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 .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after allowance or after an Office action under Ex Parte Quayle, 25 USPQ 74, 453 O.G. 213 (Comm'r Pat. 1935). Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, prosecution in this application has been reopened pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 04/20/2026 has been entered.
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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
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 set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 148 USPQ 459 (1966), that are applied 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) 1-7, 11, 13, 15-16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over 2018/0163750 A1 to LANDEN et al. (LANDEN) in view of CN 111743282 A to LIU et al. (LIU) combined with the following reasons.
Re: Claim 1:
LANDEN discloses:
A blower comprising:
a passageway for directing airflow from an air inlet (See Figs.1-5: ¶0022: air inlet 154) to a front end of the blower (See Figs.1-5: ¶0022: front end of the blower at outlet 156), the passageway having a variable length, wherein the passageway is made up of a tube (See Figs.1-5: ¶0022: tube 150) of a base component (See Figs.1-5: base component housing 110) of the blower and one or more removable extension tubes detachably coupled to the base component (See Figs.1-5: ¶0022: the blower 100 may further include a blower tube 150 that is attached to housing 110 (or is a part of the housing 110)) , and wherein the tube (See Figs.1-5: ¶0022: tube 150 is extended along inlet 154 and outlet 156 along blower tube axis 152) defines a linear conduit essentially free of bends or curves between the air inlet and an air outlet of the base component (See Figs.1-5: ¶0022: discloses the tube 150 is extended along axis 152 between inlet 154 and distal opposite outlet end 156 without any bends and curves) ;
a motor (See Figs.1-5: ¶0022: a motor 120) disposed in the passageway and operably coupled to a fan (See Figs.1-5: ¶0022: fan assembly 170),
a handle (See Figs.1-5: ¶0022: handle 140, the handle 140 is positioned below the passage way , the passage way is along horizontal axis, further this is merely an orientation while holding the blower 100 ) disposed below the passageway, wherein the handle comprises a trigger (See Figs.1-5: ¶0020: trigger 146) that receives a user input and a sensor that detects a position of the trigger (See Figs.1-5: ¶0019-¶0021, ¶0035: actuation of the trigger 146 may cause power from the battery 140 to be selectively applied to the motor 120 to turn the motor 120 based on control provided by the control unit 130, further describes that the trigger 146 is used for selectively powering of the motor 120 based on indications of user intent (e.g., via actuation of the trigger 146) and/or determinations regarding the state of the blower 100 as provided by the sensors, switches or other mechanisms., other example embodiments may employ a selector, switch, button or other such operative member in order to selectively control operation of the motor 120. Thus, for example, on/off, speed control or other operable functions for controlling the motor 120 may be performed); and
a control circuitry (See Figs.1-5: ¶0017-¶0020: the power unit may be a three-phase electric motor (or DC motor) that is operated under the control of a control unit or control circuitry that may be housed in the housing 110. The motor 120 may be powered by a battery (or battery pack that can be worn on the operator's back) or by a corded connection to mains power) in communication with the motor and the sensor, wherein the control circuitry controls (See Figs.1-5: ¶0017-¶0020: control unit may include interlocks, protective functions or other control mechanisms that may sense various conditions of the blower 100 via sensors, switches or other mechanisms in order to selectively control the application of power to the motor 120) a speed of the motor based on information from the sensor,
wherein the length of the passageway between the air inlet and air outlet is greater than or equal to 12 inches (See Figs.1-4: discloses a length , however specific length of 12 inches is merely a matter of design choice depending on the designed system, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to provide a length of air passage way greater than 12 inches which would have yielded predictable results. Furthermore, it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art (MPEP 2144 II A)
Although LANDEN is silent regarding handle extends in a direction approximately perpendicular to the passageway, however such an angle is merely a design choice and is well known in the art, such a handle is known from CN 111743282 A to LIU et al. (LIU: See Fig.1: ¶0038, ¶0047: blower unit 1 as described in ¶0055, having handle 22 approximately parallel to the passageway) , it would have been therefore obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to configure blower of LANDEN as explicitly taught by LIU, since LIU discloses that disclosed blower system is advantageous as it allows convincement disassembly which would have yielded predictable results.
Re: Claim 2:
LANDEN in view of LIU discloses:
The blower of claim 1, LANDEN in view of LIU discloses all the limitations of claim 1, and wherein the length of the passageway is variable based on a number and a type of removable extension tubes used (See Figs.1-5: this is merely a result of attaching or detaching the tube 150 from housing 110).
Re: Claim 3:
LANDEN in view of LIU discloses:
The blower of claim 2, LANDEN in view of LIU discloses all the limitations of claim 2, and wherein the passageway has a length, however LANDEN in view of LIU is silent regarding specific length of length of the passageway is greater than or equal to 20 inches when at least one of the one or more removable extension tubes is coupled to the base component of the blower. However specific length of equal or greater than 20 inches is merely a matter of design choice depending on the designed system, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to provide a length of air passage way equal or greater than 20 inches which would have yielded predictable results. Furthermore, it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art (MPEP 2144 II A).
Re: Claim 4:
LANDEN in view of LIU discloses:
The blower of claim 2, LANDEN in view of LIU discloses all the limitations of claim 2, and wherein the tube has a length, and that length of tube is variable by attaching or detaching the tube with housing as explained in claim 2 above, however LANDEN in view of LIU is silent regarding wherein the length of the tube is less than 16 inches and greater than 12 inches when none of the one or more removable extension tubes is coupled to the base component of the blower.
However specific length of the length of the tube is less than 16 inches and greater than 12 inches is merely a matter of design choice depending on the designed system, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to provide a length of air passage way less than 16 inches and greater than 12 inches, which would have yielded predictable results. Furthermore, it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art (MPEP 2144 II A).
Re: Claim 5:
LANDEN in view of LIU discloses:
The blower of claim 2, LANDEN in view of LIU discloses all the limitations of claim 2, and wherein at least one of the one or more removable extension tubes and the tube has a narrowing portion at an outlet end that reduces an internal cylindrical diameter at the outlet end (LANDEN: See Figs.1-5: ¶0022, ¶0026).
Re: Claim 6:
LANDEN in view of LIU discloses:
The blower of claim 2, LANDEN in view of LIU discloses all the limitations of claim 2, and wherein at least one of the one or more removable extension tubes does not have a narrowing portion at an outlet end such that an internal cylindrical diameter at the outlet end is approximately the same as the internal cylindrical diameter at an inlet end of the at least one of the one or more extension tubes.
and least one of the one or more removable extension tubes have a diameter, however LANDEN in view of LIU is silent regarding: wherein at least one of the one or more removable extension tubes does not have a narrowing portion at an outlet end such that an internal cylindrical diameter at the outlet end is approximately the same as the internal cylindrical diameter at an inlet end of the at least one of the one or more extension tubes.
Although LANDEN in view of LIU discloses the claimed diameters of the tube , however does not explicitly discloses that extension tubes do not have a narrowing portion at an outlet end such that an internal cylindrical diameter at the outlet end is approximately the same as the internal cylindrical diameter at an inlet end of the at least one of the one or more extension tubes, however this is merely a matter of design choice depending on the blower, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to have blower extension tube having uniform diameter which would have yielded predictable results. Furthermore, it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art (MPEP 2144 II A).
Re: Claim 7:
LANDEN in view of LIU discloses:
The blower of claim 2, LANDEN in view of LIU discloses all the limitations of claim 2, and wherein least one of the one or more removable extension tubes have a diameter, however LANDEN is silent regarding: at least one of the one or more removable extension tubes has a portion at an outlet end that widens in at least one radial direction.
Although LANDEN in view of LIU discloses the claimed diameters of the tube , however does not explicitly discloses that extension tubes do not have a narrowing portion at an outlet end such that an internal cylindrical diameter at the outlet end is approximately the same as the internal cylindrical diameter at an inlet end of the at least one of the one or more extension tubes, however this is merely a matter of design choice depending on the specie uses of a blower required by a customer, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to have blower extension tube having at least one of the one or more removable extension tubes has a portion at an outlet end that widens in at least one radial direction. Furthermore, it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art (MPEP 2144 II A).
Re: Claim 11:
LANDEN in view of LIU discloses:
The blower of claim 1, LANDEN in view of LIU discloses all the limitations of claim 2, and where an air outlet of a base component of the blower is devoid of a cover including a grated surface within one inch of an outlet end ( LANDEN: See Figs. 1-5: devoid of housing 110 and the inlet portion 154 in the housing 110 may include louvers, vanes, guide holes or other such apertures as described in ¶0024, ¶0025).
Re: Claim 13:
LANDEN in view of LIU discloses:
The blower of claim 1, LANDEN in view of LIU discloses all the limitations of claim 1, and wherein the air inlet is oriented rearward at an angle (See Figs. 1-5: air inlet 154 is oriented rearward at an angle) and at least partially downward, although LANDEN in view of LIU is silent regarding at an angle of between 20-80 degrees, however this is merely one of several obvious design choices for the one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to position air inlet depending on the system requirement which would have yielded predictable results. Furthermore, it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art (MPEP 2144 II A).
Re: Claims 15-16:
LANDEN in view of LIU discloses:
The blower of claim 1, LANDEN in view of LIU discloses all the limitations of claim 1, and wherein the blower has a weight airflow force, air outlet area and flow rate as claimed in claims 17-18 , although LANDEN in view of LIU is silent regarding specific base weight of less than 900 grams (g) (claim 15), maximum airflow force of at least 5.7 N (claim 16), air outlet having an area in a range of 0.002 square meters (m2)(claim 17) and 0.003 m2 and an airflow flow rate of at least 210 cubic feet per meter (claim 18)
However, these limitations are merely one of several design choices to select specific base weight of less than 900 grams (g), maximum airflow force of at least 5.7 N, air outlet area and flow rate at least 5.7 N, air outlet having an area in a range of 0.002 square meters (m2) and 0.003 m2 and an airflow flow rate of at least 210 cubic feet per meter depending on the conventional requirements, therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to opt from one of the several options regarding weight airflow force, air outlet area and flow rate which would have yielded predictable results. Furthermore, it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art (MPEP 2144 II A).
Claim(s) 8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over LANDEN in view of LIU as applied to claim 2 above, and further in view of by U.S Publication number 2001/0004437 A1 to NANTT et al. (NANTT).
Re: Claim 8:
LANDEN in view of LIU discloses:
The blower of claim 2, LANDEN in view of LIU discloses all the limitations of claim 2, and wherein at least one of the one or more removable extension tubes (LANDEN: See Figs. 1-5: 150) is coupled to the base component (LANDEN: See Figs. 1-5: base component housing 110 with motor 120, controller, trigger and handle) of the blower with a bayonet connection, although LANDEN does not explicitly discloses a bayonet connection of tube with the base component , however these type of bayonet connections are well known in the art, such a system is explicitly taught by U.S Publication number 2001/0004437 A1 to NANTT et al. (NANTT: See Fig. 1: ¶0020: discloses a bayonet connection 21 is provided on the free end 20 of the discharge stub 7 for releasably attaching the blower tube 16), it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to configure LANDEN as explicitly taught by NANTT which would have yielded predictable results.
Claim(s) 12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over LANDEN in view of LIU as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of CN 105586846 A to HAN (HAN).
Re: Claim 12:
LANDEN in view of LIU discloses:
The blower of claim 1, The blower of claim 1, LANDEN in view of LIU discloses all the limitations of claim 1, however LANDEN in view of LIU discloses off position of a trigger, however does not explicitly discloses further comprising a lockout feature that prevents the trigger from being released.
However, lockout feature of a trigger is well known in the art as explicitly taught by U.S Publication number 2017/0241423 A1 to HAN (HAN: ¶0060:See Figs10-11: the base is further provided with a locking knob 92 configured to lock the trigger mechanism). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to configure LANDEN as explicitly taught by HAN which would have provided the advantage of safety during oration.
Claim(s) 14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over LANDEN in view of LIU as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of by U.S Publication number 2019/0082624 A1 to LEE et al. (LEE).
Re: Claim 14:
LANDEN in view of LIU discloses:
The blower of claim 1, LANDEN in view of LIU discloses all the limitations of claim 1, and a battery, LANDEN in view of LIU is silent regarding wherein the blower includes a removable battery coupled to the blower below the handle. However, it is well known in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to configure LANDEN as explicitly taught by U.S Publication number 2019/0082624 A1 to LEE et al. (LEE : ¶0022) which would have yielded predictable results.
Regarding claim 21, LANDEN in view of LIU and LEE discloses all the limitations of claim 21.
Claim(s) 19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over LANDEN in view of LIU as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of by “Understanding the 6 Ship Motions: Yaw, Pitch, Roll, Surge, Sway & Heave dated March 2024” (herein after referred to as NPL).
Re: Claim 19:
LANDEN in view of LIU discloses:
The blower of claim 1, LANDEN in view of LIU discloses all the limitations of claim 1, and a blower having an angular buoyancy, LANDEN in view of LIU is silent regarding “wherein an angular buoyancy of the blower is adjustable based on a number and a type of removable extension tubes used”, this is merely a known principal of buoyancy to , since floating devices float at an angular in accordance to waves and tidal forces motions such as pitching , yawing, heave, sway and surge which typically forms an angular motions as a result of wave forces. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention that buoyant object would inherently have an angular buoyancy as a result of implied pitching , yawing, heave, sway and surge motions, which would have yielded predictable angular buoyancy. Such a system of obtaining neutral buoyancy is explicitly taught by NPL (Understanding the 6 Ship Motions: Yaw, Pitch, Roll, Surge, Sway & Heave: See description which discloses angular buoyancy as a result of these implied motions).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 20, 22-23 are allowed Claim 10 is 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.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
Claims, 20 is allowed, since the prior art fails to discloses “a housing surrounding at least a portion of the tube and the control circuitry, wherein the housing defines a protruding portion, wherein the control circuitry is disposed in the protruding portion, wherein the control circuitry is disposed on a top side of the tube, wherein the handle is disposed on a bottom side of the tube, and wherein the handle and control circuitry are rotationally offset from one another about a central axis of the tube” as claimed in claim 20 along with other limitations of claim 20.
Claim 22 is allowed, since the prior art fails to discloses “wherein the control circuitry is disposed on a first side of the passageway and the handle is disposed on a second side of the passageway opposite the first side, and wherein the control circuitry is disposed in a protruding portion of a housing of the base component” as claimed in claim 22 along with limitations of base claim 21,
Claim 23 is allowed, since the prior art fails to discloses “wherein the control circuitry is coupled to a heat sink, and wherein the tube defines an opening through which the heat sink is directly exposed to the airflow to cool the control circuitry” as claimed in claim 23 along with limitations of base claim 21.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to rejected claim(s) have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to SHAFIQ A MIAN whose telephone number is (571)272-4925. The examiner can normally be reached 8:30 am to 6:30 pm (Monday thru Thursday).
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, MARK LAURENZI can be reached at (571) 270-7878. 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.
/SHAFIQ MIAN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3746
May 18, 2026
Prosecution Insights