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 .
Status of Claims
In an amendment filed 10/28/2025, Applicant amended the abstract and amended claims 1 and 5. This amendment is acknowledged. Claims 1-5 are pending and are currently being examined.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 8/28/2025 was filed before the mailing date of the first office action on the merits. The submission is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
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 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 1-5 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as unpatentable over Matsui US Pat. No. 5,096,467 in view of Ootsuta et al. US Pat. No. 6,836,986.
In Reference to Claim 1
Matsui teaches:
A production system for causing a floating object to float in air (moving air system within a production/visible space to cause lift of air and/or items within the production space, Fig. 1-5); comprising:
a control device and a plurality of air discharge devices (an inherent controlling unit (at minimum a power switch/device) operates a group of controllable blowers 9 positioned about the perimeter of the production space (area between corners 2 within housing 18), Fig. 1-5);
air discharge ports of the plurality of air discharge devices are arranged to surround a production space (discharge pipe 2 with outlet ports 3 are positioned around the perimeter of the production space to surround the production space, Fig. 1-5), and
wherein the control device controls the plurality of air discharge devices to generate an airflow that rotates clockwise or counterclockwise in plan view within a production space surrounded by the air discharge ports, and to cause the floating object to float within the production space by the airflow (blowers 9 discharge air through pipes 2 using outlets 3 along the perimeter surrounding the production space, to cause air to flow in a counterclockwise rotational direction capable of causing an item therein to float or rise towards the outlet pipe 5, Fig. 1-5, Col. 4 line 17 – Col. 5 line 35, Col. 6 line 30 – Col. 7 line 51).
Matsui does not specifically teach:
A specific control device operating the air discharge devices.
Ootsuta teaches:
A production system for causing a floating object to float in air (air powered flying object system, Fig. 1-9); comprising:
a control device and a plurality of air discharge devices (controlling unit 70 (Col. 4 lines 22-46, Col. 6 line 49 – Col. 7 line 28) operates a group of controllable blowers 10 including a plurality of blowers 11);
wherein the control device controls the plurality of air discharge devices to generate an airflow that rotates clockwise or counterclockwise in plan view within a production space surrounded by air discharge ports of the plurality of air discharge devices, and to cause the floating object to float within the production space by the airflow (blowers 11, each having inlets and discharge ports/outlets on respective rear (facing guide blade 22) and front ends (facing guide blade 21) are arranged within the production/flying space 25 within the housing/duct 20 to produce a clockwise or counterclockwise 15 airflow to interact with flying/levitating objects 30 within the production/flying space, Fig. 1-5, Col. 2 line 55 – Col. 10 line 17).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art to have modified the invention of Matsui to have further included a control device to allow the plurality of blowers to be easily controlled and adjusted by the user allowing for the user to automatically control each of the blowers to allow varied airflow and selective operation of the device as is common and known in the art and as an electronic system as shown by Matsui would inherently require a control device (at minimum on/off) to allow to the device to operate and this type of control device is known and common in the art as taught by Ootsuta (Col. 4 lines 22-46, Col. 6 line 49 – Col. 7 line 28).
In Reference to Claim 2
Matsui as modified by Ootsuta teaches:
The production system according to claim 1, wherein the floating object is configured by a flexible outer membrane capable of containing a gas (Matsui generally shows, air, dust, smoke, or the like being the floating objects while Ootsuta shows the floating object 30 may be shaped to be capable of containing a gas (ex. a bird, artificial object (ex. balloon), or an airplane shape would generally have a hollow interior area) inside the outer lightweight membrane/material which may be formed of plastic, Col. 5 lines 1-20, 41-55).
Further, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art to have modified the floating object to have been a known or common floating object, such as a balloon or the like and the shape of the floating object to have been a flexible membrane capable of containing a gas (ex. balloon/artificial object as discussed above) as it has been held that matters relating to ornamentation only which have no mechanical function cannot be relied upon to patentably distinguish the claimed invention from the prior art (In re Seid, 161 F.2d 229, 73 USPQ 431 (CCPA 1947)) and it has been held that the configuration of a claimed product is a matter of choice which a person of ordinary skill in the art would have found obvious absent persuasive evidence that the particular configuration is significant (In re Dailey, 357 F.2d 669, 149 USPQ 47 (CCPA 1966)) and it has been held to be within the general skill of a worker in the art to select a known material on the basis of its suitability for the intended use as a matter of obvious design choice. In this case, Ootsuta teaches that the flying object shape and materials may be modified as desired and floating objects with flexible membranes capable of containing gas therein (aka balloons or known flying artificial objects) are known and common in the art and therefore the configuration/materials of the flying object are obvious design choices to one of ordinary skill in the art and are known in the art (see similar prior art evidence ex. Ochi (6,511,382)).
In Reference to Claim 3
Matsui as modified by Ootsuta teaches:
The production system according to claim 1, further comprising an air intake device; wherein the air intake device or an air intake port of the air intake device is provided above the production space, so as to take in air discharged by the air discharge devices (Matsui: air intake 5 with exhaust fan 15 above hood 4 defining the top of the production space, Fig. 1-5. Also, Ootsuta shows the housing may include air intake ports/devices 130 which may be placed at the top of the housing/blowers (ex. Fig. 7) to allow air to flow into the air blower devices).
Further, the exact placement or location of an air intake port/device is merely a matter of obvious design choice in order to allow the user to provide a desired air flow shape through the production space and Ootsuta teaches this is an obvious modification (Col. 11 lines 26-39), further it has been held that the rearranging parts of an invention involves only routine skill in the art (In re Japikse, 86 USPQ 70).
In Reference to Claim 4
Matsui as modified by Ootsuta teaches:
The production system according to claim 1, further comprising a sensor configured to detect a position of the floating object in the production space; wherein the control device controls air volume or air speed of the air discharge devices based on detection information of the sensor (Ootsuta: optical sensor 90 and microphone (sound sensor) respectively monitor the light and sound of the device (and capable of monitoring and changing a position of the flying objects) to modify air volume/speed of any of the blowers of the group of blowers via the controlling unit, Col. 3 lines 39-49, Col. 4 lines 23-46, Col. 6 line 49 – Col. 7 line 28).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art to have modified the invention of Matsui to have further included an object position sensor in the device in order to allow the a user to track and control a position of an item effected by the airflow within the production space and therefore allow further control of the airflow to allow the movement of the object to be controlled as desired by the user as taught by Ootsuta (Col. 3 lines 39-49, Col. 4 lines 23-46, Col. 6 line 49 – Col. 7 line 28).
In Reference to Claim 5
Matsui teaches:
A production method that causes a floating object to float in air (moving air system within a production/visible space to cause lift of air and/or items within the production space, Fig. 1-5), wherein air discharge ports of a plurality of air discharge devices are arranged to surround a production space (a group of controllable blowers 9 positioned about the perimeter of the production space (area between corners 2 within housing 18), Fig. 1-5), and
the production method comprises a step of controlling a plurality of air discharge devices by a control device to generate an airflow ((an inherent controlling unit (at minimum a power switch/device) operates a group of controllable blowers 9 positioned about the perimeter of the production space (area between corners 2 within housing 18), Fig. 1-5) to create airflow within the production space) that rotates clockwise or counterclockwise in plan view within the production space surrounded by the air discharge ports (discharge pipe 2 with outlet ports 3 are positioned around the perimeter of the production space to surround the production space, Fig. 1-5), and to cause a floating object to float within the production space by the airflow (blowers 9 discharge air through pipes 2 using outlets 3 along the perimeter surrounding the production space, to cause air to flow in a counterclockwise rotational direction capable of causing an item (dust as shown in the figures, but any other item would also float/rise in a similar manner, therein to float or rise towards the outlet pipe 5, Fig. 1-5, Col. 4 line 17 – Col. 5 line 35, Col. 6 line 30 – Col. 7 line 51).
Matsui does not specifically teach:
A specific control device operating the air discharge devices.
Ootsuta teaches:
A production method that causes a floating object to float in air (air powered flying object system and method of use, Fig. 1-9),
a step of controlling a plurality of air discharge devices by a control device to generate an airflow (controlling unit 70 (Col. 4 lines 22-46, Col. 6 line 49 – Col. 7 line 28) operates a group of controllable blowers 10 including a plurality of blowers 11) that rotates clockwise or counterclockwise in plan view within the production space surrounded by the air discharge ports, and to cause a floating object to float within the production space by the airflow (blowers 11, each having inlets and discharge ports/outlets on respective rear (facing guide blade 22) and front ends (facing guide blade 21) are arranged within the production/flying space 25 within the housing/duct 20 to produce a clockwise or counterclockwise 15 airflow to interact with flying/levitating objects 30 within the production/flying space, Fig. 1-5, Col. 2 line 55 – Col. 10 line 17).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art to have modified the invention of Matsui to have further included a control device to allow the plurality of blowers to be easily controlled and adjusted by the user allowing for the user to automatically control each of the blowers to allow varied airflow and selective operation of the device as is common and known in the art and as an electronic system as shown by Matsui would inherently require a control device (at minimum on/off) to allow to the device to operate and this type of control device is known and common in the art as taught by Ootsuta (Col. 4 lines 22-46, Col. 6 line 49 – Col. 7 line 28).
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, see pages 5-11, filed 10/28/2025, with respect to the rejection(s) of claim(s) 1-5 under Ootsuta have been fully considered and are persuasive in light of the newly presented limitations of the claim amendments. Therefore, the rejection has been withdrawn. However, upon further consideration, a new ground(s) of rejection is made in view of Matsui and Ootsuta.
Brief Discussion of Other Prior Art References
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. See the references cited page for publications that are noted for containing similar subject matter as the applicant. For example, Inoko (10,502,620) and Ochi (6,511,382) appear to teach the claimed limitations.
Conclusion
If the applicant or applicant’s representation has any questions or concerns regarding this office action or the application they are welcome to contact the examiner at the phone number listed below and schedule and interview to discuss the outstanding issues and possible amendments to expedite prosecution of this application.
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 ALEXANDER R NICONOVICH whose telephone number is (571)270-7419. The examiner can normally be reached Mon - Fri 8-6 MST.
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, Nicholas Weiss can be reached at (571) 270-1775. 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.
/ALEXANDER R NICONOVICH/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3711