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 .
Claim Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
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: oscillating mechanism in claim 1.
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 oscillating mechanism claimed is configured to electrically oscillate the plate relative to the base. When this language is read in light of the SPEC (Page 10 ¶0045) the corresponding structure that achieves the claimed function is understood to be motor 914, drive gear 916, and rack gear 918.
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.
Claim Objections
Claims 11-15 are objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 11 Line 1-2 currently states:
“wherein the base includes a plate that rotates relative to the base,”.
Should be changed to state:
-- wherein the base includes [[a]] the plate that rotates relative to the base,--.
Appropriate correction is required.
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.
Claims 18-20 are 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.
Regarding Claim 18: Line 1-5 states: “The fan of claim 16, where the oscillating mechanism comprises a second motor, a drive gear driven by the second motor, and a curved rack gear that engages with the drive gear, where the second motor and drive gear are attached to the plate and the curved rack gear is attached to the base, and where the second motor moves the drive gear in a curvilinear translation back and forth along an arc of the curved rack gear.”. It is unclear the exact limitations the applicant is introducing here, specifically it is unclear how the second motor of the oscillating mechanism functions with the first motor recited in Line 2-3 of Claim 16? Additionally, since claim 16 claims that a second motor rotates the at least one blade to produce the air stream, the language of claim 18 creates a great deal of confusion when read in combination with the language of claim 16 since both claims use the language “second motor” for different motors. Accordingly the scope of claim 18 is unclear. Since the amendment to claim 16 demonstrates the inventors intent to make the previously claimed second motor the first motor, and the previously claimed first motor the second motor – for examination purposes the language of claim 18 will be read as: --The fan of claim 16, where the oscillating mechanism comprises the first motor, a drive gear driven by the first motor, and a curved rack gear that engages with the drive gear, where the first motor and drive gear are attached to the plate and the curved rack gear is attached to the base, and where the first motor moves the drive gear in a curvilinear translation back and forth along an arc of the curved rack gear.--.
Finally; depending claim(s) inherit deficiencies from the parent claim(s).
Appropriate correction is required.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
Claim 9 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
Regarding Claim 9: Line 5-7 states: “where the support arm is the only load-bearing connection between the fan head housing and the base, and where the fan head housing electrically oscillates relative to the base”. This subject matter was not described in such a way as to show the inventor had possession of the claimed invention, because the quantifier “load-bearing” describing the connection between the fan housing and base leaves the possibility of other connections between the fan housing and base as long as they are not load bearing. However, this is new matter because ¶0009 & ¶0031-¶0032 make clear that there is only a single connection between the fan head and the base without any quantifiers. Accordingly, since the scope suggested by the claim is broader than the scope described in the instant application, the language of the claim as currently written contains new matter. For examination purposes the claim language in question will be read as: -- where the support arm is the only
Appropriate correction is required.
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.
Claim(s) 9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by CN 202811454. Examiners Note: For the purposes of examining the instant application, the examiners submitted English translation of CN 202811454 (24 Page FOR – 06/18/2025 in the file wrapper), is referenced hereinafter.
PNG
media_image1.png
762
1036
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Annotated Figure 2 of CN 202811454 (Attached Figure A)
PNG
media_image2.png
741
1014
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Annotated Figure 1 of CN 202811454 (Attached Figure B)
Regarding Claim 9: CN 202811454 discloses the limitations: A fan (the fan is defined by the sum of its parts and includes the fan shown in Figs 1-7) comprising:
a base (base = 1 & plate indicated in Annotated Figure 2 of CN 202811454 (Attached Figure A) above, also see Fig 1; it is noted that on Page 6 ¶0030 of the SPEC it states that base 104 comprises (e.g. includes) plate 108; thus the base of CN ‘454 includes the plate identified in Attached Figure A within the same confines that the base 104 includes plate 108 in the instant application);
a fan head housing (structure indicated by element 3 in Fig 1), where the fan head housing comprises a blower assembly (the blower assembly is defined by the sum of its parts, also as seen in Fig 1 a fan is located within the fan head housing) having at least one motor (Line 143-149 – the electric fan shown in the Figures inherently has an electric motor for operating the impeller of the electric fan shown in Fig 1; at least one motor = electric motor for operating the impeller of the electric fan shown in Fig 1) for rotating at least one blade (at least one blade = blades of the impeller of the electric fan shown in Fig 1) for producing an air stream (fans like the one shown in Fig 1 inherently produce an air stream); and
a support arm (support arm = structure indicated by element 2 in Fig 1) having a first end (see Annotated Figure 1 of CN 202811454 (Attached Figure B) above) and a second end (Attached Figure A & Attached Figure B), where the first end of the support arm is attached to the fan head housing (Attached Figure B) and the second end of the support arm (Attached Figure A & Attached Figure B) is attached to the base (as seen in Attached Figure B the second end of the support arm is attached to the plate part of the base), where the support arm is the only connection between the fan head housing and the base (it is noted that the Y- shaped support arm is the only connection between the fan head housing 3 and the plate portion of the base identified in Attached Figure A in the art of CN ‘454), and wherein the fan head housing electrically oscillates relative to the base (electric motor 42 rotates drive gear 40 which engages element 410 of the rack gear, Figs 1-2, Line 143-162 – which causes movement of the support arm and the fan head connected to the support arm relative to element 1 of the base , Line 246-272 – thus the fan head housing electrically oscillates relative to the base as claimed).
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.
The factual inquiries 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, and 10-19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over CN 202811454 in view of Ediger USPN 11350748. Examiners Note: For the purposes of examining the instant application, the examiners submitted English translation of CN 202811454 (24 Page FOR – 06/18/2025 in the file wrapper), is referenced hereinafter.
PNG
media_image1.png
762
1036
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Annotated Figure 2 of CN 202811454 (Attached Figure A)
PNG
media_image2.png
741
1014
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Annotated Figure 1 of CN 202811454 (Attached Figure B)
Regarding Claim 1: CN 202811454 does disclose the limitations: A fan (the fan is defined by the sum of its parts and includes the fan shown in Figs 1-7) comprising:
a base (1, Figs 1-2);
a plate (see Annotated Figure 2 of CN 202811454 (Attached Figure A) above) coupled to the base (see Figs 1-2, Line 143-162; it is noted that the plate is rotatably coupled to the base in the art of CN ‘454 in the same manner that plate 108 is rotatably coupled to base 104 in the instant application), an oscillating mechanism (the oscillating mechanism is defined by the sum of its parts and includes elements 42,40,41,410, Line 150-177, Figs 1-2, Line 143-162) configured to electrically oscillate the plate relative to the base (electric motor 42 rotates drive gear 40 which engages element 410 of the rack gear, Figs 1-2, Line 143-162 – which causes movement of the plate relative to base 1);
a fan head housing (structure indicated by element 3 in Fig 1), where the fan head housing comprises a blower assembly (the blower assembly is defined by the sum of its parts, also as seen in Fig 1 a fan is located within the fan head housing) having a first motor (Line 143-149 – the electric fan shown in the Figures inherently has an electric motor for operating the impeller of the electric fan shown in Fig 1; the first motor = electric motor for operating the impeller of the electric fan shown in Fig 1) for rotating at least one blade (at least one blade = blades of the impeller of the electric fan shown in Fig 1) for producing an air stream (fans like the one shown in Fig 1 inherently produce an air stream); and
a support arm (support arm = structure indicated by element 2 in Fig 1) having a first end (see Annotated Figure 1 of CN 202811454 (Attached Figure B) above) and a second end (Attached Figure A & Attached Figure B), where the first end of the support arm is attached to the fan head housing (Attached Figure B) and the second end of the support arm (Attached Figure A & Attached Figure B) is fixedly attached to the plate (as seen in Attached Figure A & Attached Figure B), where the support arm is the sole structural connection between the fan head housing and the plate (it is noted that the Y- shaped support arm is the only structural connection between the fan head housing 3 and the plate identified in Attached Figure A in the art of CN ‘454). CN 202811454 is silent regarding the limitations: where the first end of the support arm is pivotally attached to the fan head housing. The prior art of Ediger USPN 11350748 which is directed to a ducted axial fan (Figs 1-2, Figs 4-6) like CN 202811454, is noted.
However, Ediger USPN 11350748 does disclose the limitations: where the fan head housing (fan head housing = 102, Fig 1) is pivotally attached to the first end of the support arm (the support arm = 106,108 Fig 1 Column 3 Line 59-65, the first end of the support arm = upper end of the support arm where element 108 is located in Fig 1, the fan head housing pivots about axis C, Column 3 Line 66-Column 4 Line 6), where the support arm is the sole structural connection between the fan head housing and the plate (the plate = plate 208, Figs 1-2, Column 4 Line 30-32; as seen in Figs 1-2 the support arm 106,108 is the sole structural connection between the fan head housing and the plate as claimed).
Hence it would have been obvious, to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the fan head housing (Attached Figure B) of CN 202811454 with the fan head housing (102) of Ediger USPN 11350748, and to use the L-shaped support arm 106,108 of Ediger USPN 11350748 to connect between the fan head housing and the plate instead of the Y-shaped support arm 2 of CN 202811454, since the Y-shaped support arm of CN 202811454 and the L-shaped support arm of Ediger USPN 11350748 are recognized as equivalent structures for their use in the art of fan supports and selection of any of these known equivalents to support the fan head housing would be within the level of a person having ordinary skill in the art (see MPEP §2144.06). Additionally following the combination of prior art the support arm (Ediger – 106,108) would be the sole structural connection between the fan head housing and the plate of CN 202811454.
Regarding Claim 2: CN 202811454 as modified by Ediger USPN 11350748 does disclose the limitations: where the fan head housing (CN ‘454 - Attached Figure B | Ediger - 102) is cantilevered by the support arm (in the combination of prior art the fan head housing is cantilevered by the structure of the support arm as taught by Ediger).
Regarding Claim 3: CN 202811454 as modified by Ediger USPN 11350748 does disclose the limitations: where the fan head housing (CN ‘454 - Attached Figure B | Ediger - 102) pivots relative to the support arm along a vertical y-axis of the fan (in the combination of prior art the fan head housing pivots up and down about the horizontally extending axis C at the first end 108 of Ediger in Fig 1 of Ediger; and the up and down movement would follow along a vertical y-axis in Fig 1 of CN ‘454 / the vertical axis A in Fig 1 of Ediger; a vertical y-axis of the fan = a vertical y-axis in Fig 1 of CN ‘454/ the vertical axis A in Fig 1 of Ediger) and oscillates relative to the base (CN ‘454 – 1, Attached Figure A, Line 150-177) along a horizontal x-axis of the fan (the fan head housing oscillates on a vertical axis of base 1 such that the fan head housing moves along a horizontal x-axis in Fig 1 of CN ‘454; a horizontal x-axis of the fan = a horizontal x-axis in Fig 1 of CN ‘454).
Regarding Claim 4: CN 202811454 does disclose the limitations: where the plate is positioned within an interior space of the base (see Attached Figure A & Attached Figure B).
Regarding Claim 5: CN 202811454 does disclose the limitations: where the oscillating mechanism comprises a second motor (Attached Figure A), a drive gear driven by the second motor (Attached Figure A, Line 150-162), and a rack gear (Attached Figure A) that engages with the drive gear (Attached Figure A, Line 150-162), where the second motor and drive gear are attached to the plate (Attached Figure A, Line 150-177) and the rack gear is attached to the base (Attached Figure A, Line 150-177).
Regarding Claim 6: CN 202811454 does disclose the limitations: where the rack gear is curved and has an arc (as seen in Attached Figure A the rack gear is curved and has an arc shaped portion between elements 50 and 60 in Fig 2).
Regarding Claim 7: CN 202811454 does disclose the limitations: where the rotational movement of the drive gear moves the drive gear in a curvilinear translation along the arc of the rack gear (Figs 4A-6C, Line 150-162, Line 246-263, and Attached Figure A).
Regarding Claim 10: CN 202811454 as modified by Ediger USPN 11350748 does disclose the limitations: where an angle of the fan head housing (fan head housing = CN ‘454 - Attached Figure B | Ediger - 102; angle of the fan head housing = angle a central longitudinal axis of the fan head housing makes with a plane parallel to the horizontal surface the base is placed on in Fig 1 of CN ‘454) along a vertical y-axis of the fan (in the combination of prior art the angle can be adjusted by moving the fan head housing along a vertical y-axis in Fig 1 of CN ‘454; a vertical y-axis of the fan = a vertical y-axis in Fig 1 of CN ‘454/ the vertical axis A in Fig 1 of Ediger) can be pivotally adjusted relative to the support arm (in the combination of prior art the fan head housing can be pivoted on the first end 108 of the support arm as disclosed at Column 3 Line 66-Column 4 Line 6 of Ediger).
Regarding Claim 11: CN 202811454 does disclose the limitations: where the base includes the plate that rotates relative to the base (see Attached Figure A & Attached Figure B, Line 150-177), and where the second end of the support arm is attached to the plate (see Attached Figure A & Attached Figure B).
Regarding Claim 12: CN 202811454 does disclose the limitations: where the plate rotates between 0 degrees and 90 degrees (Line 252-263).
Regarding Claim 13: CN 202811454 does disclose the limitations: where the plate rotates between 0 degrees and 180 degrees (Line 252-263).
Regarding Claim 14: CN 202811454 does disclose the limitations: where the base and plate are concentric (as understood from Attached Figure A & Figure 1 – the base and the plate are concentric as claimed).
Regarding Claim 15: CN 202811454 does disclose the limitations: where the circumference of the base extends further than the circumference of the plate (Attached Figure A).
PNG
media_image3.png
610
832
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Annotated Figure 2 of CN 202811454 (Attached Figure A’)
Regarding Claim 16: CN 202811454 discloses the limitations: A fan (the fan is defined by the sum of its parts and includes the fan shown in Figs 1-7) comprising:
a base (1, Figs 1-2);
a plate (see Annotated Figure 2 of CN 202811454 (Attached Figure A’) above) attached to the base (see Figs 1-2, Line 143-162; it is noted that the plate is rotatably attached to the base in the art of CN ‘454 in the same manner that plate 108 is rotatably attached to base 104 in the instant application), where the plate rotates relative to the base by an oscillating mechanism (the oscillating mechanism is defined by the sum of its parts and includes elements 42,40,410, Line 150-177) having a first motor (42, Attached Figure A’);
a fan head housing (structure indicated by element 3 in Fig 1), where the fan head housing comprises a blower assembly (the blower assembly is defined by the sum of its parts, also as seen in Fig 1 a fan is located within the fan head housing) having at least a second motor (Line 143-149 – the electric fan shown in the Figures inherently has an electric motor for operating the impeller of the electric fan shown in Fig 1; the second motor = electric motor for operating the impeller of electric fan shown in Fig 1) for rotating at least one blade (at least one blade = blades of the impeller of the electric fan shown in Fig 1) for producing an air stream (fans like the one shown in Fig 1 inherently produce an air stream); and
a support arm (support arm = structure indicated by element 2 in Fig 1) having a first end (see Annotated Figure 1 of CN 202811454 (Attached Figure B) above) and a second end (Attached Figure A’ & Attached Figure B), where the first end of the support arm is attached to the fan head housing (Attached Figure B) and the second end of the support arm (Attached Figure A’ & Attached Figure B) attaches to the plate (as seen in Attached Figure A’ & Attached Figure B). CN 202811454 is silent regarding the limitations: where the fan head housing attaches to the plate at only one attachment location via the support arm. The prior art of Ediger USPN 11350748 which is directed to a ducted axial fan (Figs 1-2, Figs 4-6) like CN 202811454, is noted.
However, Ediger USPN 11350748 does disclose the limitations: where the fan head housing (fan head housing = 102, Fig 1) attaches to the plate (the plate = plate 208, Figs 1-2, Column 4 Line 30-32) at only one attachment location (one attachment location = location of 108 in Fig 1) via the support arm (the support arm = 106,108 Fig 1 Column 3 Line 59-65).
Hence it would have been obvious, to one of ordinary skill in the art at the effective filing date of the application to use the L-shaped support arm 106,108 of Ediger USPN 11350748 to connect between the fan head housing and the plate instead of the Y-shaped support arm 2 of CN 202811454, since the Y-shaped support arm of CN 202811454 and the L-shaped support arm of Ediger USPN 11350748 are recognized as equivalent structures for their use in the art of fan supports and selection of any of these known equivalents to support the fan head housing would be within the level of a person having ordinary skill in the art (see MPEP §2144.06).
Regarding Claim 17: CN 202811454 as modified by Ediger USPN 11350748 does disclose the limitations: where the fan head housing (CN ‘454 - Attached Figure B | Ediger USPN ‘748 - 102) oscillates relative to the base along a horizontal x-axis of the fan (in the combination of prior art the fan head housing oscillates on a vertical axis of base 1 such that the fan head housing moves along a horizontal x-axis in Fig 1 of CN ‘454; a horizontal x-axis of the fan = a horizontal x-axis in Fig 1 of CN ‘454, also see Line 150-177 and Figs 4A-6C of CN ‘454).
Regarding Claim 18: CN 202811454 does disclose the limitations: where the oscillating mechanism comprises the first motor (Attached Figure A’), a drive gear driven by the first motor (Attached Figure A’, Line 150-162), and a curved rack gear (Attached Figure A’, as seen in Attached Figure A’ the identified rack gear is curved as claimed) that engages with the drive gear (Attached Figure A’, Line 150-162), where the first motor and drive gear are attached to the plate (Attached Figure A’, Line 150-177) and the curved rack gear is attached to the base (Attached Figure A’, Line 150-177), and where the first motor moves the drive gear in a curvilinear translation back and forth along an arc (as seen in Attached Figure A’ the rack gear is curved and has an arc shaped portion between elements 50 and 60 in Figure 2) of the curved rack gear (as shown in Figs 4A-6C, Line 150-162, Line 246-263, and Attached Figure A’).
Regarding Claim 19: CN 202811454 does disclose the limitations: where the fan (the fan shown in Figs 1-7) includes a first controller (first controller = 10, Line 246-263, Fig 1) positioned on the fan for controlling the first and second motor (as shown in both Figs 1-2 the first controller is positioned on base 1 of the fan; also as disclosed at Line 246-263 – the first controller 10 controls both the motor driving the blades/impeller (i.e. the second motor) and the motor driving the oscillation (i.e. the first motor)).
Claim(s) 8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over CN 202811454 in view of Ediger USPN 11350748 as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Gammack US 2011/0110805 & Claim(s) 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over CN 202811454 in view of Ediger USPN 11350748 as applied to claim 19 above, and further in view of Gammack US 2011/0110805.
Regarding Claim 8: CN 202811454 as modified by Ediger USPN 11350748 discloses in the above mentioned Figures and Specifications the limitations set forth in claim 1. CN 202811454 does not disclose the limitations: where a remote controller for controlling a speed of the first motor is removably attached to the fan via a ferromagnetic material. The prior art of Gammack US 2011/0110805 which is directed to a motor driven fan assembly with a control circuit for controlling the motor (title, abstract) like CN 202811454, is noted.
However Gammack US 2011/0110805 does disclose the limitations: where the fan (i.e. fan 10 shown in Fig 1 & Figs 13-18, ¶0034, ¶0046-¶0051) includes a remote controller (remote controller = 250, Figs 13, 16, and 19-21, ¶0075) for controlling a speed of the first motor (the motor 68 which drives the fan that generates the airflow created by fan 10 corresponds to the first motor; and as disclosed at ¶0076-¶0077 element 250 controls a speed of the first motor) is removably attached to the fan (Gammack discloses using a magnet to attach the remote to the fan, abstract, ¶0020) via a ferromagnetic material (Gammack teaches making an outer part of the fan from magnetic steel to which the magnets located in the remote are attracted to - ¶0020; additionally magnetic steel is known to be ferromagnetic, thus Gammack teaches a magnetic coupling via a ferromagnetic material as claimed).
Hence it would have been obvious, to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the fan head housing (Attached Figure B) & the fan of CN 202811454 with the magnetic steel (¶0020), remote controller 250 & control unit 52 of Gammack US 2011/0110805 in order to provide a remote controller that is able to modify operation of the fan, that can be conveniently retained by the fan, and allows the fan to have a uniform appearance (abstract, ¶0009-¶0011, ¶0076).
Regarding Claim 20: CN 202811454 as modified by Ediger USPN 11350748 discloses in the above mentioned Figures and Specifications the limitations set forth in claim 19. CN 202811454 does not disclose the limitations: where the fan includes a second controller for controlling the first and second motor, where the second controller is removably attached to the fan. The prior art of Gammack US 2011/0110805 which is directed to a motor driven fan assembly with a control circuit for controlling the motor (title, abstract) like CN 202811454, is noted.
However Gammack US 2011/0110805 does disclose the limitations: where the fan (i.e. fan 10 shown in Fig 1 & Figs 13-18, ¶0034, ¶0046-¶0051) includes a second controller (second controller = 250, Figs 13, 16, and 19-21, ¶0075) for controlling the first and second motor (the motor 68 which drives the fan that generates the airflow created by fan 10 corresponds to the second motor & the motor of the oscillating mechanism 56 (¶0060) which causes the fan 10 to oscillate corresponds to the first motor; and as disclosed at ¶0076-¶0077 element 250 controls both motors as claimed), where the second controller is removably attached to the fan (i.e. removably attached by magnets to the fan - ¶0074).
Hence it would have been obvious, to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the fan head housing (Attached Figure B) & the fan of CN 202811454 with the magnet housings 222, pair of magnets 220, remote control 250 & control unit 52 of Gammack US 2011/0110805 in order to provide a remote control that is able to modify operation of the fan, that can be conveniently retained by the fan, and allows the fan to have a uniform appearance (abstract, ¶0009-¶0011, ¶0076).
Examiner's Note: The Examiner respectfully requests of the Applicant in preparing responses, to fully consider the entirety of the references as potentially teaching all or part of the claimed invention.
It is noted, REFERENCES ARE RELEVANT AS PRIOR ART FOR ALL THEY CONTAIN. “The use of patents as references is not limited to what the patentees describe as their own inventions or to the problems with which they are concerned. They are part of the literature of the art, relevant for all they contain.” In re Heck, 699 F.2d 1331, 1332-33, 216 USPQ 1038, 1039 (Fed. Cir. 1983) (quoting In re Lemelson, 397 F.2d 1006, 1009, 158 USPQ 275, 277 (CCPA 1968)). A reference may be relied upon for all that it would have reasonably suggested to one having ordinary skill the art, including nonpreferred embodiments (see MPEP § 2123).
Additionally the origin of the drawing is immaterial. For instance, drawings in a design patent can anticipate or make obvious the claimed invention, as can drawings in utility patents. When the reference is a utility patent, it does not matter that the feature shown is unintended or unexplained in the specification. The drawings must be evaluated for what they reasonably disclose and suggest to one of ordinary skill in the art. In re Aslanian, 590 F.2d 911, 200 USPQ 500 (CCPA 1979). (See MPEP § 2125).
The Examiner has cited particular locations in the reference(s) as applied to the claims above for the convenience of the Applicant. Although the specified citations are representative of the teachings of the art and are applied to the specific limitations within the individual claims, typically other passages and figures will apply as well.
Furthermore: with respect to the prior art and the determination of obviousness, it has been held that Prior art is not limited just to the references being applied, but includes the understanding of one of ordinary skill in the art. The "mere existence of differences (i.e. a gap) between the prior art and an invention DOES NOT ESTABLISH the inventions nonobviousness." Dann v. Johnston, 425 U.S. 219, 230, 189 USPQ 257, 261 (1976). Rather, in determining obviousness the proper analysis is whether the claimed invention would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art after consideration of all the facts. And factors other than the disclosures of the cited prior art may provide a basis for concluding that it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to bridge the gap. (See MPEP § 2141).
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 09/18/2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Page 6 ¶3: Applicant argues that the claims have been amended to overcome all the claim objections raised by the examiner in the last office action.
--Examiner disagrees. Applicant did not correct the formality previously identified in claim 11. The correction to claim 11, has not be traversed by Applicant in their response, thus it is understood by the examiner that Applicant agrees with the correction identified in the claim objection of claim 11 in the non-final office action, since no traversal was made in the response filed on 09/18/2025. Accordingly, Applicants arguments regarding the claim objections are not persuasive. The objection to claim 11 is repeated in the Office Action above.--.
Page 7 ¶2-Page 9 ¶1 – Applicant argues that the prior art does not make obvious the language of claim 9 because of the amendments made to independent claim 9.
--Arguments not persuasive. With regards to claim 9, the examiner notes that, the features upon which applicant relies (i.e., a sole structural support arm for attaching a fan head housing to an oscillating plate or base) are not recited in the rejected claim 9. Although the claims are interpreted in light of the specification, limitations from the specification are not read into the claims. See In re Van Geuns, 988 F.2d 1181, 26 USPQ2d 1057 (Fed. Cir. 1993). Thus Applicants argument directed to claim 9 is not persuasive. Additionally, the current rejection of claim 9 is one of anticipation, since in the prior art CN ‘454 the Y-shaped support arm is the only connection between the fan head housing and the plate part of the base, and the prior art of CN ‘454 addresses the claim language with the same confines as the instant application as explained in the Office Action above.
Accordingly, for the reasons explained above, Applicants arguments directed to claim 9 are not persuasive.--.
Applicant’s arguments (Page 7 ¶2-Page 9 ¶1) with respect to claim(s) 1, and 16 and the claims being non-obviousness based on the prior art of CN ‘454 and Coup - 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
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Chien US 20060199522 – discloses a fan which is suspended by a single point.
Weyant USPN 0691426 – discloses a fan suspended by a top of the fan.
Reisch USPN 2549523 – discloses a fan having a single support arm.
Russer USPN 2811304 – discloses a fan having a single support arm.
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 JOSEPH S HERRMANN whose telephone number is (571)270-3291. The examiner can normally be reached 8:00 AM - 5:00 PM EST.
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, ESSAMA OMGBA can be reached at 469-295-9278. 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.
/CHARLES G FREAY/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3746
/JOSEPH S. HERRMANN/ Examiner, Art Unit 3746