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 .
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s previous election of Species 6 is noted.
Response to Amendment
Applicant’s amendments to claim 2, filed 12/09/2025, have made the §112(b) rejections moot. The §112(b) rejections of 09/09/2025 have been withdrawn.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 12/09/2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Page 6 ¶4-Page 7 Line 4: Applicant traverses the rejection of claim 1, by suggesting that the prior art of Colley US 2018/0266424 does not teach the first handle and second handle as recited in amended claim 1.
--Examiner disagrees. As explained in the rejection below the first handle is located behind the blower tube assembly as claimed; and the second handle is both located in front of the first handle (Fig 27) and a closed loop that can be held by a user from an upper side of the second handle.
Specifically, Fig 27 clearly shows the claimed arrangement of the first handle. Additionally, regarding the second handle, the examiner notes that element 112 of the articulated second handle of Colley is cylindrical, and thus a closed loop. Furthermore, with regards to the language “and can be held by a user from an upper side, a left side, or a right side of the second handle” the examiner notes that 1) the claim does not particularly point out how the second handle/closed loop is held by the user; and 2) because of the or language in Line 12 of claim 1, only one of the three directional options are required to address the language of the claim. Accordingly, since Fig 27 illustrates the user holding the second handle/closed loop from an upper side, the prior art of Colley addresses the language of the claim as it is currently written. Accordingly, applicants arguments are not persuasive.--.
Page 7 ¶1-Page 8 Line 7: Applicant traverses the rejections of claims 13 & 16 by arguing that the prior art of record does not teach a garden/leaf blower as recited in claims 13 & 16.
--Examiner disagrees. The examiner notes that the device of Colley as modified as suggested in the rejections below would be capable of being used as a garden blower as clamed. Furthermore, in response to Applicants assertion that there are no leaf blower references that include the handles as presently claimed – the examiner notes that a user of the device of Colley would also move/blow leaves during the regular operation of the device of Colley, when the user skateboards past a pile of leaves using the device of Colley. Accordingly, since the device of Colley would move/blow leaves during the regular operation of the device, it is a garden/leaf blower. Additionally, as explained above, Colley includes handles as recited in Claims 13 & 16. Accordingly, applicants arguments are not persuasive.--.
Page 8 ¶1-Page 9 ¶1: Applicant argues that claims 1, 13, and 16 are in condition for allowance, and are non-obvious because in the field of garden blowers/leaf blowers there is no teaching or suggestion to provide a motor having the rated power as recited in the claims.
--Arguments not persuasive. With respect to claims 1 & 16, there is no language directed to the rated power of the motor in either claim. Thus applicants arguments are not persuasive with respect to claims 1 & 16.
Additionally, with regards to Applicants assertion that “In previous blowers, the designed and relied upon handle arrangements would not be sufficient for a user to be able to maintain control of the blower if the motor and/or fan power were arbitrarily increased to the recited values.” The examiner notes that Applicant is arguing features which are not claimed. 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).
With regards to claim 13, it is noted that the claimed invention, the prior art of Colley, & the prior art of Zha are each directed to portable battery powered equipment. Furthermore, as explained above, the prior art of Colley would be capable of being used to move/blow leaves during the regular operation of the device, and thus could be used as a garden blower. Moreover, the portable tool of Zha teaches a motor driven portable tool which has a rated power of 1500 W, which is within the claimed range of 1200W ≤ rated power of motor ≤ 4000W, recited in claims 13 & 16. Accordingly a PHOSITA after reviewing the teachings of Colley and Zha, would be able to provide a device hiving a motor with an appropriate rated power that would allow for the device (e.g. the blower / garden blower) to accomplish it task as desired through routine experimentation – and such a device would have a battery powered motor with a rated power which is within the claimed range.
In response to applicant's argument that the examiner's conclusion of obviousness is based upon improper hindsight reasoning, it must be recognized that any judgment on obviousness is in a sense necessarily a reconstruction based upon hindsight reasoning. But so long as it takes into account only knowledge which was within the level of ordinary skill at the time the claimed invention was made, and does not include knowledge gleaned only from the applicant's disclosure, such a reconstruction is proper. See In re McLaughlin, 443 F.2d 1392, 170 USPQ 209 (CCPA 1971).
Additionally, since other elements of the last office action were not argued by applicant it is understood by the examiner that Applicant agrees with the examiner and his rejection on the other elements of the last office action which were not traversed by Applicant.
Accordingly, for the reasons explained above, applicants arguments are not persuasive.--.
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.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 1-3, 8-10 & 16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) and/or 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Colley US 2018/0266424.
Regarding Claim 1: Colley US 2018/0266424 does disclose the limitations: A blower (the blower is defined by the sum of its parts), comprising:
a motor 156a;
a fan 160 driven by the motor to rotate about a central axis (= rotational axis of the motor 156a and the fan 160 in Fig 2 which extends through element 102 when assembled);
a battery pack 114a for supplying power to the motor (the battery 114a is the only power source in the assembly shown, thus it inherently supplies power to the motor);
a blower tube assembly (116 | 116,102) forming an air inlet (as understood from Fig 1 & Fig 27, the air inlet is the side of element 116 close to element 102 in Fig 1) for an entry of air (as understood from Fig 1 & Fig 27 air enters the articulated air inlet) and an air outlet (as understood from Fig 1 & Fig 27, the air outlet is the side of element 116 furthest away from element 102 in Fig 1) for an exit of the air (Fig 27);
a first handle (110,120,122, ¶0051-¶0052) forming a first grip 110 and located behind the blower tube assembly (as seen in Fig 27 the first handle (which is held by the users left hand in Fig 27) is located behind the blower tube assembly (which is the fan generating the thrust in Fig 27) as claimed); and
a second handle (112,106,128 ¶0051-¶0052, ¶0057) forming a second grip 112 and located in front of the first handle (as seen in Fig 27 the second handle (which is held by the users right hand in Fig 27) is located in front of the first handle as claimed);
wherein the first handle is located above at least part of the battery pack (as seen in Fig 27 the first handle (which is held by the users left hand in Fig 27) is located above at least part (e.g. above the planar surface of battery pack 114a in Fig 2 which is facing the ground in Fig 27) of the battery pack (i.e. battery pack 114a which is located inside the rectangular structure generally indicated by element 100 in Fig 27) as claimed), the second handle is a closed loop (as understood from the figures the second handle includes element 112 which is cylindrical (i.e. a closed loop)) and can be held by a user from an upper side of the second handle (as seen in Fig 27).
Regarding Claim 2: Colley US 2018/0266424 does disclose the limitations: wherein the first handle (110,120,122) and the second handle (112,106,128) are each located on a side of the blower tube assembly (i.e. both located on the rear side of the blower tube assembly 116 | 116,102).
Regarding Claim 3: Colley US 2018/0266424 does disclose the limitations: wherein the battery pack 114a, the first handle (110,120,122), and the second handle (112,106,128) are located on a same side of the blower tube assembly (the claimed elements are all located on a rear side of the blower tube assembly 116), and the battery pack 114a is located between the first handle (110,120,122) and the second handle (112,106,128, see Fig 1).
Regarding Claim 8: Colley US 2018/0266424 does disclose the limitations: wherein the first handle (110,120,122) or the second handle (112,106,128) is disposed around the blower tube assembly (as understood from Figs 1-2, elements 120,122 and element 128 of the first and second handles are disposed around element 102 of the blower tube assembly; also it is noted that the second handle is located around (i.e. near) element 116).
Regarding Claim 9: Colley US 2018/0266424 does disclose the limitations: wherein the battery pack 114a is at least partially located behind the air inlet (as understood from Fig 1 & Fig 27 the battery pack is located entirely behind the air inlet).
Regarding Claim 10: Colley US 2018/0266424 does disclose the limitations: wherein, when an airflow flows into the blower tube assembly through the air inlet, the battery pack is at least partially located on an extension line of an air path of the inflow airflow (as understood from Fig 1 & Fig 27, when the device is operated, air would flow past the battery 114a into the air inlet, and out of the air outlet so as to be discharged as indicated by the multiple arrows pointing to the rear in Fig 27, thus the battery pack is located on an extension line of the inflow air as claimed).
Regarding Claim 16: Colley US 2018/0266424 does disclose the limitations: A blower (the blower is defined by the sum of its parts), comprising:
a motor 156a;
a fan 160 driven by the motor to rotate about a central axis (= rotational axis of the motor 156a and the fan 160 in Fig 2 which extends through element 102 when assembled);
a battery pack coupling portion 115 for connecting a battery pack (battery pack 114a, ¶¶0056, Figs 1-2) for supplying power to the motor (¶0056,¶0059-¶0060 the battery 114a is the only power source in the assembly shown and element 115 is described as containing all the necessary parts to accept and draw power from the battery 114a, thus elements 114a,115 inherently supply power to the motor);
a blower tube assembly (116 | 116,102) forming an air inlet (as understood from Fig 1 & Fig 27, the air inlet is the side of element 116 close to element 102 in Fig 1) for an entry of air (as understood from Fig 1 & Fig 27, air enters the articulated air inlet) and an air outlet (as understood from Fig 1 & Fig 27, the air outlet is the side of element 116 furthest away from element 102 in Fig 1) for an exit of the air (Fig 27);
a first handle (110,120,122) forming a first grip 110 for a user (i.e. user illustrated in Fig 27) to hold (¶0058, as seen in Fig 27 the user holds the first grip 110 in their left hand) and located behind the blower tube assembly (as seen in Fig 27 the first handle (which is held by the users left hand in Fig 27) is located behind the blower tube assembly (which is the fan generating the thrust in Fig 27) as claimed); and
a second handle (112,106,128) forming a second grip 112 for a user (i.e. user illustrated in Fig 27) to hold (¶0058) located in front of the first handle (as seen in Fig 27 the second handle (which is held by the users right hand in Fig 27) is located in front of the first handle as claimed);
wherein a first plane passing through the central axis is defined (a first plane passing through the central axis = plane passing longitudinally through pole 102 in Figs 1-2, which includes the rotational axis of the motor;), at least part of the blower tube assembly is distributed symmetrically with respect to the first plane (as understood from Fig 1 & Fig 2 elements 102 and/or 116 are both symmetrical with respect to the indicated first plane), and at least part of an orthographic projection of the battery pack coupling portion (i.e. a projection of element 115 upwards in Fig 1/Fig 2) on the first plane (i.e. onto the identified first plane) is located between a projection of the first handle on the first plane and a projection of the second handle on the first plane (as understood from Fig 1 & Fig 2, the orthographic projection of the battery pack would be located between projections of the first and second handle on the first plane as claimed).
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.
Claim(s) 11 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Colley US 2018/0266424.
Regarding Claim 11: Colley US 2018/0266424 discloses the claimed limitations except for: “wherein a weight of the battery pack is greater than or equal to 3 kg and less than or equal to 6 kg”. However, it is within the general skill level of a worker in the art to determine the appropriate battery pack weight that would be suitable for the blower assembly through routine experimentation taking into account the overall weight of the blower assembly that would make the blower assembly easy to lift and hold by a common adult user without strenuous force.
Claim(s) 12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Colley US 2018/0266424 as applied to claim 11 above, and further in view of Zha US 2021/0268552. Additionally Claims 13-15 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Colley US 2018/0266424 in view of Zha US 2021/0268552.
Regarding Claim 12: Colley US 2018/0266424 discloses in the above mentioned Figures and Specifications the limitations set forth in claim 11. Colley US 2018/0266424 does not disclose the limitations: wherein a rated power of the motor is greater than or equal to 1200 W and less than or equal to 4000 W.
However Zha US 2021/0268552 does disclose the limitations: wherein a rated power of the motor 62 is greater than or equal to 1200 W and less than or equal to 4000 W (¶0151, the motor 62 has a rated power of 1500 W – which is within the claimed range). Applicant should note that the motor rated power will depend on the intended use of the blower and it is within the general skill level of a worker to determine what that rated power should be through routine experimentation.
Hence it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to provide a motor with an appropriate rated power that would allow for the blower to efficiently accomplish its task for the blower of Colley/Zha, since it would have involved only routine experimentation.
Additionally Regarding Claim 12: Colley US 2018/0266424 as modified by Zha US 2021/0268552 discloses the claimed limitations except for: “an air volume of the air outlet of the blower is greater than or equal to 700 cubic feet per minute”. Similarly, it is within the general skill level of a worker in the art to determine the appropriate air volume of the air outlet of the blower through routine experimentation in order to satisfy the air volume needed at the outlet of the blower to accomplish the needed tasks for which the blower is designed for.
Regarding Claim 13: Colley US 2018/0266424 discloses the limitations: A garden blower (the garden blower is defined by the sum of its parts; --It should be noted that noted that the limitation "garden blower" is an intended use and therefor is given little patentable weight--, furthermore, the structure of the blower of Colley is capable of being used in a garden (i.e. capable of being used as a garden blower)), comprising:
a motor 156a;
a fan 160 driven by the motor to rotate about a central axis (= rotational axis of the motor 156a and the fan 160 in Fig 2 which extends through element 102 when assembled);
a battery pack 114a for supplying power to the motor (the battery 114a is the only power source in the assembly shown, thus it inherently supplies power to the motor);
a blower tube assembly (116 | 116,102) forming an air inlet (as understood from Fig 1 & Fig 27 the air inlet is the side of element 116 close to element 102 in Fig 1) for an entry of air (as understood from Fig 1 & Fig 27 air enters the articulated air inlet) and an air outlet (as understood from Fig 1 & Fig 27 the air outlet is the side of element 116 furthest away from element 102 in Fig 1) for an exit of the air (Fig 27);
a first handle (110,120,122, ¶0051-¶0052) forming a first grip 110 and located behind the blower tube assembly (as seen in Fig 27 the first handle (which is held by the users left hand in Fig 27) is located behind the blower tube assembly (which is the fan generating the thrust in Fig 27) as claimed); and
a second handle (112,106,128 ¶0051-¶0052, ¶0057) forming a second grip 112 and located in front of the first handle (as seen in Fig 27 the second handle (which is held by the users right hand in Fig 27) is located in front of the first handle as claimed). Colley US 2018/0266424 is silent regarding the limitations: wherein a rated power of the motor is greater than or equal to 1200 W and less than or equal to 4000 W.
However, Zha US 2021/0268552 does disclose the limitations: wherein a rated power of the motor 62 is greater than or equal to 1200 W and less than or equal to 4000 W (¶0151, the motor 62 has a rated power of 1500 W – which is within the claimed range). Applicant should note that the motor rated power will depend on the intended use of the blower and it is within the general skill level of a worker to determine what that rated power should be through routine experimentation.
Hence it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to provide a motor with an appropriate rated power that would allow for the blower to efficiently accomplish its task to the blower of Colley/Zha, since it would have involved only routine experimentation.
Additionally Regarding Claim 13: Colley US 2018/0266424 as modified by Zha US 2021/0268552 discloses the claimed limitations except for: “an air volume of the air outlet of the garden blower is greater than or equal to 700 cubic feet per minute”. Similarly, it is within the general skill level of a worker in the art to determine the appropriate air volume of the air outlet of the blower through routine experimentation in order to satisfy the air volume needed at the outlet of the blower to accomplish the needed tasks for which the blower is designed for.
Regarding Claim 14: Colley US 2018/0266424 does disclose the limitations: wherein the battery pack is connected to the garden blower (¶0056 teaches that the battery 114a is connected to battery receptacle 115 of the blower (e.g. the garden blower)). Colley US 2018/0266424 is silent regarding the limitations: the battery pack is detachably connected. The prior art of Zha US 2021/0268552 which is directed to a battery powered tool like Colley US 2018/0266424, is noted.
However Zha US 2021/0268552 does disclose the limitations: wherein the battery pack 20 is detachably connected to the tool (¶0162-¶0163, i.e. detachably mounted to spray gun 101).
Hence it would have been obvious, to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to configure the battery 114a of Colley US 2018/0266424 so as to be a removable battery, in light of the teachings of Zha US 2021/0268552, in order to be able to continue using the device with a charged battery after the battery currently being used has been drained.
Additionally Regarding Claim 14: The prior art of Colley US 2018/0266424 as modified by Zha US 2021/0268552 discloses the claimed limitations except for: “an overall weight of the garden blower with no battery pack mounted is greater than or equal to 1.8 kg and less than or equal to 3 kg”. However, it is within the general skill level of a worker in the art to determine the appropriate weight of the blower (e.g. the garden blower) with no battery pack mounted that would be suitable for the blower through routine experimentation taking into account the overall weight of the blower (e.g. the garden blower) with no battery pack mounted – and the moment that would be generated by the weight, that would make the blower (e.g. the garden blower) easy for a user to manipulate and hold during routine operation and/or when replacing the battery without becoming fatigued and/or having to exert strenuous force.
Regarding Claim 15: Colley US 2018/0266424 as modified by Zha US 2021/0268552 discloses the claimed limitations except for: “wherein a diameter of the fan is larger than or equal to 85 mm and smaller than or equal to 100 mm”. However, it is within the general skill level of a worker in the art to determine the appropriate diameter of the fan that would allow for the fan to efficiently accomplish its task for the blower of Colley/Zha, since it would have involved only routine experimentation.
Examiner's Note: The Examiner respectfully requests of the Applicant in preparing responses, to fully consider the entirety of the references as potentially teaching all or part of the claimed invention.
It is noted, REFERENCES ARE RELEVANT AS PRIOR ART FOR ALL THEY CONTAIN. “The use of patents as references is not limited to what the patentees describe as their own inventions or to the problems with which they are concerned. They are part of the literature of the art, relevant for all they contain.” In re Heck, 699 F.2d 1331, 1332-33, 216 USPQ 1038, 1039 (Fed. Cir. 1983) (quoting In re Lemelson, 397 F.2d 1006, 1009, 158 USPQ 275, 277 (CCPA 1968)). A reference may be relied upon for all that it would have reasonably suggested to one having ordinary skill the art, including nonpreferred embodiments (see MPEP § 2123).
Additionally the origin of the drawing is immaterial. For instance, drawings in a design patent can anticipate or make obvious the claimed invention, as can drawings in utility patents. When the reference is a utility patent, it does not matter that the feature shown is unintended or unexplained in the specification. The drawings must be evaluated for what they reasonably disclose and suggest to one of ordinary skill in the art. In re Aslanian, 590 F.2d 911, 200 USPQ 500 (CCPA 1979). (See MPEP § 2125).
The Examiner has cited particular locations in the reference(s) as applied to the claims above for the convenience of the Applicant. Although the specified citations are representative of the teachings of the art and are applied to the specific limitations within the individual claims, typically other passages and figures will apply as well.
Furthermore: with respect to the prior art and the determination of obviousness, it has been held that Prior art is not limited just to the references being applied, but includes the understanding of one of ordinary skill in the art. The "mere existence of differences (i.e. a gap) between the prior art and an invention DOES NOT ESTABLISH the inventions nonobviousness." Dann v. Johnston, 425 U.S. 219, 230, 189 USPQ 257, 261 (1976). Rather, in determining obviousness the proper analysis is whether the claimed invention would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art after consideration of all the facts. And factors other than the disclosures of the cited prior art may provide a basis for concluding that it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to bridge the gap. (See MPEP § 2141).
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 JOSEPH S HERRMANN whose telephone number is (571)270-3291. The examiner can normally be reached 8:00 AM - 5:00 PM EST.
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.
/CHARLES G FREAY/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3746
/JOSEPH S. HERRMANN/ Examiner, Art Unit 3746