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 .
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1-5, and 7-12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being clearly anticipated by Courtney et al. (US 10,694,906). The claims are reasonably and broadly construed, in light of the accompanying specification, to be disclosed by Courtney because each of the claim features are shown on the face of that reference and Courtney teaches:
a hand drying apparatus see title and abstract) comprising:
a housing 3 including a draft passage connected to a high pressure air source (right face figure of that reference); and
a nozzle 10 adapted to eject air flowing through the draft passage in a fan shape, the nozzle being provided at a side of the housing (both figures and abstract of that reference). Courtney also discloses the claim 2 feature of an ejection direction of the air from the nozzle is within a range downward from a horizontal direction (right figure on the face that reference), the claim 3 feature delivered from the blower, out of the housing such that the ejected air fans out, the nozzle part being provided at one of left and right side parts of the housing when viewed from a user facing the housing (shown on the prima facie figure). Courtney also discloses the claim 2 feature wherein the nozzle part ejects the air in a shape of a fan downwardly in a range defined between a horizontal direction and a vertical direction (right face figure), the claim 3 feature wherein an angle is 0° in the horizontal direction and increases downward from the horizontal direction, the ejection direction is within a range between 0° and 60° (right face figure), the claim 4 feature wherein the nozzle includes an air outlet serving as an opening that provides communication between the draft passage and an exterior of the housing, and the nozzle includes a head defining an outer opening edge of the air outlet, the head having a shape that bulges in an outward direction from an inner side of the housing (both face figures of that reference), the claim 5 feature wherein the air outlet has a shorter length from an uppermost end to a lowermost end that a width of a hand of a user (both figures on the face of that reference), the claim 7 feature wherein the air outlet is disposed to come to a front position as the air outlet runs downward (both figures on the face of that reference), the claim 8 feature wherein the outer opening edge of the air outlet is flush with an external surface of the housing (right figure on the face of that reference), the claim 9 feature wherein the head is provided at an outwardly protrusive position compared with an external surface of the housing (both figures on the face of that reference), the claim 10 feature wherein the nozzle is provided at a leading end of the housing (right figure on the face of that reference), the claim 11 feature wherein the nozzle includes a right-hand nozzle and a left-hand nozzle, and the housing includes, between the right-hand nozzle and the left-hand nozzle, a brace to not allow the air to be ejected (right face figure), and the claim 12 feature wherein the brace is provided in a vertically lower part of the housing between the right-hand nozzle and the left-hand nozzle (right face figure).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, 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.
Claims 6 and 13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Courtney in view of Dyson et al. (US 2009/0113748). Courtney discloses the claimed invention, as rejected above, except for the claim 13 feature of a hand detector to detect whether or not a hand is present, the hand detector being provide forwardly of the nozzle at the housing. Dyson, another hand dryer, shows the 13 feature in paragraph [0023]. It would have been obvious to one skilled in the art to combine the teachings of Courtney with the teachings of Dyson for the purpose of optimizing detecting a hand for efficient drying. Furthermore, Courtney and/or in view of Dyson discloses the claimed invention except for the claim 6 greater opening width. It would have been an obvious matter of design choice to recite and claim that feature, since the teachings of Courtney and/or Dyson would perform the invention, as claimed, regardless of that feature and applicants have not claimed or specified the criticality of those features as being necessary for patentability.
Claims 14-16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Courtney in view of Bayley et al. (US 9,441,885). Courtney discloses the claimed invention, as rejected above, except for the claim 14 feature wherein the housing is disposed above ad washstand including a washbowl. Bayley, another hand dryer, shows that feature in figures 9, 10, 18, and 24 and at column 6 liens 21-44, column 8 lines 4-14, and column 13 lines 26-61. It would have been obvious to one skilled in the art to combine the teachings of Courtney with the teachings of Bayley for the purpose of optimizing a hand washing to include a space for efficient drying. Furthermore, Courtney and/or in view of Bayley discloses the claimed invention except for the claim 15 tubular shape or claim 16 line slender. It would have been an obvious matter of design choice to recite and claim those features, since the teachings of Courtney and/or Bayley would perform the invention, as claimed, regardless of that feature and applicants have not claimed or specified the criticality of those features as being necessary for patentability.
Double Patenting
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a nonstatutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13.
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer.
Claims 1-16 are provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-14 of copending Application No. 18/246,188 (reference application). Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because copending application claim 1 anticipates current application claim 1 except for the copending application claimed blower. It would have been an obvious matter of design choice to omit the claimed blower, since the current application would perform the invention as claimed, regardless of a blower. Furthermore, current claims 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, and 16 are anticipated by copending application claims 2, 3, 4, 5, 7, 8, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, and 14 respectively.
This is a provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejection because the patentably indistinct claims have not in fact been patented.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Other prior art references cited with this application may teach one or more claim features, but do not rise to a level of anticipation, obviousness, and/or double patenting such that a rejection would be reasonable or proper under current Office practice and procedure. References A, B, C, N, O, P, Q, cited with this action, are patent publications from the same inventive entity as the current application. References D, E, F, G, H, I, J, R, S, T, cited with this application, teach hand dryer apparatus.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to STEPHEN MICHAEL GRAVINI whose telephone number is (571)272-4875. The examiner can normally be reached M-Th 5:30 am to 5:00 (mid day flex) first F 6:00 am t0 11:00 am.
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, Craig Schneider can be reached at 571 272 3607. 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.
Monday, December 16, 2025
/STEPHEN M GRAVINI/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3753