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.
(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 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.
Claim(s) 1-4 and 6-9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) and 102(a)(2) as anticipated by or, in the alternative, under 35 U.S.C. 103 as obvious over Nazarian et al. (US 11,940,163).
Regarding claim 1, Nazarian (see Fig. 6) discloses a cold/warm-compression body care device, comprising: a shell (120, 124), wherein the shell defines an air inlet (102) and an air outlet (104); a conduction member (heat spreader 118), embedded in the shell; a cold-and-warm semiconductor(controllable temperature element 134), thermal-conductively connected to an inner side of the conduction member; a heat dissipator(132), thermal-conductively connected to a side of the cold- and-warm semiconductor away from the conduction member; a fan assembly(126), arranged inside the shell and configured to drive air located at the air inlet to flow through the heat dissipator to reach the air outlet and to further flow out of the device; wherein, the fan assembly comprises a centrifugal fan blade set (127), is located at an inner side of the air inlet; an area of a projection of the centrifugal fan blade set onto the air inlet is smaller than an area of the air inlet (see paragraph 51); an air concentration hood (128) is arranged to surround a circumference of the centrifugal fan blade set. Regarding the recitation that "a height of the air concentration hood is h1; and a height of each blade of the centrifugal fan blade set is h2, and h1≥h2; and blades of the centrifugal fan blade set do not extend beyond an edge of the air concentration hood near the air inlet", it is the examiner's position that this is inherent in the structure shown by Nazarian because the fan blades must be the same size or smaller in height than the height of the hood because if the blades have a larger height than the hood, they would hit the hood or the adjacent components in the assembly and interfere with the spinning of the blade and cause the fan to be ineffective or not work at all depending on the degree of the interference, thereby resulting in an inoperative device. If applicants disagree that it is not inherent in Nazarian, then in the alternative it is the examiner's position that one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the application would have designed the fan blade to be the same size or smaller than the height of the hood as blades having a larger height than the hood would interfere with the spinning of the blade and cause the fan to be ineffective or not work at all depending on the degree of the interference and thereby result in an inoperative device.
With regard to Applicant’s newly amended claim language “to prevent a returning airflow interfering with operation of the centrifugal fan blade set from being formed at the air inlet 31” Examiner notes this is functional language and the Nazarian is considered to meet this limitation. Nazarian meets all structural limitations of the blades of the centrifugal fan not extending beyond an edge of the air concentration hood and therefore would also prevent returning airflow interfering with operation of the centrifugal fan blade.
Regarding claim 2, Nazarian discloses the cold/warm-compression body care device according to claim 1, further wherein, an inner bracket (see 137) is arranged inside the shell; the heat dissipator is fixedly mounted on the inner bracket and is located at a middle of a plane of the shell.
Regarding claim 3, Nazarian discloses the cold/warm-compression body care device according to claim 2, wherein, two storage batteries (see 130) are arranged inside the shell; the two storage batteries are symmetrically arranged on an upper side and a lower side of the heat dissipator.
Regarding claim 4, Nazarian discloses the cold/warm-compression body care device according to claim 1, wherein, the heat dissipator is fixedly arranged with a fan bracket, the fan assembly is mounted on the fan bracket (see Fig. 6, 128, 132), the fan assembly is configured to direct the air to flow towards the heat dissipator.
Regarding claim 6, Nazarian discloses the cold/warm-compression body care device according to claim 1, wherein, a circuit board assembly (140) is arranged inside the shell, the circuit board assembly is electrically connected with a control button set (108) and a USB port (112), the control button set and USB port are arranged in through holes pre-defined in the shell and extend outwardly from the through holes, the fan assembly and the cold-and-warm semiconductor are both electrically connected to the circuit board assembly.
Regarding claim 7, Nazarian discloses the cold/warm-compression body care device according to claim 1, wherein, the shell defines a conduction through hole (146), the conduction member covers the conduction through hole.
Regarding claim 8, Nazarian discloses the cold/warm-compression body care device according to claim 1, wherein, strap connection portions (204) are symmetrically arranged on a left side and a right side of the shell respectively, and the strap connection portions are configured to mount a strap assembly, the body care device is worn on a human body through the strap assembly (see 20 in Fig. 13).
Regarding claim 9, Nazarian discloses the cold/warm-compression body care device according to claim 1, wherein, the shell comprises a front shell (120) and a rear shell (124) that are connected with and covered to each other, a receiving cavity is defined between the front shell and rear shell.
Claim(s) 5 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 11,940,163 to Nazarian et al. in view of Gillen (US 6,345,507).
Regarding claim 5, Nazarian discloses the cold/warm-compression body care device according to claim 1, as discussed, supra. Nazarian further discloses wings of his heat sink (132) comprise parallel to each other, an air duct is defined between every two adjacent wings of the plurality of wings, and the air outlet is located at an end of the air duct. Nazarian is silent with respect to the material of the heat sink. Gillen, in an analogous compact cooling system, teaches Aluminum as a well-known material for wings of a heat sink (see paragraph 32). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the application was effectively filed to use Aluminum for the wings in the heat sink of Nazarian in light of the teaching of Gillen that such a material is well known and is effective at dissipating the heat as desired by the heat sink.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 5/14/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Applicant argues the Examiner’s position that the Nazarian does not inherently disclose the fan blades must be the same size or smaller in height than the heigh of the hood. Applicant alleges that a portion of Fig. 6 shows this to not be true. Examiner respectfully disagrees. Fig. 6 is an exploded view of the device and at no point does the figure show a blade of the fan 127 extending beyond the front surface of the surface facing the air inlet 102.
Applicant further argues that their annotated version of Fig. 7 of Nazarian also shows the fan blade partially extending beyond the edge of the air concentration hood. Applicant notes this is shown by their annotated red dotted line. First, Examiner notes that Applicant’s arguments are presented in black and white and no red annotated dotted line is visible. Second, Examiner notes that somehow the submitted figure appears to have even lower resolution than the figure seen in the Nazarian published patent. With that said, it is unclear what Applicant is attempting to point to in Fig. 7 and Examiner is unable to find any portion of a fan blade that extends beyond the edge of the air concentration hood.
Applicant additionally attempts to argue that many fans with fan blades extend beyond the edge of the air concentration hood and points to CN 102937309 in support of this. Examiner notes this configuration in CN 102937309 fails to consider the design of the Nazarian device where the entirety of the fan assembly is enclosed. Because the entirety of the fan assembly is enclosed the dimensions of the fan blade height as it relates to the concentration hood and inlet portions of the housing are of particular interest such that the blade height cannot be such that it would impact those surroundings or else it would cease to function. The CN 102937309 figure at best only shows a fan without any surrounding enclosure in which case the blade height does not matter and there would be no such constraints.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 A STOKLOSA whose telephone number is (571)272-1213. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 930AM-530PM.
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, Jonathan Teixeira-Moffat can be reached at 571-272-4390. 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.
/JOSEPH A STOKLOSA/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3794
