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 § 112
Claims 1-11 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. Claims 1 and 11 are construed to be indefinite because the recitation “the filtered air” lacks a positive antecedent basis. Claim 3 is further construed to be indefinite because the recitation “it” does not make clear to which function or structure is referenced in that claim. Because claims 2-10 depend upon an indefinite claim, those claims are construed to be indefinite by dependency.
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, 7, and 9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Schrems (WO 2022/152408). The claims are reasonably and broadly construed, in light of the accompanying specification, to be disclosed by Schrems as teaching a:
hand dryer (see title and abstract), comprising:
- a pot-like housing 11 with an interior space 11’ with an opening 12 for body parts 6 to be dried;
- a first filter element 17’ for filtering drawn-in air,
- at least one nozzle 29 for discharging the filtered air into the interior space of the housing,
- a second filter element 32 for filtering the air fed by the nozzle into the interior space of the housing, and
- an outlet 15’ for discharging the air filtered by the second filter element from the housing. Schrems also discloses the claim 2 feature wherein the first filter element and/or the second filter element is a HEPA filter (see translated portion after paragraph starting with “figure 12…”), the claim 3 feature the at least one nozzle for discharging the filtered air into the interior space is arranged in the region of the opening and directed towards the interior space (figures 15, 16A), the 4 feature where it has a first conveying element 19 for drawing in air from the environment and for conveying the air into the interior space of the housing, and/or that it has a second conveying element 15 for extracting the air located in the interior space and for discharging on the housing, the claim 5 feature wherein the first conveying element and the second conveying element can be operated independently of each other (figures 14A, 14B), the claim 7 features wherein a collection device 17 for liquid is arranged or formed in the interior space of the housing, the claim 9 feature wherein the collection device 17 is connected to a collection container.
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, 8, and 10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Schrems. Schrems discloses the claimed invention, as rejected above, except for the recited replaceable filter, cleaning filter, or antibacterial and/or antiviral coating. It would have been an obvious matter of design choice to recite those features since the teachings of Schrems would perform the invention as claimed regardless of those features and applicant has not claimed or specified the criticality of those features as being necessary for patentability.
Claim 11 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Schrems in view of Aisenberg et al. (US 6,038,786). Schrems discloses the claimed invention, as rejected above, except for the claimed detection of hands feature. Aisenberg, another hand dryer, discloses that feature at column 7 line 33 through column 8 line 24. It would have been obvious to one skilled in the art to combine the features of Schrems with the teachings of Aisenberg in order to detect an approach of a user.
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 action, may teach one or more claim features, but do not rise to a level of anticipation, obviousness, and/or double patenting. References A, N, O, cited with this action, are patent publications from the same inventive entity as the current application. References B, C, D, E, F, G, H, I, J, K, L, O, R, cited with this action teach hand dryers or methods thereof.
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.
Tuesday, February 3, 2026
/STEPHEN M GRAVINI/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3753