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 final rejection. 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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 01/14/2026 has been entered.
Response to Amendment
The Amendment filed 01/14/2026 has been entered. Claims 1-2, 4-10, 15-23, 25 & 27-29 are pending in the application. Claims 3, 11-14, 24 & 26 are cancelled. Claim 29 is entered as “New”. Claim 23 is withdrawn.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to as failing to comply with 37 CFR 1.84(p)(5) because they do not include the following reference sign(s) mentioned in the description: 222.
The drawings are objected to because the element numbers in Figure 15 are so small, the numbers cannot be read.
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 of 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 § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claim 27 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
As to Claim 27, the claim depends upon cancelled Claim 26. As such, the dependency of the claim is not clear, rendering the claim indefinite. For the purpose of examination, the claim will be interpreted to depend upon Claim 1.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(d):
(d) REFERENCE IN DEPENDENT FORMS.—Subject to subsection (e), a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, fourth paragraph:
Subject to the following paragraph [i.e., the fifth paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112], a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
Claim 27 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(d) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, 4th paragraph, as being of improper dependent form for failing to further limit the subject matter of the claim upon which it depends, or for failing to include all the limitations of the claim upon which it depends.
Claim 27 depends on cancelled Claim 26. As such, Claim 27 fails to include all the limitation of the claim upon which it depends.
Applicant may cancel the claim(s), amend the claim(s) to place the claim(s) in proper dependent form, rewrite the claim(s) in independent form, or present a sufficient showing that the dependent claim(s) complies with the statutory requirements.
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.
Claims 15-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tulk (U.S. Patent 2,582,572), in view of Satou (U.S. Patent 5,962,159), further in view of Kern (U.S. PGPub 2012/0049776).
As to Claim 15, Tulk teaches a handheld fan (Figures 1-2) for cooling (this is considered an intended use limitation; see end of paragraph for clarification; additionally, one of ordinary skill in the art would conclude anything the Tulk fan in Figures 1-2 is pointed at will be cooled via convection), comprising an air supply portion (4-12) and a handheld portion (the portion within and including 1-3, as shown in Figures 1-2), wherein the handheld portion (the portion within and including 1-3, as shown in Figures 1-2) comprises a first outer shell (2) and a battery module (the combination of the two batteries 19 shown in Figure 1) arranged in (as shown in Figure 2) the first outer shell (2)…
an air supply assembly (6/9) is arranged in (as shown in Figures 1-2) the air supply portion (4-12); the air supply assembly (6/9) comprises a driving motor (6) and an impeller assembly (9).
Tulk does not teach the battery module comprises a battery housing, and a first storage battery and a second storage battery arranged in the battery housing…
the driving motor is a three-phase motor, and a working voltage of the driving motor is in a range of 3 V to 8.4 V; a power of the driving motor is in a range of 5 W to 50 W; and the working voltage of the driving motor is provided through the first storage battery and the second storage battery.
Satou describes a battery module designed to be used with electrical equipment (Column 1, Lines 6-8), and teaches the battery module (Figures 2-6) comprises a battery housing (1A/1B), and a first storage battery (5) and a second storage battery (5) arranged in (as shown in Figure 3) the battery housing (1A/1B).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of invention to use the battery module, as taught by Satou, in place of the battery module, as taught by Tulk, to prevent malfunction by incorrectly inserting the battery module (Column 1, Lines 61-67).
Kern describes an electric motor which may be used with an impeller/fan (see Abstract), and teaches the driving motor (102) is a three-phase motor (Paragraph 0029).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of invention to use the driving motor, as taught by Kern, in place of the driving motor, as taught by Tulk, as modified, so “the maximum current through the stator coils may be scaled to the same magnitude current that would be expected to flow through the coils if the rail voltage were the rated (nominal) fan/motor voltage, even when the actual rail voltage is different, e.g. higher than the rated fan/motor voltage (Abstract).”
Tulk, as modified (by Kern) teaches a working voltage of the driving motor is in a range between 5 V to 12 V (Kern Paragraph 0009), but does not teach a range of 3 V to 8.4 V. However, the respective ranges overlap.
Additionally, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the working voltage of the driving motor, as taught by Tulk, as modified, to be between 3 V and 8.4 V. Applicant appears to have placed no criticality on the claimed range, and it has been held “[i]n the case where the claimed ranges ‘overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art’ a prima facie case of obviousness exists”. In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976); In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ 2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990).
Tulk, as modified, continues to teach power is a result-effective variable (see MPEP 2144.05(II)(B)) which affects the output voltage of the motor (see Kern Paragraph 0046, which describes power regulating output voltage).
As such, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to provide power of the driving motor in a range of 5 W to 50 W, since 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. In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233. (1955)
Modifying Tulk with the above references results in the working voltage (the voltage from Satou storage batteries 5) of the driving motor (Tulk 6) is provided through (via at least Tulk 16/20) the first storage battery (Satou 5) and the second storage battery (Satou 5).
As to Claim 16, Zhang, as modified, teaches all the limitations of Claim 15, and continues to teach a range of voltages (Kern Paragraph 0009 teaches 5 V to12 V, and the range was modified to be between 3 V to 8.4 V above) for the driving motor (Kern 102).
However, Zhang, as modified, does not teach a specific working voltage of the driving motor of 3.5 V.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the driving motor working voltage of Zhang, as modified, from between 3 V to 8.4 V to 3.5 V since it has been held that "a prima facie case of obviousness exists where the claimed ranges or amounts do not overlap with the prior art but are merely close." Titanium Metals Corp. of America V. Banner, 778 F.2d 775, 783, 227 USPQ 773, 779 (Fed. Cir. 1985); Warner-Jenkinson Co., Inc. V. Hilton Davis Chemical Co., 520 U.S. 17, 41 USPQ2d 1865 (1997). Further, applicant appears to have placed no criticality on the specific claimed value, only stating "[s]electing appropriate values for the working voltage, the working current, and the power is crucial for ensuring the performance and efficiency of the motor. In practical applications, the appropriate working power should be determined according to the specifications of the motor and expected load requirements" in Paragraph 0070. This statement at best describes criticality for a desired voltage in general, not for the specific claimed value, and is also a conclusory statement since no context is provided for how to determine “performance” and efficiency”.
As to Claim 17, Zhang, as modified, teaches all the limitations of Claim 15, and continues to teach a range of voltages (Kern Paragraph 0009 teaches 5 V to12 V, and the range was modified to be between 3 V to 8.4 V above) for the driving motor (Kern 102).
However, Zhang, as modified, does not teach a specific working voltage of the driving motor of 3.7 V.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the driving motor working voltage of Zhang, as modified, from between 3 V to 8.4 V to 3.7 V since it has been held that "a prima facie case of obviousness exists where the claimed ranges or amounts do not overlap with the prior art but are merely close." Titanium Metals Corp. of America V. Banner, 778 F.2d 775, 783, 227 USPQ 773, 779 (Fed. Cir. 1985); Warner-Jenkinson Co., Inc. V. Hilton Davis Chemical Co., 520 U.S. 17, 41 USPQ2d 1865 (1997). Further, applicant appears to have placed no criticality on the specific claimed value, only stating "[s]electing appropriate values for the working voltage, the working current, and the power is crucial for ensuring the performance and efficiency of the motor. In practical applications, the appropriate working power should be determined according to the specifications of the motor and expected load requirements" in Paragraph 0070. This statement at best describes criticality for a desired voltage in general, not for the specific claimed value, and is also a conclusory statement since no context is provided for how to determine “performance” and efficiency”.
As to Claim 18, Zhang, as modified, teaches all the limitations of Claim 15, and continues to teach a range of voltages (Kern Paragraph 0009 teaches 5 V to12 V, and the range was modified to be between 3 V to 8.4 V above) for the driving motor (Kern 102).
However, Zhang, as modified, does not teach a specific working voltage of the driving motor of 4 V.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the driving motor working voltage of Zhang, as modified, from between 3 V to 8.4 V to 4 V since it has been held that "a prima facie case of obviousness exists where the claimed ranges or amounts do not overlap with the prior art but are merely close." Titanium Metals Corp. of America V. Banner, 778 F.2d 775, 783, 227 USPQ 773, 779 (Fed. Cir. 1985); Warner-Jenkinson Co., Inc. V. Hilton Davis Chemical Co., 520 U.S. 17, 41 USPQ2d 1865 (1997). Further, applicant appears to have placed no criticality on the specific claimed value, only stating "[s]electing appropriate values for the working voltage, the working current, and the power is crucial for ensuring the performance and efficiency of the motor. In practical applications, the appropriate working power should be determined according to the specifications of the motor and expected load requirements" in Paragraph 0070. This statement at best describes criticality for a desired voltage in general, not for the specific claimed value, and is also a conclusory statement since no context is provided for how to determine “performance” and efficiency”.
As to Claim 19, Zhang, as modified, teaches all the limitations of Claim 15, and continues to teach a range of voltages (Kern Paragraph 0009 teaches 5 V to12 V, and the range was modified to be between 3 V to 8.4 V above) for the driving motor (Kern 102).
However, Zhang, as modified, does not teach a specific working voltage of the driving motor of 4.2 V.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the driving motor working voltage of Zhang, as modified, from between 3 V to 8.4 V to 4.2 V since it has been held that "a prima facie case of obviousness exists where the claimed ranges or amounts do not overlap with the prior art but are merely close." Titanium Metals Corp. of America V. Banner, 778 F.2d 775, 783, 227 USPQ 773, 779 (Fed. Cir. 1985); Warner-Jenkinson Co., Inc. V. Hilton Davis Chemical Co., 520 U.S. 17, 41 USPQ2d 1865 (1997). Further, applicant appears to have placed no criticality on the specific claimed value, only stating "[s]electing appropriate values for the working voltage, the working current, and the power is crucial for ensuring the performance and efficiency of the motor. In practical applications, the appropriate working power should be determined according to the specifications of the motor and expected load requirements" in Paragraph 0070. This statement at best describes criticality for a desired voltage in general, not for the specific claimed value, and is also a conclusory statement since no context is provided for how to determine “performance” and efficiency”.
As to Claim 20, Zhang, as modified, teaches all the limitations of Claim 15, and continues to teach a range of voltages (Kern Paragraph 0009 teaches 5 V to12 V, and the range was modified to be between 3 V to 8.4 V above) for the driving motor (Kern 102).
However, Zhang, as modified, does not teach a specific working voltage of the driving motor of 4.3 V.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the driving motor working voltage of Zhang, as modified, from between 3 V to 8.4 V to 4.3 V since it has been held that "a prima facie case of obviousness exists where the claimed ranges or amounts do not overlap with the prior art but are merely close." Titanium Metals Corp. of America V. Banner, 778 F.2d 775, 783, 227 USPQ 773, 779 (Fed. Cir. 1985); Warner-Jenkinson Co., Inc. V. Hilton Davis Chemical Co., 520 U.S. 17, 41 USPQ2d 1865 (1997). Further, applicant appears to have placed no criticality on the specific claimed value, only stating "[s]electing appropriate values for the working voltage, the working current, and the power is crucial for ensuring the performance and efficiency of the motor. In practical applications, the appropriate working power should be determined according to the specifications of the motor and expected load requirements" in Paragraph 0070. This statement at best describes criticality for a desired voltage in general, not for the specific claimed value, and is also a conclusory statement since no context is provided for how to determine “performance” and efficiency”.
Claim 21 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tulk, in view of Satou, further in view of Kern, further in view of Tang (CN107069877A – see attached translation).
As to Claim 21, Tulk teaches a handheld fan (Figures 1-2) for cooling (this is considered an intended use limitation; see end of paragraph for clarification; additionally, one of ordinary skill in the art would conclude anything the Tulk fan in Figures 1-2 is pointed at will be cooled via convection), comprising an air supply portion (4-12) and a handheld portion (the portion within and including 1-3, as shown in Figures 1-2), wherein the handheld portion (the portion within and including 1-3, as shown in Figures 1-2) comprises a first outer shell (2) and a battery module (the combination of the two batteries 19 shown in Figure 1) arranged in (as shown in Figure 2) the first outer shell (2)…
wherein the air supply portion (4-12) comprises (as shown in Figures 1-2) an air supply assembly (6), and the air supply assembly (6) comprises a driving motor (6). The intention to use the fan for an intended purpose is not a patentable limitation, as a "recitation with respect to the manner in which a claimed apparatus is intended to be employed does not differentiate the claimed apparatus from a prior art apparatus" if the prior art apparatus teaches all the structural limitations of the claim.” Ex parte Masham, 2 USPQ2d 1647; MPEP 2114(II). Also see MPEP 2115. Additionally, the Tulk fan may be used for cooling, as described above.
Tulk does not teach the battery module comprises a battery housing, and a first storage battery and a second storage battery arranged in the battery housing; and the first storage battery and the second storage battery are connected through an electrical connector…
the driving motor is a three-phase brushless motor, and a working voltage of the driving motor is in a range of 3 V to 4.2 V; a working current of the driving motor is in a range of 0.25 A to 1.8 A; the power of the driving motor is in a range of 1 W to 8 W; a speed of the driving motor is in a range of 15000 to 41000 revolutions per minute, and the electrical connector comprises a circuit board; the working voltage of the driving motor is provided through the first storage battery and the second storage battery.
Satou describes a battery module designed to be used with electrical equipment (Column 1, Lines 6-8), and teaches the battery module (Figures 2-6) comprises a battery housing (1A/1B), and a first storage battery (5) and a second storage battery (5) arranged in (as shown in Figure 3) the battery housing (1A/1B); and the first storage battery (5) and the second storage battery (5) are connected through an electrical connector (21/22/7/3/2; see Figures 4-6).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of invention to use the battery module, as taught by Satou, in place of the battery module, as taught by Tulk, to prevent malfunction by incorrectly inserting the battery module (Column 1, Lines 61-67).
Kern describes an electric motor which may be used with an impeller/fan (see Abstract), and teaches the driving motor (102) is a three-phase brushless motor (Paragraph 0029).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of invention to use the driving motor, as taught by Kern, in place of the driving motor, as taught by Tulk, as modified, so “the maximum current through the stator coils may be scaled to the same magnitude current that would be expected to flow through the coils if the rail voltage were the rated (nominal) fan/motor voltage, even when the actual rail voltage is different, e.g. higher than the rated fan/motor voltage (Abstract).”
Tulk, as modified (by Kern) teaches a working voltage of the driving motor is in a range between 5 V to 12 V (Kern Paragraph 0009), but does not teach a range of 3 V to 4.2 V. However, one of ordinary skill in the art would consider the two ranges to be close to each other.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to modify the working voltage range of the driving motor to be 3 V to 4.2 V, since it has been held that “a prima facie case of obviousness exists where the claimed ranges or amounts do not overlap with the prior art but are merely close.” Titanium Metals Corp. of America v. Banner, 778 F.2d 775, 783, 227 USPQ 773, 779 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Lilienfeld, 67 F.2d 920, 924, 20 USPQ 53, 57 (CCPA 1933). Further, Applicant appears to have placed no criticality on the claimed range.
Tulk, as modified, continues to teach electrical current is a result-effective variable (see MPEP 2144.05(II)(B)) which affects the output voltage of the motor (see Kern Paragraph 0044, which describes current regulating output voltage).
As such, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to provide a working current of the driving motor in a range of 0.25 A to 1.8 A, since 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. In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233. (1955)
Tulk, as modified, continues to teach power is a result-effective variable (see MPEP 2144.05(II)(B)) which affects the output voltage of the motor (see Kern Paragraph 0046, which describes power regulating output voltage).
As such, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to provide power of the driving motor in a range of 1 W to 8 W, since 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. In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233. (1955)
Tulk, as modified, continues to teach rotational speed is a result-effective variable (see MPEP 2144.05(II)(B)) determined by the supplied voltage (see Kern Paragraph 0019).
As such, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to operate the driving motor at a speed in a range of 15000 to 41000 revolutions per minute, since 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. In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233. (1955)
Tang describes a battery pack, and teaches the electrical connector (50) comprises (as shown in Figure 4) a circuit board (20).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of invention to use an electrical connector, as taught by Tang, in the battery pack, as taught by Tulk, as modified, to allow for recharging and control the power through the battery pack (Paragraph 0049).
Modifying Tulk with the above references results in the working voltage (the voltage from Satou storage batteries 5) of the driving motor (Tulk 6) is provided through (via at least Tulk 16/20) the first storage battery (Satou 5) and the second storage battery (Satou 5).
Claim 22 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tulk, in view of Satou, further in view of Kern, further in view of Tang, further in view of McSheery (U.S. PGPub 2022/0186732).
As to Claim 22, Tulk, as modified, teaches all the limitations of Claim 21, but is silent on the material makeup of the driving motor, so does not explicitly teach the driving motor comprises a stator and a rotor; the stator comprises an iron core and a plurality of coils; the plurality of coils are wound around the iron core; a spacing slot is provided between two adjacent coils of the plurality of coils; a number of the spacing slots is 9; the rotor comprises a magnetic body; a number of magnetic poles of the magnetic body is 8; and a number of pole pairs is 4.
Kern describes an electric motor which may be used with an impeller/fan (see Abstract), and teaches the driving motor (102) comprises a stator (204) and a rotor (202); the stator (204) comprises a core (see Figure 2 below) and a plurality of coils (206, where six coils are shown in Figure 2); the plurality of coils (206) are wound around (as shown in Figure 2) the core (see Figure 2 below); a spacing slot (the slot between each of the coils 206, shown in Figure 2) is provided between (as shown in Figure 2) two adjacent coils (206) of the plurality of coils (206)…the rotor (202) comprises a magnetic body (Paragraph 0029); a number of magnetic poles (202) of the magnetic body (202) is 8 (Paragraph 0029 states the rotor may have any number of poles, as desired, which includes 8); and a number of pole pairs is 4 (one of ordinary skill in the art would conclude 8 poles would result in 4 pole pairs, especially in light of Paragraph 0029 and Figure 2206).
PNG
media_image1.png
362
550
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Kern Figure 2, Modified by Examiner
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of invention to configure the driving motor, as taught by Tulk, as modified, in the manner, as taught by Kern, so “the maximum current through the stator coils may be scaled to the same magnitude current that would be expected to flow through the coils if the rail voltage were the rated (nominal) fan/motor voltage, even when the actual rail voltage is different, e.g. higher than the rated fan/motor voltage (Abstract).”
Kern Paragraph 0029 states the stator may be modified, as desired. As such, it would have been an obvious matter of design choice to design the stator to have nine spacing slots, since Applicant has not disclosed the number of these features solve any stated problem, or are for any particular purpose. Additionally, it appears the invention would perform equally well with either the claimed configuration or the configuration explicitly taught by Kern.
Tulk, as modified, is silent on the material of the core, so does not explicitly teach the stator core is made of iron.
McSheery describes an electric motor for driving an impeller, and teaches the stator core (410) is made of iron (Paragraph 0075).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of invention to make the core, as taught by Zhang, as modified, of iron, as taught by McSheery, since 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 suitability for the intended use as a matter of obvious design choice. In re Leshin, 125 USPQ 416. (1960)
Additionally, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of invention to make the core, as taught by Zhang, as modified, of iron, as taught by McSheery, since using iron in the core is well-known in electric motors, and yields predictable results, i.e., provides an electric path to produce a magnetic field.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 1-2, 4-10, 25 & 28-29 are allowed.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 01/14/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Regarding the Drawing Objections, the 01/14/2026 Drawing set was entered. However, there are a few problems with the new set which need to be addressed.
Regarding the 103 rejection for Claim 15, Applicant argues none of the references teach the claimed working voltage value or the claimed power value. Examiner disagrees.
Kern teaches an overlapping range for the claimed working voltage value. As described in the rejection above, case law dictates an overlapping range provides a prima facia case of obviousness to modify the range to the claimed range. As such, the limitation does not read over the prior art.
Kern Paragraph 0046 directly correlates power to output voltage, where the output voltage varies based on the power delivery, where the power delivery is broadly interpreted as the power of the motor. As such, Kern does make the association between output voltage and power.
Applicant continues to argue commercial success, by providing examples on the website amazon.com. However, Applicant’s attempt to argue commercial success comes up far short of the necessary bar to support such an argument. Examiner references MPEP 716.03. In order to successfully argue commercial success, Applicant must show the commercial success is “due to claimed features, and not due to unclaimed features.” Applicant must also provide a nexus between the success and the claimed invention, where Applicant must prove a specific claimed feature is the cause of the commercial success (see MPEP 716.01(b)), “not the result of heavy promotion or advertising, shift in advertising, consumption by purchasers normally tied to applicant or assignee, or other business events extraneous to the merits of the claimed invention”. “Merely showing that there was commercial success of an article which embodied the invention is not sufficient.”
In order to successfully argue commercial success, Applicant must provide substantial amounts of data unequivocally showing the commercial success was due to a specific claimed feature, and not due to any other factors. Applicant has not provided this data.
Regarding the 103 rejection for Claim 21, Applicant argues none of the references teach the claimed working voltage value or the claimed power value. Examiner disagrees.
Applicant continues to argue commercial success, by providing examples on the website amazon.com. However, Applicant’s attempt to argue commercial success comes up far short of the necessary bar to support such an argument. Examiner references MPEP 716.03. In order to successfully argue commercial success, Applicant must show the commercial success is “due to claimed features, and not due to unclaimed features.” Applicant must also provide a nexus between the success and the claimed invention, where Applicant must prove a specific claimed feature is the cause of the commercial success (see MPEP 716.01(b)), “not the result of heavy promotion or advertising, shift in advertising, consumption by purchasers normally tied to applicant or assignee, or other business events extraneous to the merits of the claimed invention”. “Merely showing that there was commercial success of an article which embodied the invention is not sufficient.”
In order to successfully argue commercial success, Applicant must provide substantial amounts of data unequivocally showing the commercial success was due to a specific claimed feature, and not due to any other factors. Applicant has not provided this data.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to DAVID BRANDT whose telephone number is (303)297-4776. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Thursday 10-6, MT.
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, Bhisma Mehta can be reached at (571) 272-3383. 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.
/DAVID N BRANDT/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3783