DETAILED ACTION
This is a final reissue action of U.S. Patent No. 10,953,856 (hereafter “’856” and equivalent), addressing the response filed 27 May 2025. For reissue applications filed on or after 16 September 2012, all references to 35 USC § 251 and 37 CFR §§ 1.172, 1.175 and 3.373 are to the current provisions.
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after 16 March 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Original Disclosure - Definition
The present application is a reissue of US Patent No. 10,953,856, which issued from App. No. 15/068,599 having a filing date of 13 March 2016. Any subject matter added during either the examination of the present reissue application or the earlier concluded examination of 15/068,599 does not constitute part of the “original disclosure”.
Maintenance Fees
Review of the file indicates that the maintenance fees with the underlying patent are current. The next window for maintenance fees begins 23 March 2028.
Manner of Making Amendments/Support for Amendments Made
The amendment to the claims filed on 27 May 2025, is objected to as not complying with the requirements of 37 CFR 1.173(b)(2), (c) and (d)(1)&(2) because support for each amendment was not provided below. 37 CFR 1.173(b)(2) and (d)(1)&(2) state:
(b) Making amendments in a reissue application. An amendment in a reissue application is made either by physically incorporating the changes into the specification when the application is filed, or by a separate amendment paper. If amendment is made by incorporation, markings pursuant to paragraph (d) of this section must be used. If amendment is made by an amendment paper, the paper must direct that specified changes be made, as follows:
(1) Specification other than the claims, "Large Tables" (§ 1.58(c) ), a "Computer Program Listing Appendix" (§ 1.96(c) ), a "Sequence Listing" (§ 1.821(c) ), or a "Sequence Listing XML" (§ 1.831(a) ).
(i) Changes to the specification, other than to the claims, "Large Tables" (§ 1.58(c) ), a "Computer Program Listing Appendix" (§ 1.96(c) ), a "Sequence Listing" (§ 1.821(c) ), or a "Sequence Listing XML" (§ 1.831(a) ), must be made by submission of the entire text of an added or rewritten paragraph, including markings pursuant to paragraph (d) of this section, except that an entire paragraph may be deleted by a statement deleting the paragraph, without presentation of the text of the paragraph. The precise point in the specification where any added or rewritten paragraph is located must be identified.
(ii) Changes to "Large Tables," a "Computer Program Listing Appendix," a "Sequence Listing," or a "Sequence Listing XML" must be made in accordance with § 1.58(g) for "Large Tables," § 1.96(c)(5) for a "Computer Program Listing Appendix," § 1.825 for a "Sequence Listing," and § 1.835 for a "Sequence Listing XML."
(2) Claims. An amendment paper must include the entire text of each claim being changed by such amendment paper and of each claim being added by such amendment paper. For any claim changed by the amendment paper, a parenthetical expression "amended," "twice amended," etc., should follow the claim number. Each changed patent claim and each added claim must include markings pursuant to paragraph (d) of this section, except that a patent claim or added claim should be canceled by a statement canceling the claim without presentation of the text of the claim.
***
(c) Status of claims and support for claim changes. Whenever there is an amendment to the claims pursuant to paragraph (b) of this section, there must also be supplied, on pages separate from the pages containing the changes, the status (i.e., pending or canceled), as of the date of the amendment, of all patent claims and of all added claims, and an explanation of the support in the disclosure of the patent for the changes made to the claims.
(d) Changes shown by markings. Any changes relative to the patent being reissued that are made to the specification, including the claims but excluding "Large Tables" (§ 1.58(c) ), a "Computer Program Listing Appendix" (§ 1.96(c) ), a "Sequence Listing" (§ 1.821(c) ), and a "Sequence Listing XML" (§ 1.831(a) ) upon filing or by an amendment paper in the reissue application, must include the following markings:
(1) The matter to be omitted by reissue must be enclosed in brackets; and
(2) The matter to be added by reissue must be underlined.
The claims presented in the amendment filed 27 May 2025, do not have the required explanation of the support in the disclosure as required under 37 CFR 1.173(c) above.
These corrections should be submitted with the next correspondence.
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, 3-5, 8-14 and 17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Belanger (U.S. Patent 4,979,316) in view of Kamiya (U.S. Patent 3,808,703) and McElroy (U.S. Patent 5,960,564).
Below is a substantial reproduction of applicant’s claims addressing all limitations with the examiner’s comments in bold italics.
Claim 1: Belanger discloses A dryer unit comprising:
a head portion (Fig. 1: containing 26) having an air inlet (proximate 26) formed therein;
an impeller (shown but not labeled; see Col. 2, line 66) having a plurality of vanes (impellers have vanes by definition) rotatably disposed in the head portion adjacent the air inlet (as disclosed), the impeller configured to rotate in a predetermined direction about an axis of rotation to draw air into the head portion through the air inlet and to create an air flow (as shown and described, generally);
a flow channel (space between impeller and head portion) formed in the head portion around a periphery of the impeller;
a cut-off segment (“A” from attached Fig. 2 from Belanger, below) located adjacent a discharge area of the flow channel (space leading to 38);
a body portion disposed (portion 14) downstream with respect to a direction of the air flow through the dryer unit (as shown and generally described), the body portion extending generally in a first longitudinal direction away from the head portion (as shown, see thick black line from the attached First Rotated Fig. 1 below which shows the first longitudinal direction), from an upper portion of the body portion at a first end of the body portion to a lower portion of the body portion at a second end of the body, wherein the first end and the second end are at opposite ends of the body portion along the first longitudinal direction (as shown, generally), the first longitudinal direction being generally perpendicular to the axis of rotation of the impeller (as shown, generally); and
an outlet nozzle portion (proximate 24 and containing nozzles) in fluid communication with the air inlet and configured to direct the air flow in a direction being generally perpendicular to the first longitudinal direction and the axis of rotation of the impeller and at a high velocity toward a surface to be dried (as shown generally by the arrows in Fig. 1, proximate the nozzle outlets);
Belanger does not specifically disclose the alignment of the outlet nozzle with respect to the head portion as claimed. Kamiya and McElroy each teach a respectively similar dryer system in wherein the outlet nozzle portion (proximate 6 in Kamiya and Fig. 4: 32) is substantially aligned with a distalmost end of the head portion (per McElroy: see portion of Fig. 4 from McElroy below) when the first longitudinal direction is arranged vertically with the upper portion being above the lower portion (as shown in both Kamiya and McElroy), wherein at least a portion of the outlet nozzle portion is disposed above and below the cut-off segment when the first longitudinal direction is arranged vertically (see annotated Figures form Kamiya and McElroy below), and wherein the entire outlet nozzle portion is disposed below the distalmost portion of the head portion when the first longitudinal direction is arranged vertically (as in Belanger and McElroy; applicant should respectfully note that the directions with respect to the McElroy reference would be opposite of what is shown in the figures based on the configuration of McElroy as shown; however, the relative directions would be the same and meet the claimed limitations, and the examiner takes the position that having the nozzles, or outlets, extend in the same manner in Belanger would operate in like manner as shown in the Rotated Portion of Fig. 4 from McElroy, below; compare to Figs. 2 and 1 of Belanger which shows a dryer in different orientations, where Fig. 2 is a virtually inverted orientation of the same dryer shown in Fig. 1). It would have been obvious at the time of filing to a person having ordinary skill in the art to have the nozzle portions extend as claimed, as having the claimed extensions would permit greater coverage of area to be dried. See MPEP 2144.04(IV)(A) citing Gardner v. TEC Systems, Inc., 725 F.2d 1338 (Fed. Cir. 1984), the Federal Circuit held that, where the only difference between the prior art and the claims was a recitation of relative dimensions of the claimed device and a device having the claimed relative dimensions would not perform differently than the prior art device, the claimed device was not patentably distinct from the prior art device. See also MPEP 2144.04(IV)(A) citing In re Rose, 220 F.2d 459 (CCPA 1955): claims directed to a lumber package “of appreciable size and weight requiring handling by a lift truck” were held unpatentable over prior art lumber packages which could be lifted by hand because limitations relating to the size of the package were not sufficient to patentably distinguish over the prior art. See also MPEP §2144.04 citing In re Harza, 274 F.2d 669 (CCPA 1960) which states having a duplication of parts, here the nozzles or outlets, has no patentable significance unless a new and unexpected result is produced. To have the nozzles extend in the claimed manner would not depart from the scope of operability of the prior art and the examiner takes the position that having the nozzles extend as claimed would still result in a properly functioning device.
The result of the obvious modification of the prior art would provide wherein, when the first longitudinal direction is arranged vertically, a portion of the air flow exits the uppermost end of the outlet nozzle portion upstream of the cut-off segment and the discharge area with respect to the direction of the air flow through the dryer unit. The examiner takes the position that as the resulting modification of the prior art would provide a structure equivalent to that as claimed. As a result, the claimed direction of air flow would be a natural result.
PNG
media_image1.png
442
436
media_image1.png
Greyscale
[AltContent: textbox (Line defining above and below cut-off segment)][AltContent: connector][AltContent: textbox (Cut-off segment)][AltContent: arrow][AltContent: textbox (Distalmost portion of head)][AltContent: connector]
PNG
media_image2.png
158
250
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Portion of Fig. 4 from McElroy
[AltContent: textbox (End of nozzles)][AltContent: connector][AltContent: textbox (Line defining above and below cut-off segment)][AltContent: connector][AltContent: textbox (Cut-off segment)][AltContent: arrow][AltContent: textbox (Topmost portion of head)][AltContent: connector]
PNG
media_image2.png
158
250
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Rotated Portion of Fig. 4 from McElroy
[AltContent: textbox (Line defining above and below cut-off segment)][AltContent: connector][AltContent: textbox (Cut-off segment)][AltContent: arrow][AltContent: textbox (Distalmost portion of air flow)][AltContent: connector]
PNG
media_image3.png
138
186
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Portion of Fig. 3 from Kamiya
[AltContent: arrow][AltContent: textbox (Continuous slope (cl. 29) )][AltContent: textbox (Direction of air flow inside dryer unit (cl. 28)
)][AltContent: arrow][AltContent: connector][AltContent: connector][AltContent: arrow][AltContent: arrow][AltContent: textbox (Dashed line indicates locations of air flow outlets as rendered obvious)][AltContent: textbox (Direction of air flow )][AltContent: textbox (Vertical reference )][AltContent: ][AltContent: arrow][AltContent: arrow][AltContent: arrow][AltContent: arrow][AltContent: arrow][AltContent: arrow]
PNG
media_image4.png
258
128
media_image4.png
Greyscale
[AltContent: arrow][AltContent: connector]Portion of Fig. 1 from Bellanger, rotated
Claim 3: the obvious modification of the prior art provides The dryer unit of claim 1, wherein the outlet nozzle portion includes a plurality of nozzle segments and wherein at least one of the nozzle segments is disposed above the cut-off segment and wherein at least one of the nozzle segments is disposed below the cut-off segment when the first longitudinal direction is vertically aligned (this limitation is met based on the combination of the prior art as rendered obvious).
Claim 4, 12 and 13: the obvious modification of the prior art provides The dryer unit, further including a plurality of nozzle segments below the cut-off segment (which is at least two, per claim 13) and a plurality of nozzle segments above the cut-off segment (which is at least two, per claim 12) when the first longitudinal direction is vertically aligned (as rendered obvious with McElroy and Kamiya, see Figures above, as nozzles are shown on either side of the cutoff portion).
Claims 5 and 14: the obvious modification of the prior art provides The dryer unit, wherein the plurality of nozzle segments extend substantially from the upper portion to the lower portion of the body portion (as rendered obvious by Kamiya and McElroy as shown generally in the Figures, above), which results in wherein the plurality of nozzles are disposed along an entire length of the housing (claim 14).
Claim 8: Belanger discloses A dryer assembly comprising:
a frame portion (Fig. 3: 44) having at least one leg portion extending in a vertical direction between a lower end portion for engaging a ground and an upper end portion (proximate 48 as shown in Fig. 3) for being spaced from the ground (as shown);
at least one dryer unit having a housing (proximate 26) with an inlet opening (proximate 26) and a plurality of nozzles (proximate 24) being positioned in parallel relationship with one another and aligned with one another generally in a first longitudinal direction (as shown generally in Fig. 1);
a rotatable impeller (not shown but disclosed; see Col. 2, line 66) disposed in a flow channel in a head portion of the housing (as disclosed), the flow channel having a cut-off segment (“A” above);
the rotatable impeller being rotatable about an axis of rotation (inherent to impellers), the axis of rotation being generally perpendicular to the first longitudinal direction (as shown in the First Rotated Fig. 1 from Belanger, above).
Belanger does not specifically disclose the claimed configuration of above and below the cut-off segment as claimed, nor the claimed configuration of the nozzles as claimed. Kamiya and McElroy each teach a respectively similar dryer system in wherein at least one of the plurality of nozzles being disposed above the cut-off segment when the first longitudinal direction is vertically aligned and at least one of the plurality of nozzles being disposed below the cut-off segment when the first longitudinal direction is vertically aligned (as shown in the annotated figures above); wherein a top of the plurality of nozzles is substantially aligned with a distal end of the head portion (as shown in McElroy) when the first longitudinal direction is vertically aligned, and wherein the plurality of nozzles are located entirely below the top of the head portion when the first longitudinal direction is vertically aligned (as shown generally in the annotated figures above). It would have been obvious at the time of filing to a person having ordinary skill in the art to have the nozzle portions extend as claimed, as having the claimed extensions would permit greater coverage of area to be dried. See MPEP 2144.04(IV)(A) citing Gardner v. TEC Systems, Inc., 725 F.2d 1338 (Fed. Cir. 1984), the Federal Circuit held that, where the only difference between the prior art and the claims was a recitation of relative dimensions of the claimed device and a device having the claimed relative dimensions would not perform differently than the prior art device, the claimed device was not patentably distinct from the prior art device. See also MPEP 2144.04(IV)(A) citing In re Rose, 220 F.2d 459 (CCPA 1955): claims directed to a lumber package “of appreciable size and weight requiring handling by a lift truck” were held unpatentable over prior art lumber packages which could be lifted by hand because limitations relating to the size of the package were not sufficient to patentably distinguish over the prior art. See also MPEP §2144.04 citing In re Harza, 274 F.2d 669 (CCPA 1960) which states having a duplication of parts, here the nozzles or outlets, has no patentable significance unless a new and unexpected result is produced. To have the nozzles extend in the claimed manner would not depart from the scope of operability of the prior art and the examiner takes the position that having the nozzles extend as claimed would still result in a properly functioning device.
The result of the obvious modification of the prior art would provide wherein, when the first longitudinal direction is vertically aligned, a portion of the air flow exits the uppermost end of the outlet nozzle portion upstream of the cut-off segment and the discharge area with respect to the direction of the air flow through the dryer unit. The examiner takes the position that as the resulting modification of the prior art would provide a structure equivalent to that as claimed. As a result, the claimed direction of air flow would be a natural result.
Claim 9: the obvious modification of the prior art provides The dryer assembly of claim 8, wherein the inlet opening is located in the head portion of the housing (as shown, the opening is in the housing), wherein the head portion has a generally circular configuration and is disposed in an upper portion of the dryer unit when the first longitudinal direction is vertically aligned (as shown in Belanger, above).
Claim 10: the obvious modification of the prior art provides The dryer assembly of claim 9, further comprising:
a body portion (Belanger: 14) having an interior channel (as shown) that is integral with and disposed below the head portion when the first longitudinal direction is vertically aligned. integrally formed (as shown above). Belanger does not specifically disclose the interior channel and head portion are integrally formed (though as shown, the final product is in one piece and Col. 2, lines 60-64 can be interpreted as though the claimed features are integrally formed.) It would have been obvious at the time of filing to a person having ordinary skill in the art to have the objects made integral because the use of a one piece construction instead of the structure disclosed would be merely a matter of obvious engineering choice. See In re Larson, 340 F.2d 965 (CCPA 1965); M.P.E.P. 2144.04(V)(B). One having ordinary skill in the art would have an integral structure to maintain a more secure and durable device that would be less prone to inadvertent disassembly.
Claim 11: the obvious modification of the prior art provides The dryer assembly claim of 8, except wherein the plurality of nozzles are integrally formed with the housing, though the art is clear that the nozzles extend along a vertical height of the housing when the first longitudinal direction is vertically aligned (as shown). Belanger does note the final product is in one piece and Col. 2, lines 60-64 can be interpreted as though the claimed features are integrally formed.) It would have been obvious at the time of filing to a person having ordinary skill in the art to have the objects made integral because the use of a one piece construction instead of the structure disclosed would be merely a matter of obvious engineering choice. See In re Larson, 340 F.2d 965 (CCPA 1965); M.P.E.P. 2144.04(V)(B). One having ordinary skill in the art would have an integral structure to maintain a more secure and durable device that would be less prone to inadvertent disassembly.
Claim 17: Belanger discloses A dryer unit comprising:
a housing (Fig. 1: proximate 14) extending in a first longitudinal direction and having a side portion the side portion extending between an upper portion and a lower portion of the housing when the first longitudinal direction is vertically aligned (as shown);
a head portion (proximate 26) disposed adjacent the upper portion of the housing (as shown), the head portion having an air inlet opening formed therein (as shown), and having a top when the first longitudinal direction is vertically aligned (as shown);
an impeller (not shown but disclosed; see Co.. 2, line 66) disposed in the air inlet opening and configured to rotate about an axis of rotation being generally perpendicular to the first longitudinal direction (as shown in the rotated Fig. 1, above) and to draw air into the housing through the air inlet opening (as is the function of the impeller);
a flow channel formed in the upper head portion (the space between the impeller and head) around a periphery of the impeller (as shown), the flow channel having a cut-off segment (“A” above), the cut-off segment located adjacent a discharge area of the flow channel at a location of the head portion corresponding to a location at which a radial distance, relative to the axis of the impeller, between the impeller an interior curved surface of the head portion is at a minimum (as shown); and
at least one nozzle portion (proximate to and containing 34), the at least one nozzle portion being disposed along the side portion substantially from the upper portion to the lower portion of the housing (as shown),
Belanger does not specifically disclose the relationship of the nozzles, cut-off segment and head portion. Kamiya and McElroy each teach a respectively similar dryer system wherein the at least one nozzle portion is located above and below the cut-off segment when the first longitudinal direction is vertically aligned (as shown in the annotated Figures above), and entirely below the top of the head portion when the first longitudinal direction is vertically aligned (as shown above); and wherein a top of the at least one nozzle portion is substantially aligned with the distal end of the head portion when the first longitudinal direction is vertically aligned (as shown in McElroy).
It would have been obvious at the time of filing to a person having ordinary skill in the art to have the nozzle portions extend as claimed, as having the claimed extensions would permit greater coverage of area to be dried. See MPEP 2144.04(IV)(A) citing Gardner v. TEC Systems, Inc., 725 F.2d 1338 (Fed. Cir. 1984), the Federal Circuit held that, where the only difference between the prior art and the claims was a recitation of relative dimensions of the claimed device and a device having the claimed relative dimensions would not perform differently than the prior art device, the claimed device was not patentably distinct from the prior art device. See also MPEP 2144.04(IV)(A) citing In re Rose, 220 F.2d 459 (CCPA 1955): claims directed to a lumber package “of appreciable size and weight requiring handling by a lift truck” were held unpatentable over prior art lumber packages which could be lifted by hand because limitations relating to the size of the package were not sufficient to patentably distinguish over the prior art. See also MPEP §2144.04 citing In re Harza, 274 F.2d 669 (CCPA 1960) which states having a duplication of parts, here the nozzles or outlets, has no patentable significance unless a new and unexpected result is produced. To have the nozzles extend in the claimed manner would not depart from the scope of operability of the prior art and the examiner takes the position that having the nozzles extend as claimed would still result in a properly functioning device.
The result of the obvious modification of the prior art would provide wherein, when the first longitudinal direction is vertically aligned, a portion of the air flow exits the uppermost end of the outlet nozzle portion upstream of the cut-off segment and the discharge area with respect to the direction of the air flow through the dryer unit. The examiner takes the position that as the resulting modification of the prior art would provide a structure equivalent to that as claimed. As a result, the claimed direction of air flow would be a natural result.
Claim(s) 2, 16 and 18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Belanger in view of Kamiya, McElroy and Jones (U.S. Patent 5,596,818).
Claims 2, 16 and 18: The obvious modification of the prior art provides The dryer unit, wherein the head portion, the body portion and the outlet nozzle portion are part of an integral housing (as shown in Belanger, the final structure functions as a single unit); however, the prior art does not specifically provide wherein the housing is constructed of a polyurethane material (claims 2, 16 and 18). Belanger, does however, note that the system may be made of polymeric material (claims 2 and 8). Jones teaches a similar vehicle drying system that incorporates polyurethane in various components (Col. 5, lines 8-11; Col. 10, lines 8-11). It would have been obvious at the time of filing to a person having ordinary skill in the art to incorporate polyurethane material with the housing of the dryers, because, as taught by Jones, such material is known in the art for aiding in sound reducing in what would otherwise be a relatively loud system due to the nature of the dryers in the given environment. In addition, should applicant disagree with the condition of the integral housing, it would have been obvious at the time of filing to a person having ordinary skill in the art to have the objects made integral because the use of a one piece construction instead of the structure disclosed in the prior art would be merely a matter of obvious engineering choice. See In re Larson, 340 F.2d 965 (CCPA 1965); M.P.E.P. 2144.04(V)(B). One having ordinary skill in the art would have an integral structure to maintain a more secure device that would be less prone to inadvertent disassembly.
Claim(s) 6, 7, 15 and 19-21 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Belanger in view of Kamiya, McElroy and Turner (U.S. Publication 2011/0277797).
Claims 6 and 21: the obvious modification of the prior art provides The dryer unit, except further comprising:
at least one light source associated with the body portion and wherein the at least one light source is configured to emit light in a plurality of different colors, and the light source is an LED light strip (claim 21). Turner teaches a similar system that incorporates LED light strips that emit color as desired (62; see paragraph [0028]). It would have been obvious at the time of filing to a person having ordinary skill in the art to incorporate lights with the system in Belanger in order to provide aesthetic improvement to the system as desired. Lights are known in the art for providing illumination for aesthetic and vision purposes and to assist in location of the device while in use.
Claims 7, 15, 19 and 20: the obvious modification of the prior art provides The dryer unit, except wherein the body portion (or housing per claim 15) is constructed of a translucent material and the at least one light source is disposed in an interior of the body portion to emit light through the body portion. Turner teaches a similar system that incorporates a translucent portion in a vehicle washing and drying system (24; see paragraph [0027] and [0028] and the lights are within the translucent portion (as disclosed). It would have been obvious at the time of filing to a person having ordinary skill in the art to incorporate a translucent housing in order to contain and protect the lighting system and to permit the light to be visible through the casing. As noted in the rejection above, lighting would add a desired aesthetic effect.
Claim(s) 22-24 and 29 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Belanger in view of Turner.
Claim 22: Belanger discloses A dryer unit comprising:
a housing (proximate 14) having a side portion;
the side portion extending generally in a first longitudinal direction between an upper portion and a lower portion of the housing when the first longitudinal direction is vertically aligned (as shown);
an air inlet portion (as shown) disposed in the housing and having an air inlet opening formed therein (as shown proximate 20);
an impeller (not shown but disclosed; see Col. 2, line 66) disposed adjacent the air inlet opening (as disclosed) and configured to rotate about an axis of rotation to draw air into the housing through the air inlet opening and to generate an air flow through the housing (as would be the result);
a plurality of air outlets (nozzles 34), the plurality of air outlets being disposed along the side portion substantially from the upper portion to the lower portion of the housing when the first longitudinal direction is vertically aligned (as shown) and configured to direct the air flow at a high velocity toward an object to be dried (as is the function);
a fluid flow channel (space formed within housing 14), through which the air flow passes, defined by the housing within an interior of the housing between the air inlet opening and the plurality of air outlets (as shown).
Belanger does not disclose the limitation directed to the light source. Turner teaches a similar system that includes at least one light source (62; see paragraph [0028]) disposed within the interior of the housing (see where Turner includes a translucent portion in a vehicle washing and drying system 24; see paragraphs [0027] and [0028] and the lights are within the translucent portion). It would have been obvious at the time of filing to a person having ordinary skill in the art to incorporate a translucent housing in order to contain and protect the lighting system and to permit the light to be visible through the casing. As noted in the rejection above, lighting would add a desired aesthetic effect. Further, Belanger does not disclose the light is within the fluid flow channel and downstream from the impeller and upstream from the plurality of air outlets, the at least one light source configured to emit light through the housing, however, as shown in Fig. 3 of Turner, it is clear that light strips are within the housing of the system. It would have been obvious at the time of filing to a person having ordinary skill in the art to arrange the parts as necessary because rearrangement of parts is considered an obvious matter of design choice. (See In re Kuhle, 526 F.2d 553, 188 USPQ 7 (CCPA 1975)(the particular placement of a contact in a conductivity measuring device was held to be an obvious matter of design choice.) One having ordinary skill in the art would have the desired location of the lights based on the overall desired appearance and use of the system.
The result of the obvious modification of the prior art would provide wherein, when the first longitudinal direction is vertically aligned, the air flow in the fluid flow channel flows around the at least one light source upstream from the plurality of air outlets and then exits the housing through the plurality of air outlets. The examiner takes the position that as the resulting modification of the prior art would provide a structure equivalent to that as claimed. As a result, the claimed direction of air flow would be a natural result.
Claim 23: The obvious modification of the prior art provides The dryer unit of claim 22, wherein the at least one light source is an LED light strip (as disclosed in Turner: 62).
Claim 24: The obvious modification of the prior art provides The dryer unit of claim 22, except wherein the housing is constructed from a translucent material. Turner teaches a similar system that incorporates a translucent portion in a vehicle washing and drying system (24; see paragraphs [0027] and [0028]) and the lights are within the translucent portion. It would have been obvious at the time of filing to a person having ordinary skill in the art to incorporate a translucent housing in order to contain and protect the lighting system and to permit the light to be visible through the casing. As noted in the rejection above, lighting would add a desired aesthetic effect.
Claim 29: The obvious modification of the prior art provides The dryer unit of claim 22, wherein, when the first longitudinal direction is vertically aligned, an uppermost portion of the housing slopes continuously downward to an uppermost end of the side portion of the housing (compare the downward slope as shown in the annotated Fig. 1 from Ballinger, above with respect to the downward slope as rendered obvious as shown above).
Claim(s) 25-28 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Belanger in view of Turner, Kamiya and McElroy.
Claim 25: The obvious modification of the prior art provides The dryer unit of claim 22, wherein the plurality of air outlets are located entirely below the distal portion of the upper portion when the longitudinal direction is vertically aligned (as shown in Belanger and as modified by McElroy), but it does not disclose wherein at least one of the plurality of air outlets is located at least partially above the impeller. McElroy and Kamiya respectively teaches a similar system where air outlets are on both side of a line defined by the cut-off segment (see above). It would have been obvious at the time of filing to a person having ordinary skill in the art to have the nozzles located as claimed in order to maximize area covered by the drying system. One having ordinary skill in the art would logically conclude that more nozzles would result in greater area covered in the drying process.
The result of the obvious modification of the prior art would provide wherein, when the first longitudinal direction is vertically aligned, a portion of the air flow flows horizontally through the fluid flow channel through a portion of the fluid flow channel that is upstream from a bottommost end of the impeller and exits the at least one of the plurality of air outlets that is located at least partially above the impeller, and a further portion of the air flow flows vertically downward and below the bottommost end of the impeller and exits a lowermost one of the plurality of air outlets. The examiner takes the position that as the resulting modification of the prior art would provide a structure equivalent to that as claimed. As a result, the claimed direction of air flow would be a natural result.
Claim 26: The obvious modification of the prior art provides The dryer unit of claim 22, except wherein the plurality of air outlets are integrally formed with the housing. See, however, as shown in Belanger, the final structure functions as a single unit. Should applicant disagree with the condition of the integrally formed housing, it would have been obvious at the time of filing to a person having ordinary skill in the art to have the objects made integral because the use of a one piece construction instead of the structure disclosed would be merely a matter of obvious engineering choice. See In re Larson, 340 F.2d 965 (CCPA 1965); M.P.E.P. 2144.04(V)(B). One having ordinary skill in the art would have an integral structure to maintain a more secure device that would be less prone to inadvertent disassembly.
Claim 27: The obvious modification of the prior art provides The dryer unit of claim 22, wherein the plurality of air outlets are positioned in a parallel relationship with one another (as shown in Belanger) and aligned with one another along the first longitudinal direction and are vertically aligned when the first longitudinal direction is vertically aligned (as shown generally in Belanger).
Claim 28: the obvious modification of the prior art provides The dryer unit of claim 25, wherein, when the first longitudinal direction is vertically aligned, the air flow is continuous in a horizontal direction (as shown in annotated Portion of Fig. 1 from Bellanger, below). The obvious modification of the prior art does not specifically disclose the air flow is around the at least one light source between an uppermost end of the impeller and an uppermost one of the plurality of air outlets, however, as rendered obvious with Turner, a light source is present in the system. As a result, the examiner takes the position that it would have been obvious at the time of filing to a person having ordinary skill in the art to arrange the parts as necessary because rearrangement of parts is considered an obvious matter of design choice. (See In re Kuhle, 526 F.2d 553, 188 USPQ 7 (CCPA 1975)(the particular placement of a contact in a conductivity measuring device was held to be an obvious matter of design choice.) One having ordinary skill in the art would locate the lights as desired in the system for desired aesthetic purposes, which would result in the claimed relationship between the lights and air flow.
Response to Arguments
The following addresses applicant’s remarks/arguments dated 27 May 2025. Applicant’s courtesies are appreciated.
Descriptions of the Amendments Made (response – beginning page 10):
Applicant’s amendments made are noted. Please see above, where the examiner noted that support for the provided amendments did not appear to be provided, which resulted in an objection.
Claim rejections – 35 USC 103 (response – beginning page 12):
Applicant’s remarks that are directed to the claims as amended are addressed above and will not be addressed again here for brevity.
Regarding the rejections of claims 1, 8 and 17 (response: beginning page 14), while noting applicant’s position with respect to the McElroy reference (response: page 15), the purpose of incorporating the reference was to show outlet nozzles have the relationship with the cut-off segment as claimed. While noting that the airflow would be contained within the boundaries of the blower of McElroy, the examiner does take the position that nozzles are present above and below the cut-off segment. As a result, air would necessarily flow through the nozzles, regardless of the relationship with respect to the cut-off segment. This would be the natural result under the rules governing fluid mechanics. Further, in observing the Kamiya reference, one can clearly see that the air flow would be above and below the cut-off segment, as labeled in the figures. Further, the examiner takes the position that the location of the impeller in Kamiya would still result in air flow as claimed. If one having ordinary skill in the art located the source of the airflow (i.e., the impeller/blower), in a location similar to McElroy and/or Belanger, the air would continue to flow out the nozzles as intended. As a result, the examiner maintains the modification of the prior art references is proper and the rejection stands.
Regarding the rejection of claim 22 (response: page 17), while noting Turner may not incorporate the lights with the blower system, the lights are used in the field of vehicle cleaning systems. Further, lights are used for illumination and as indication of stage of the washing process (see Turner: paragraph [0032]). To incorporate the lights into the system of Belanger would be well within the level of skill in the art for at least these reasons alone. Further, Turner was incorporated as a reference for the use of lights in a similar environment: vehicle washing systems, so one having ordinary skill in the art would clearly adapt it to withstand the given environment. The examiner respectfully maintains the rejection as proper.
Regarding claim 25 (response: page 19), the claim stands or falls with claim 22.
Regarding the remaining claims (response: page 19), the claims stand or fall with respect to the claims from which they depend and argued, either directly or indirectly.
Regarding new claims 28 and 29 (response: page 19), the examiner addressed the claim limitations above.
Continuing Obligations
Applicant is reminded of the continuing obligation under 37 CFR 1.178(b), to timely apprise the Office of any prior or concurrent proceeding in which Patent No. 10,953,856 is or was involved. These proceedings would include any trial before the Patent Trial and Appeal Board, interferences, reissues, reexaminations, supplemental examinations, and litigation. Applicant is further reminded of the continuing obligation under 37 CFR 1.56, to timely apprise the Office of any information which is material to patentability of the claims under consideration in this reissue application. These obligations rest with each individual associated with the filing and prosecution of this application for reissue. See also MPEP §§ 1404, 1442.01 and 1442.04.
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 WILLIAM V GILBERT whose telephone number is (571)272-9055. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 0800-0430 Eastern.
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, Eileen Lillis can be reached at 571.272.6928. 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.
/WILLIAM V GILBERT/Reexamination Specialist, Art Unit 3993
Conferees:
/CATHERINE S WILLIAMS/Reexamination Specialist, Art Unit 3993
/Patricia L Engle/SPRS, Art Unit 3993
Prosecution Insights