that rotates within a gap between the outermost tip of the impeller blades and the internal surface of the air inlet 2061 to prevent interference. Liu et al. does not provide a dimension for the gap. It would have been an obvious matter of design choice to one having ordinary skill before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the Liu et al. device to select a gap dimension such as 1mm or less which would maximize the impeller diameter relative to the internal duct walls with the motivation to provide maximum pressure and flow creation without interference.
Regarding Claim 15, Liu et al. teaches:
15. The garden blower according to claim 1, wherein a linear distance between the highest point of the operating handle and the lowest point of the extension rod is less than 140 mm and greater than 40 mm (this limitation can be met by rotating the Liu et al. blower into a more vertical orientation).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure can be found in form PTO-892 Notice of References Cited. Specifically, the prior art references include pertinent disclosures of blowers.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MARC CARLSON whose telephone number is (571) 272-9963. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Thursday 6:30am-3:30pm.
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.
/MARC CARLSON/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3723
Prosecution Insights