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 “third direction component” 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 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.
Claim 1 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, first paragraph, as based on a disclosure which is not enabling. The disclosure does not enable one of ordinary skill in the art to practice the invention without the structure of the “third direction component”, which is/are critical or essential to the practice of the invention but not included in the claim(s). See In re Mayhew, 527 F.2d 1229, 188 USPQ 356 (CCPA 1976). The term “component” does not define any structure. This element is not shown in the drawings and the specification does not provide any structure for the “third direction component.”
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 1-8 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 applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claim 1 recites “a blowing chamber that below the drying chamber in a first direction extending in an up-down direction”. This clause is grammatically incorrect and it is not clear what is being claimed. The term “that” is not resolved properly.
The term “first direction” followed by “up-down direction” is not clear. Is the device extending up or down? It is also unclear what the “first direction” is in relation to or if the drying chamber extends in a first direction or if the blowing chamber extends in a first direction.
The term “up-down” direction is not clear. These are two different directions. Is applicant attempting to claim either the blowing chamber, or the drying chamber extends in a vertical direction? Or is applicant attempting to claim one chamber extend up OR down in relation to the other chamber?
Claim 1 recites “a lower portion of the drying chamber and the blowing chamber”. “A lower portion” is not positively recited. No structure for the drying chamber is claimed. It is not apparent the drying chamber would have a lower portion. It is suggested to state “the drying chamber comprises a lower portion” as is done with the hose in claim 4.
It is also unclear if the limitations are intending to claim a lower portion for the blowing chamber in addition to a lower portion for the drying chamber.
Claim 1 recites “an upper portion of the drying chamber and the blowing chamber”. “An upper portion” is not positively recited. No structure for the drying chamber is claimed. It is not apparent the drying chamber would have an upper portion. It is suggested to state “the drying chamber comprises a lower portion” as is done with the hose in claim 4.
It is also unclear if the limitations are intending to claim an upper portion for the blowing chamber in addition to an upper portion for the drying chamber.
Claim 1 recites “the drying-chamber opening being open in the first direction”, in line 11. However, a first direction is not clearly defined by the claim. Limitations from the specification are not to be read into the claims. It should be noted, the correction of “in a first direction” in lines 3-4, as addressed above” would most likely fix this issue.
The last paragraph is confusing as it describes a lower portion of the duct upper portion. It is suggested to recite the duct upper portion and duct lower portion each comprise a first end and second end, or use the terms “distal” and “proximal” when referring to sections of the duct upper portion and duct lower portion.
Claim 1 recites “a third direction component”. The claims, specification, and drawings do not recite any structure for this “component”.
The term “substantially” in claim 1 is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “substantially” is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention.
Claim 1 recites “cylindrical” or “substantially cylindrical”. Something is either cylindrical or not. It is not clear how close to cylindrical something in the prior art must be in order to meet the limitation of “substantially cylindrical”.
Claim 1 recites “perpendicular” or “substantially perpendicular”. Something is either perpendicular or not. It is not clear how close to cylindrical something in the prior art must be in order to meet the limitation of “perpendicular cylindrical”. If the second direction in the prior art were 87 degrees in relation to the first direction, one may consider this to be substantially perpendicular as a reasonable person would not likely notice the 3-degree difference. However, applicant may consider anything less than 89 degrees as not substantial enough. Therefore, the term is considered to be indefinite as the limitations of “substantially perpendicular” are not established.
Claim 1 recites the limitation "the hose" in line 22. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Any subsequent recitation of “the hose” should be “the at least one hose.”
Claims 2-8 are considered indefinite due to their dependency on a rejected 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.
Claim(s) 1-8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Urisawa (WO 2017/057597) in view of Nishimura (WO 2018/179085).
Regarding claim 1, Urisawa discloses, A hand dryer (hand dryer 1, See Figs 1-3, 7-8) comprising: a drying chamber (drying chamber 25, see Fig. 2, in the upper part of the drying chamber, constituting a drying chamber opening, opening in the first direction and communicating with the outside, and having a surrounding side wall); a blowing chamber that below the drying chamber in a first direction extending in an up-down direction; (blowing chamber 40 extending in a first direction, See Paragraph [0013])
a duct that is cylindrical or substantially cylindrical and provides a connection between a lower portion of the drying chamber and the blowing chamber; and (Fig 8 shows a duct 30 which is substantially cylindrical and provides a connection between a lower portion of the drying chamber 25 and the blowing chamber 40, Paragraph [0019])
at least one hose that provides a connection between an upper portion of the drying chamber and the blowing chamber; (Fig 8 also shows a hose 51 or 52 which provides a connection between the upper portion of the drying chamber and the blowing chamber 40, See Paragraph [0037]) wherein
a drying-chamber opening is provided in the upper portion of the drying chamber, the drying-chamber opening being open in the first direction and communicating with an outside (Fig 9 shows a dryer chamber opening 5 communicating with an outside with the opening being in a first direction);
the drying chamber includes:
a side wall that surrounds the drying chamber from opposite sides in a second direction perpendicular or substantially perpendicular to the first direction and from opposite sides in a third direction perpendicular or substantially perpendicular to both the first and second directions, the side wall extending in the first direction; and (Figs 2 and 3 show the opening being in a first direction and the side wall at 25a having a front back and two sides. The directions are not specifically claimed, but the structure of the drying chamber is nearly the same shape as in the present application, See Paragraph [0035]),
a blower provided in the drying chamber to produce an airflow that passes from bottom up through the hose (blower 41, produces an airflow through a passage and up through hose 51 and 52 to the blowers 61 and 62, See Fig 7, Paragraph [0049]); the duct includes: a duct upper portion that communicates with the lower portion of the drying chamber (Figs 7-8 show the duct at 32 comprising an upper portion communicating with a lower portion of the drying chamber 25), the duct upper portion being wider in the second direction (Fig 7 shows the upper duct portion being wider in a second direction); a duct connection portion that extends from a lower portion of the duct upper portion in a direction including a third direction component (Fig 7 shows a duct connection portion at 30 extending from a duct upper portion at elements 32, 31),
Urisawa may fail to disclose, a side wall that surrounds the drying chamber from opposite sides in a second direction perpendicular or substantially perpendicular to the first direction and from opposite sides in a third direction perpendicular or substantially perpendicular to both the first and second directions, the side wall extending in the first direction, the duct connection portion being wider in the second direction; and a duct lower portion that communicates with the duct connection portion, the duct lower portion being located below the duct connection portion and being wider in the second direction; and a width of the duct lower portion in the second direction is about 40% or more and about 70% or less of a width of the duct upper portion in the second direction.
However, Nishimura discloses a hand dryer having a housing 1, a hand drying part 3, being enclosed by a back panel lb, a front surface panel la and a pair of side panels lc, lc (equivalent to the drying chamber having side walls enclosing the drying chamber having two sides enclosing a second direction orthogonal to the first direction and two sides enclosing a third direction orthogonal to both the first direction and the second direction and extending in the first direction), and communicates with the outside via the hand insertion portion 2 as an opening portion provided at an upper end and a lower end, and the discharge port 4. The hand drying part 3 is formed in a shape that narrows from the side toward the central side in the width direction of the housing 1 as it goes from a halfway position in the up-down direction toward the lower side in the main view. A central portion of the hand drying part 3 in the height direction in main view is provided with a reduced width region 3b having a downslope from the left and right lateral end portions toward the central portion and a reduced lateral width. A region of the hand drying part 3 on the upper side than the reduced-width region 3b is provided as a broadening region 3a having a wider lateral width than the reduced-width region, the region on the lower side of the reduced width region 3b in the hand drying part 3 is provided as a narrow web region 3c having a narrower lateral width than the reduced width region 3b (wherein the lower 3a, 3b, 3c regions correspond to ducts, which are wider in width in the second direction and gradually narrow in width as seen in connection with Figs. 2 and 3).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art, at the time of the invention to modify or combine Urisawa in view of Nishimura to provide a side wall that surrounds the drying chamber from opposite sides in a second direction perpendicular or substantially perpendicular to the first direction and from opposite sides in a third direction perpendicular or substantially perpendicular to both the first and second directions, the side wall extending in the first direction, the duct connection portion being wider in the second direction; and a duct lower portion that communicates with the duct connection portion, the duct lower portion being located below the duct connection portion and being wider in the second direction for producing a “closed” airflow path to return the air through the blower and to increase the air pressure/speed of the airflow on its way back to the blower in a similar way as a turbocharger would. This would create an airflow loop and reduce the amount of energy required to operate the device while still producing a high airflow for quickly drying hands; a width of the duct lower portion in the second direction is about 40% or more and about 70% or less of a width of the duct upper portion in the second direction since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art and discovering an optimum value of a result effective variable involves only routine skill in the art. One would select the duct reduction based on the desired airflow given the manner in which the device is designed.
Regareding claims 2 and 3 Urisawa discloses a width portion of the duct decreasing continuously from the upper portion to the lower portion but fails to disclose the claimed dimensions of a minimum value of the width of the duct connection portion in the second direction is equal or substantially equal to the width of the duct lower portion in the second direction and the width of the duct lower portion in the second direction is about 50% or more of a width of the blowing chamber in the second direction.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art, at the time of the invention to modify Urisawa to provide a minimum value of the width of the duct connection portion in the second direction is equal or substantially equal to the width of the duct lower portion in the second direction and the width of the duct lower portion in the second direction is about 50% or more of a width of the blowing chamber in the second direction, since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art and discovering an optimum value of a result effective variable involves only routine skill in the art. One would select the duct reduction based on the desired airflow given the manner in which the device is designed.
Regarding claims 4-5, Urisawa discloses, Fig 7 shows the hose 51 having a lower portion communicating with the blowing chamber 40 and an upper portion communicating with the drying chamber with a portion @51 connecting the upper and lower parts together. The same applies for hose 52. Fig 3 shows the outer cylindrical portion curving smoothly from the lower to upper portion.
Regarding claims 6-8, Urisawa fails to disclose, wherein an outside diameter of the hose is about 15% or more and about 20% or less of the width of the duct lower portion in the second direction.
However, It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art, at the time of the invention to modify Urisawa to an outside diameter of the hose is about 15% or more and about 20% or less of the width of the duct lower portion in the second direction, since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art and discovering an optimum value of a result effective variable involves only routine skill in the art. One would select the duct and hose ratio based on the desired airflow given the manner in which the device is designed.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to BRIAN W JENNISON whose telephone number is (571)270-5930. The examiner can normally be reached M-Th 9-5.
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, Ibrahime Abraham can be reached at 571-270-5569. 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.
/BRIAN W JENNISON/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3761 11/25/2025