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 Interpretation
This application includes one or more claim limitations that use the word “means” or “step” 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 for notifying” in claim 8 and 9, “adjustment means for adjusting a height”, “human count detection means” in Claim 43.
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.
The “means for notifying” listed as item 4 and disclosed as the display section by the Applicant.
The “adjustment means for adjusting a height” disclosed as screw
The “human count detection means” listed as item 74, disclosed as camera
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.
Claim 53 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.
Regarding Claim 53
Claim 53 recites “a terminal used by a manger” The Office considers that “used by a manger” is a processing limitation. To positively recite apparatus, the Office suggest “a terminal configured to be used by a manger”.
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.
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.
Claims 1, 12, 13, 15, 20, 22, 23, and 52 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US Patent Publication 2008/0263889 to Fukaya in view of prior art provided by the Applicant 2019/0117802 to Hishinuma.
In Reference to Claim 1
Fukaya discloses hand dryer comprising: a hand insertion section (Fig. 5, 6) defining a hand insertion space and having an air hole (Fig 5, 4) that opens to the hand insertion space; a blower (Fig. 5, 2) in fluid communication with the air hole, the blower being configured to blow air from the air hole into the hand insertion space or configured to suck air from the hand insertion space into the air hole; and a UV irradiator (Fig. 5, 8) including a light source, the UV irradiator being configured to irradiate the hand insertion space with ultraviolet light produced by the light source,
Fukaya does not teach the detail of the UV irradiator.
Hishinuma teaches wherein the UV irradiator further includes a substrate (Fig. 2a annotated by the examiner) on which the light source (Fig. 2a, 50) is installed, a window (Fig. 2a, 53) which covers the light source from an opposite side to the substrate and which transmits the ultraviolet light, and a spacer (Fig. 2a, annotated by the examiner) arranged between the substrate and the window, wherein the spacer is configured to reflect at least light of which a wavelength has highest radiant intensity among light generated by the light source (The Office considers that the reflect at least light of which wavelength has highest radiant intensity among light generated by the light source is the function of the recited structure. Since Hishinuma teaches the recited structure, the reflection of the light would be inherent by the structure of Hishinuma. If the Applicant consider the space has a special function, the Applicant shall provide structure detail of the spacer).
It would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate teachings from Hishinuma into the design of Fukaya. Doing so, the light design of Hishinuma being used to replace the hand detector of Fukaya. Both inventions of Fukaya and Hishinuma are in the same field of endeavor, Hishinuma teaches a light design of controlling wave length of the UV. So the UV light can reduces the number of germs on the hands and without jeopardizing the health of the use (Paragraph 6)
In Reference to Claim 12
Fukaya discloses the hand dryer comprising the UV irradiator.
Fukaya does not teach the structure of the UV irradiator.
Hishinuma teaches a window (Fig. 2a, 6) which prevents a hand from coming into contact with the light source, wherein the hand insertion space is irradiated with the ultraviolet light from the light source through the window, and the window is detachable (As showed in Fig. 2a, the window 6 is a separated piece, therefore it is detachable).
It would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate teachings from Hishinuma into the design of Fukaya. Doing so, the light design of Hishinuma being used to replace the hand detector of Fukaya. Both inventions of Fukaya and Hishinuma are in the same field of endeavor, Hishinuma teaches a light design of controlling wave length of the UV. So the UV light can reduces the number of germs on the hands and without jeopardizing the health of the use (Paragraph 6)
In Reference to Claim 13
Fukaya discloses the hand dryer comprising the UV irradiator.
Fukaya does not teach the structure of the UV irradiator.
Hishinuma teaches a window (Fig. 2a, 6) which prevents a hand from coming into contact with the light source, wherein the hand insertion space is irradiated with the ultraviolet light from the light source through the window, and the UV irradiator is detachable (As showed in Fig. 2a, the lamp 50 is a separated piece, therefore it is detachable).
It would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate teachings from Hishinuma into the design of Fukaya. Doing so, the light design of Hishinuma being used to replace the hand detector of Fukaya. Both inventions of Fukaya and Hishinuma are in the same field of endeavor, Hishinuma teaches a light design of controlling wave length of the UV. So the UV light can reduces the number of germs on the hands and without jeopardizing the health of the use (Paragraph 6)
In Reference to Claim 15
Fukaya discloses the hand dryer comprising the UV irradiator.
Fukaya does not teach the detail of the UV irradiator.
Hishinuma teaches a first window (Fig. 2a, 53) which covers the light source; and a second window (Fig. 2a, 6) which covers the first window, wherein the light source, the first window, and the second window are arranged on a straight line (As showed in Fig. 2a).
It would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate teachings from Hishinuma into the design of Fukaya. Doing so, the light design of Hishinuma being used to replace the hand detector of Fukaya. Both inventions of Fukaya and Hishinuma are in the same field of endeavor, Hishinuma teaches a light design of controlling wave length of the UV. So the UV light can reduces the number of germs on the hands and without jeopardizing the health of the use (Paragraph 6)
In Reference to Claim 20
Fukaya discloses the hand dryer comprising the UV light.
Fukaya is silent on a first region and a second region.
The Office considers the radiant intensity at different region is determined by the position of the UV light. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to position the UV light at a desired location in order to maximize the effect, since it has been held that rearranging parts of an invention involves only routine skill in the art.
In Reference to Claim 22
Fukaya discloses hand dryer comprising: a reflection section (Fig. 1, annotated by the examiner) provided so as to face the hand insertion space, wherein a reflection surface (Fig. 1, annotated by the examiner) of the reflection section is on a same plane as a surface of the hand insertion section in a periphery of the reflection section or recessed (As showed in Fig. 1) with respect to the surface of the hand insertion section in a periphery of the reflection section.
In Reference to Claim 27
Fukaya discloses the hand dryer comprising a reflection section (Fig. 1, annotated by the examiner) provided so as to face the hand insertion space, wherein an assembly (The office considers the frame of the reflection section is the assembly) formed by three-dimensionally assembling a sheet is provided as the reflection section. (Fukaya does not teach how the assembly is formed. According to MPEP: "[E]ven though product-by-process claims are limited by and defined by the process, determination of patentability is based on the product itself. The patentability of a product does not depend on its method of production. If the product in the product-by-process claim is the same as or obvious from a product of the prior art, the claim is unpatentable even though the prior product was made by a different process."
In Reference to Claim 52
Fukaya discloses the hand dryer
The combination of Fukaya and Hishinuma as applied to claim 1 teaches a single hand dryer only, not a plurality system. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to have a plurality of system, since it has been held that mere duplication of the essential working parts of a device involves only routine skill in the art.
PNG
media_image1.png
568
504
media_image1.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image2.png
581
629
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Claim 8 and 9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over the combination of Fukaya and Hishinuma as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of EP589568 to Tatsutani (The art rejection is made based on the respective English translation by PE2E).
In Reference to Claims 8 and 9
Fukaya discloses the hand dryer comprising an UV irradiator.
The combination of Fukaya and Hishinuma as applied to Claim 1 does not teach the notification system.
Tatsutani teaches the notification system (Fig. 26, 15)
It would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate teachings from Tatsutani into the combination of Fukaya and Hishinuma. Doing so, would result in a display unit for displaying operation procedures and abnormal states being attached to the dryer of Fukaya. Both inventions of Tatsutani and Fukaya are in the same field of endeavor, Tatsutani teaches a method of displaying operating procedure, following the displayed instructions, anyone can easily use the hand dryer.(Col. 23, Line 55-58).
Claim 16 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over the combination of Fukaya and Hishinuma as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of JP2017153731 to Nakamura (the art rejection is made based on the respective English translation by PE2E).
In Reference to Claim 16
Fukaya discloses the hand dryer comprising the UV irradiator.
The combination of Fukaya and Hishinuma are applied to Claim 1 does not teach a visible light indicator with different colors.
Nakamura teaches the operation states of a hand dryer can be indicated by different color light (Fig. 2, 32)
It would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate teachings from Nakamura in the combination of Fukaya and Hishinuma as applied to Claim 1 to incorporate teachings from Nakamura. Doing so, would result is a light indication design of Nakamura being used in the system of Fukaya. Both inventions of Nakamura and Fukaya are in the same field of inventions, Nakamura teaches a method of detecting the operation state (abnormal) of the system.
The combination of Fukaya, Hishinuma and Nakamura as applied to Claim 16 discloses the lighting system with different colors to indicate the abnormal operation state. The Office It would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to apply the different color to a different operation status is just extra functions of the recited structure. The use of the function language only requires that apparatus is capable of performing the function, and does not add any specific structural limitations to the apparatus.
Claims 24 and 42 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over the combination of Fukaya and Hishinuma are applied to Claim 1 above, and further in view of JP2004097741 to Kiuchi.
In Reference to Claim 24
Fukaya discloses the hand dryer comprising the UV irradiator.
The combination of Fukaya and Hishinuma as applied to Claim 1 does not teach the shield.
Kiuchi teaches a shielding body (Fig. 1, 7), wherein the hand dryer is configured to be capable of switching between a first state (Fig. 3) and a second state (Fig. 2), the second state is a state where the shielding body covers at least a part of a hand insertion opening to be an inlet of a hand into the hand insertion space, and the first state is a state where a ratio being covered by the shielding body among the hand insertion opening is either smaller than in the second state or zero. (As showed in Fig. 2 and Fig. 3)
It would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate teachings from Kiuchi into the combination of Fukaya and Hishinuma as applied to Claim 1. Doing so, would result in the shield (the lid) being added to the design of Fukaya. Both inventions of Fukaya and Kiuchi are in the same field of endeavor. Kiuchi teaches a method of keeping the unwanted article entering the working space.
In Reference to Claim 42
Fukaya discloses the hand dryer.
The combination of Fukaya and Hishinuma as applied to Claim 1 does not teach the cover section.
Kiuchi discloses a cover section (Fig. 10, 14) capable of covering at least one face of the hand insertion space of the hand dryer, a switching section (As showed in Fig. 10, 14) capable of switching between a closed state where the cover section covers the at least one face of the hand insertion space and an open state where a hand can be inserted into the hand insertion space; and proximity detection means (Fig. 10, 22) Adaptable of detecting that a hand or a person is in proximity to the hand insertion section in the closed state, the hand-drying system being configured to enter the open state when the proximity detection means detects that a hand or a person is in proximity to the hand insertion section.
It would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate teachings from Kiuchi into the combination of Fukaya and Hishinuma as applied to Claim 1. Doing so, would result in the shield with human detection means being added to the design of Fukaya. Both inventions of Fukaya and Kiuchi are in the same field of endeavor. Kiuchi teaches a method of keeping the unwanted article entering the working space.
Claim 32 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over the combination of Fukaya and Hishinuma as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of US Patent Publication 2013/0139400 to Fukano.
In Reference to Claim 32
Fukaya discloses a first light source (Fig. 1, 6)
The combination of Fukaya and Hishinuma as applied to Claim 1 does not teach a second light source.
Fukano teaches a second light source (Fig. 2, 30a) having a dominant wavelength which is longer than a dominant wavelength of the first light source; and hand detection means (Fig. 2, 30a) for detecting a hand inserted into the hand insertion section or a hand placed on the hand insertion section, and the hand dryer is configured to turn on the second light source without turning on the first light source when the hand detection means detects a hand. (As showed in Fig. 2, the second light set is at the entrance of the hand space, therefore, the second light set is turned on without turning on the first light set (Fig. 2, 31a)
It would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate teachings from Fukano into the combination of Fukaya and Hishinuma as applied to claim 1. Doing so, a set of hand detection sensor being installed the entrance of the hand space as being taught by Fukano. Both inventions of Fukano and Fukaya are in the same field of endeavor, Fukano provide a method of determining the presence or absence of an object to be dried by comparing the input signal level with a predetermined threshold.
Claim 35 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over the combination of Fukaya and Hishinuma as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of JP2002136449 to Horii.
In Reference to Claim 35
Fukaya discloses the hand dryer.
The combination of Fukaya and Hishinuma as applied to Claim 1 does not teach a person detection means
Horii discloses a hand dryer comprising a motion sensor detects a person by control means.
It would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate teachings from Horii into the combination of Fukaya and Hishinuma as applied to Claim 1. Doing so, would result in a human detector being integrated into the hand dryer of Fukaya. Both inventions of Fukaya and Horii are in the same field of endeavor, Horii teaches a method of detecting a user in order to actively control the ejection of the disinfecting solution.
Claim 43 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over the combination of Fukaya and Hishinuma as applied to Claim 1 above, and further in view of US Patent Publication 2017/0364817 to Raykov.
In Reference to Claim 43
Fukaya discloses the hand dryer.
The combination of Fukaya and Hishinuma as applied to Claim 1 does not teach human count detection mean.
Raykov teaches passive infrared sensors have widespread use in many applications, including motion detectors for alarms, lighting systems and hand dryers. Combinations of multiple PIR sensors have also been used to count the number of humans.
It would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate teachings from Raykov into the combination of Fukaya and Hishinuma as applied to Claim 1. Doing so, would result in a human count sensor being integrated into the system of Fukaya as an operation control referent to determine the operation status of the hand dryer of Fukaya. Raykov teaches a method of designing smart buildings or other human living environments which can react to the behaviour of the inhabitants of the building. So operation energy and efficiency will be improved.
Claim 44 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over the combination of Fukaya and Hishinuma as applied to Claim 1 above, and further in view of JP2001340258 to Shimazaki.
In Reference to Claim 44
Fukaya discloses the hand dryer.
The combination of Fukaya and Hishinuma as applied to Claim 1 does not teach human recognition mean.
Shimazaki teaches a hand dryer comprising an image processing means for recognizing a human hand and outputting an operation command for operating the hand drying means based on the recognition of the hand.
It would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate teachings from Shimazaki into the combination of Fukaya and Hishinuma as applied to Claim 1. Doing so, would result in the hand recognition system of Shimazaki being integrated into the system of Fukaya. Both inventions of Fukaya and Shimazaki are in the same field of endeavor, Shimazaki teaches a method of enhancing reliability and operability of an automatic hand dryer.
Claim 53 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over the combination of Fukaya and Hishinuma as applied to Claim 1 above, and further in view of CA3013058 to Lolin.
In Reference to Claim 53
Fukaya discloses the hand dryer
The combination of Fukaya and Hishinuma as applied to claim 1 does not teach a terminal used by manager.
Lolin teaches a hand-drying system comprising a terminal (Fig. 9, 500) used by a manger (This provides a capability to inform facility managers that the bathroom needs to be cleaned. The data that is gathered from the sensors could also be used to monitor health and environmental issues in public spaces)
It would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate teachings from Lolin into the combination of Fukaya and Hishinuma as applied to Claim 1. Doing so, would result in a monitoring system being included to actively manage the operation of each dryer to improve the monitor health and environmental issues in the public space.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 34 is 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.
Regarding Claim 34, the prior art fails to disclose or renders obvious the claimed hand dryer comprising an adjustment means for adjusting a height of an upper end of the insertion side section.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to DEMING WAN whose telephone number is (571)272-1410. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Thur: 8 am to 6 PM.
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, Edelmira Bosques can be reached at 5712705614. 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.
/DEMING WAN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3762 12/16/25