DETAILED ACTION.
Response to Amendment
The Amendment filed December 1, 2025 has been entered. Claims 1, 3, 4 and 6 – 12 are pending in the application with claims 2 and 5 being cancelled. The amendment to the claims has overcome the claim objections set forth in the last Non-Final Action mailed August 29, 2025.
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 1, 3, 4, 6 – 8 and 10 – 12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Spaulding et al. (US 2022/0290693 – herein after Spaulding) and evidenced by Metcalf et al. (US 2022/0290680 – herein after Metcalf).
In reference to claim 1, Spaulding teaches a fan (see figs. 23A-23D), comprising:
a battery pack coupling portion (715, see ¶116) for mounting a battery pack (1);
an air output assembly (704) comprising fan blades (see ¶114), a front housing (inherent feature, “front housing” = shaded portion/component as seen in fig. A below) located on a front side of the fan blades, and a rear housing (inherent feature, “rear housing” = unshaded portion/component as seen in fig. A below) located on a rear side of the fan blades, wherein the fan blades are driven by a motor (see ¶115) to rotate about a first axis (706), an airflow flows out from the front housing, and the airflow flows in from the rear housing (the claimed airflow direction being an inherent feature in Spaulding’s fan);
a pivot assembly (in view of disclosure in ¶121: 740) connected to the air output assembly (704), wherein the air output assembly is rotatable about a second axis (744) of the pivot assembly;
a support assembly (in view of disclosure in ¶120: 716) connected to the pivot assembly (740), wherein the support assembly supports the air output assembly (704), the support assembly comprises a support rod (716c; under the BRI, “716c” functions as “a support rod” because it serves as the structural member connecting the support base 716 to the pivot assembly 740; while Spaulding uses the term “wall” to describe 716c, it is a structural member providing the identical support required of the “support rod” recited in the claim) and a support member (feet walls 716a, 716b acts as support member), the support rod (716c) is connected (as evident from figs. 23A-23D) to the pivot assembly (740), and the support member supports the support rod so that the fan is supportable on a placement plane (plane corresponding to ground surface on which the support assembly is placed; see fig. 23D); and
wherein the battery pack coupling portion (715) is located below (in view of frame of reference depicted in fig. A below) the second axis (744) of the pivot assembly and is connected to the pivot assembly (the battery coupling portion is connected to the pivot assembly via wall portion labeled “WP” in fig. A below), and the air output assembly (704) and the battery pack coupling portion (715) are separately disposed on two sides of the second axis (744) [in view of fig. A below: air output assembly is disposed on top side of the second axis while battery coupling portion is disposed on lower side of the second axis], with the battery pack coupling portion (715) being located towards the placement plane (plane corresponding to ground surface on which the support assembly is placed) [in view of frame of reference seen in fig. A below: the battery pack coupling portion is located in ↓ direction which is towards the placement plane], and
wherein there is a certain ratio of an overall height (height = dimension between point labeled “T” in fig. A below and ground surface) of the fan to a distance between the second axis (744) and the placement plane (plane corresponding to ground surface).
PNG
media_image1.png
856
954
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Fig. A: Edited fig. 23C of Spaulding to show claim interpretation.
Spaulding remains silent on the fan, wherein the ratio “is greater than or equal to 2.5 and less than or equal to 4.7”.
However, “ratio” is a result effective variable since varying it affects the height of the fan relative to ground/base thus affecting airflow direction. This is further evidenced by Metcalf (see figs. 7 – 9 for instance) where it is shown that the fan can be move vertically to any given number of positions, and as doing so the claimed range will necessarily fall within the ranges obtained at each different position.
Thus, it would have been obvious to the person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to have “a ratio of an overall height of the fan to a distance between the second axis and the placement plane is greater than or equal to 2.5 and less than or equal to 4.7” in the Spaulding’s fan since it has been held that discovering an optimum value of a result effective variable involves only routine skill in the art. In re Boesch, 617 F.2d 272, 205 USPQ 215 (CCPA 1980).
In reference to claim 3, Spaulding teaches the fan, wherein (see fig. A above) the pivot assembly (740) is connected to a bottom of the air output assembly (704), and the second axis is located on a lower side (bottom side) of the air output assembly.
In reference to claim 4, Spaulding teaches the fan, wherein (see fig. A above) the pivot assembly (740) is at least partially located between the air output assembly (704) and the battery pack coupling portion (715).
In reference to claim 6, Spaulding teaches the fan, wherein (fig. 23D) the support assembly (716) comprises four support members (for instance, four support members being present in the form of semi-circular feet; labeled in fig. A above as well) and, when the fan is placed on the placement plane (plane corresponding to the ground surface), a projection of a center of gravity of the fan on the placement plane falls within a region enclosed by the four support members (center of gravity located in claimed manner being an implicit feature if the fan is place on the ground in view of orientation seen in fig. A above).
In reference to claim 7, Spaulding, as modified, teaches the fan, wherein a maximum width of the air output assembly (704) in a left and right direction is defined as a second distance (labelled “D2” in fig. C below), a maximum distance of the support assembly (716) in the left and right direction is defined as a third distance (labelled “D3” in fig. C below), and (as evident from fig. C below) the second distance is greater than the third distance (the claimed relationship is present since the air output assembly 704 is stored within the support assembly 716).
PNG
media_image2.png
878
822
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Fig. C: Edited fig. 23A of Spaulding to show claim interpretation.
In reference to claim 8, Spaulding teaches the fan, wherein a rated voltage of the battery pack (1) is greater than or equal to 36 V and less than or equal to 56 V [see ¶67: “The battery pack 1 may be an 18 volt battery pack, a 4 volt battery pack, a 28 volt battery pack, a 40 volt battery pack, or a battery pack of any other voltage such that the capacity of the battery pack may vary”].
In reference to claim 10, Spaulding teaches the fan, wherein the battery pack (1) adapted to the fan is also adaptable to other types of power tools other than the fan [see ¶67: “The battery pack 1 may be a power tool battery pack generally used to power a power tool, such as an electric drill, an electric saw, and the like (e.g., an 18 volt rechargeable battery pack, or an M18 REDLITHIUM battery pack sold by Milwaukee Electric Tool Corporation)”].
In reference to claim 11, Spaulding teaches the fan, wherein the battery pack (1) is mountable into the battery pack coupling portion (715) from front to back (in view of orientation shown in fig. A above: the battery pack is mountable in claimed manner).
In reference to claim 12, Spaulding teaches the fan, wherein the battery pack (1) is at least partially located on a front side of the second axis (744) when the battery pack is mounted in the fan (inherent feature in view of figs. 23A, 23C, 23D; note the portion of the battery 1 sticking out in fig. 23A, wherein this portion is considered to be on left side of the pivot axis corresponding to the pivot assembly 740).
Claim 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Spaulding and evidenced by Metcalf in view of Nagahama et al. (US 2024/0006699 – herein after Nagahama).
Spaulding teaches the fan, wherein the battery pack (1) has a certain weight associated with it.
Spaulding remains silent on the weight “is greater than or equal to 0.8 kg and less than or equal to 2.5 kg”.
However, Nagahama teaches (see ¶6) a battery pack (2) configured to be detachably attached to a battery pack-mount part of an electrical device by being slid with respect to the battery pack-mount part, wherein a rated voltage of the battery pack is 36 V and weight is 1 kg (see ¶135: “The rated voltage of the battery pack 102 is, for example, 36 V. The rated capacity of the battery pack 102 is, for example, 4.0 Ah. The weight of the battery pack 102 is equal to or less than 1.0 kg, for example, 1.0 kg”).
Thus, it would have been obvious to the person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to use the battery pack as taught by Nagahama in Spaulding’s fan because Spaulding’s fan is designed to interface with standard power tool battery packs (see ¶67) and using Nagahama’s high-capacity pack provides the predictable benefit of extended runtime for the fan.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, filed 12/01/2025, with respect to claim 1 have been considered. The amendment to claim 1 changed the scope of the claim. As a result, new grounds of rejection are presented for the claims over Spaulding.
Please note the following:
Arguments with respect to Kamiya: These arguments are moot since Kamiya is no longer relied upon as a reference in the rejection.
Arguments stating Spaulding, alone or in combination, not teaching the claimed features of the battery pack coupling portion being below the second axis and the claimed arrangement of the air output assembly and the battery pack coupling portion with respect to the second axis: These arguments are not found to be persuasive because as stated in the rejection above, Spaulding teaches these features in a different embodiment of the fan shown in figs. 23A-23D.
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 CHIRAG JARIWALA whose telephone number is (571)272-0467. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8 AM-5 PM.
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, ESSAMA OMGBA can be reached at 469-295-9278. 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.
/CHIRAG JARIWALA/Examiner, Art Unit 3746
/ESSAMA OMGBA/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3746
Prosecution Insights