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 Objections
Claim 2 is objected to because of the following informalities: Claim 2 recites “a handle case” in Line 2 and “a separation space” in Line 3. They shall be “the handle case” and “the separation space”. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Interpretation
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitation(s) is/are: “a boosting module” in claim 8.
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
The “boosting module” disclosed as a voltage boosting.
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to under 37 CFR 1.83(a). The drawings must show every feature of the invention specified in the claims. Therefore, the “protrusion” recited in Claim 3 must be shown or the feature(s) canceled from the claim(s). No new matter should be entered.
Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) 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 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 1-4, 9, 10 and 13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by WO0005540 to Oglesby (the art rejection is based on the respective English translation by PE2E).
In Reference to Claim 1
Oglesby discloses a hair dryer comprising: a main body (Fig. 7, 3) including an air outlet (Fig. 7, 12) through which air is discharged outside; a handle (Fig. 7, 6) formed to extend downward from the main body and configured to include a handle case (Fig. 7, annotated by the examiner) forming an outer appearance of the handle and an air inlet (Fig. 8, 11) through which air is introduced from the outside; an airflow path (Fig. 7, annotated by the examiner) formed to extend from the air inlet to the air outlet so as to allow the air to flow therethrough; a fan unit (Fig. 7, 18) provided inside the handle and disposed on the airflow path so as to allow air to flow from the air inlet to the air outlet; and a battery module (Fig. 7, 20) provided inside the handle and disposed on the airflow path, wherein the battery module is located lower than the fan unit (As showed in Fig. 7, the Office considers that the air inlet side is the lower end); the airflow path includes a lower passage (Fig. 7, annotated by the examiner) in which a separation space (Fig. 7, as showed the lower passage is a space between the battery and the case inner surface) is formed between the handle case and the battery module; and the air inlet (Fig. 7, 11) is formed at a position corresponding to the lower passage.
In Reference to Claim 2
Oglesby discloses wherein the handle include: a handle case (Fig. 7, 6) configured to form an outer appearance of the handle; and a separation space (Fig. 7, annotated by the examiner) formed between the handle case and the battery module, wherein the separation space (Fig. 7, annotated by the examiner) forms the lower passage.
In Reference to Claim 3
Oglesby discloses the battery module includes a protrusion (Fig. 7, annotated by the examiner) contacting an inner surface (Fig. 7, annotated by the examiner) of the handle case; and the separation space is partitioned by the protrusion and divided into a plurality of spaces (As shown in Fig. 7, there are four spaces).
In Reference to Claim 4
Oglesby discloses :the battery module includes a plurality of column-shaped battery cells (Fig. 7, shows 4 battery cells) extending in a longitudinal direction of the handle; and the lower passage (Fig. 7, 11) is disposed between the plurality of battery cells (As showed in Fig. 7).
In Reference to Claim 9
Oglesby discloses the airflow path includes: an upper passage (Fig. 7, annotated by the examiner) configured to pass through the fan unit; and a pressure compensation passage (Fig. 7, annotated by the examiner) disposed between the battery module (Fig. 7, 20) and the fan unit (Fig. 7, 18) by connecting the lower passage and the upper passage to each other.
In Reference to Claim 10
Oglesby discloses a fan-unit seating unit (Since Oglesby discloses the fan, a support structure for the fan is naturally provided) configured such that the fan unit is seated in an upper portion of the battery module (Fig. 7, 20), wherein the pressure compensation passage (Fig. 7, annotated by the examiner) is defined as a space between a top surface of the battery module (Fig. 7, 20) and the fan-unit seating unit (Since the fan is above the battery, the seat of the fan would also be above the battery).
In Reference to Claim 13
Oglesby discloses :the pressure compensation passage (Fig. 7, annotated by the examiner) has a larger cross-sectional area than a cross- sectional area of the lower passage and a cross-sectional area of a suction portion of the fan unit. (Since lower passage is formed between the battery and the inner wall of the casing, the cross area of the lower passage is less than the inner cross area of the case, and the compensation passage has a cross area the same as the inner cross area of the case.)
PNG
media_image1.png
434
686
media_image1.png
Greyscale
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 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Oglesby.
In Reference to Claim 7
Oglesby discloses the motor (Fig. 7, 19)
Oglesby does not teach the speed of the motor.
The Office considers that the speed of the motor is an operation method of the motor. According to MPEP: "[E]ven though product-by-process claims are limited by and defined by the process, determination of patentability is based on the product itself. The patentability of a product does not depend on its method of production. If the product in the product-by-process claim is the same as or obvious from a product of the prior art, the claim is unpatentable even though the prior product was made by a different process."
Claim 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Oglesby in view of WO2015/083632 to Yamazaki (The art rejection is made based on the English translation by PE2E).
In Reference to Claim 8
Oglesby discloses the dryer with batteries.
Oglesby does not teach the booster.
Yamazaki teaches a boosting module configured to increase a voltage when power is supplied from the battery module. (the direct current blower fan (16) is operated by the voltage adjusting nichrome wire (45))
It would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate teachings from Yamazaki into the design of Oglesby. Doing so, would result in the voltage adjusting deign of Yamazaki into the design of Oglesby. Both inventions of Oglesby and Yamazaki are in the same field of endeavor, Yamazaki teaches a method that the electric resistance of the nichrome wire used for the nichrome wire heater is used for controlling the blower fan and the vibration motor. However, it can also be used for controlling the ceramic heater. So the process is improved.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 5,6, 11, 12, 15 and 16 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to DEMING WAN whose telephone number is (571)272-1410. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Thur: 8 am to 6 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, Michael Hoang can be reached at 57122726460. 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.
DEMING . WAN
Examiner
Art Unit 3762
/DEMING WAN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3762 8/25/26
Prosecution Insights