DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Response to Amendment
The proposed amendments filed 05/20/2026 have been entered. Claims 1 and 3-6 are currently pending. Claim 2 has been cancelled.
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.
Claims 1 and 3-5 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 3068341 (Ortiz hereinafter) in view of US 2014/0360805 (Berkman hereinafter).
Regarding claim 1, Ortiz teaches a bathroom air handling system that discloses a ceiling fan (Figures 1 and 5), comprising: an outer cover to removably connect to at least a portion of a ceiling (Outer cover 90 and 101 in Figure 5), a plurality of fan blades movably disposed within at least a portion of the outer cover to blow air and dry at least one of a shower and a bathtub (Fan blades 111 to move air as shown in Figure 5 and Column 4 Lines 45-50), and a light connected to at least a portion of the outer cover to illuminate and emit at least one beam of light therefrom (Light 119 in Figure 5); a control means for controlling the light (Column 1 lines 23-25), wherein the outer cover (Cover 90/101) comprises: a main body (main body 90), a plurality of vent apertures circumferentially disposed around the main body to each extend from a bottom portion of the main body to a top portion of the main body (Apertures 93 that have portions extending towards a top direction of 90 and a bottom direction of 90 to create the vent aperture), and configured to facilitate movement of air therethrough (Inherent of the function of the vents 93), and a central aperture disposed at a center of the main body (Central aperture of 90/101 where the airflow occurs as seen in Figure 5), and wherein the plurality of fan blades and the light are disposed within the main body (Blades 111 and light 119 are situated within the portion 101 of the main body).
Ortiz is silent with respect to a fan control device connected to the ceiling fan to control at least one operation of the plurality of fan blades.
However, Berkman teaches a ceiling air handler that discloses a fan control device connected to the ceiling fan to control at least one operation of the plurality of fan blades (Figure 13 with ¶ 81-84, specifically ¶ 83); and a light control device connected to the light to control at least one operation of the light (¶ 82 with switch 1334 in Figure 13).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the ceiling fan of Ortiz with the remote control of Berkman to allow for a user to control the fan system from anywhere.
Regarding claim 3, Ortiz’s modified teachings are described above in claim 2 where the combination of Ortiz and Berkman would further disclose that the plurality of fan blades are disposed within the central aperture (Evident from Figure 5 with 111 being within the central aperture to feed the airflow out of 96).
Regarding claim 4, Ortiz’s modified teachings are described above in claim 2 where the combination of Ortiz and Berkman would further disclose a heating control unit disposed within at least a portion of the outer cover to generate heat and increase a temperature level of the air blown from the plurality of fan blades (¶ 54 of Berkman; Ortiz does disclose a broad control means in Column 1 Lines 23-25).
Regarding claim 5, Ortiz’s modified teachings are described above in claim 2 where the combination of Ortiz and Berkman would further disclose that the fan control device and the light control device are integrated as a software application on a computing device (¶ 87-88 and 96-98 of Berkman).
Claim 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 3068341 (Ortiz) in view of US 2014/0360805 (Berkman) and further in view of US 2022/0154954 (Sinur hereinafter).
Regarding claim 6, Ortiz’s modified teachings are described above in claim 1 but are silent with respect to a computing device running a program thereon to automatically create a drying cycle on a bathroom based on a size of a room, a temperature level of the room, and a humidity level of the room. Berkman does disclose a computer program used to monitor the fan system with sensors for temperature and humidity (¶ 87-88, 96-98, and Figure 15 of Berkman).
However, Sinur teaches a smart house control system that discloses prompting a user to create system settings such as room dimensions (¶ 65) and monitoring environmental values such as temperature and humidity (¶ 43). The resultant combination would be such that there is a computing device running a program thereon to automatically create a drying cycle on a bathroom based on a size of a room, a temperature level of the room, and a humidity level of the room.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify eh control of the fan/controller of Ortiz/Berkman with the control of Sinur to allow for a more manicured control scheme to be applied for each sized room the fan is used in.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 05/20/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant’s argument regarding the positioning of the blades and blubs not being within the main body as now added to claim 1. However, the Examiner previously identified the main body of Ortiz (US 3068341) as structures 90 and 101 as seen in Figure 5. The blades 111 and the light 119 are clearly within the structure 101 and therefore are within the main body as identified by the Examiner. For at least this reason, the argument regarding the location of the blades and light are not found to be persuasive.
In response to applicant's argument that the references fail to show certain features of the invention, it is noted that the features upon which applicant relies (i.e., the blades being adjacent to the openings) are not recited in the rejected claim(s). Although the claims are interpreted in light of the specification, limitations from the specification are not read into the claims. See In re Van Geuns, 988 F.2d 1181, 26 USPQ2d 1057 (Fed. Cir. 1993).
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 CONNOR J. TREMARCHE whose telephone number is (571)272-2175. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Thursday 0700-1700 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, MICHAEL HOANG can be reached at (571) 272-6460. 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.
/CONNOR J TREMARCHE/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3762
Prosecution Insights