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 .
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed December 29, 2025 have been fully considered.
The 35 U.S.C 112(b) and 35 U.S.C 103 rejections have been withdrawn based on the amendments. New 35 U.S.C 112(b) rejections and 35 U.S.C 103 are made below, necessitated by amendment.
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 13-15, 17-20, 27-28, and 33-34 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.
Claim 13 recites, “an orthographic projection of the at least one first air outlet onto the bottom wall of the shell is a first orthographic projection an orthographic projection of the at least one second air outlet onto the bottom wall of the shell is a second orthographic projection; an orthographic projection of the fan assembly onto the bottom wall of the shell is a third orthographic projection an orthographic projection of the portion of the top wall disposed between the at least one second air outlet and the at least one first air outlet onto the bottom wall of the shell is a fourth orthographic projection and no overlapping is formed between the first orthographic projection and the third orthographic projection no overlapping is formed between the second orthographic projection and the thirdorthographic projection and the third orthographic projection is at least partially overlapping with the fourth orthographic projection.”
There is no discussion in the specification of the orthographic projections. The examiner finds that the Annotated Figure presented by the applicant on page 7 of the remarks of December 29, 2025 presents an interpretation of orthographic projection inconsistent with the accepted meaning. See Orthographic projection, January 21 2026, Wikipedia, https://web.archive.org/web/20260121173526/https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Orthographic_projection.
Where applicant acts as his or her own lexicographer to specifically define a term of a claim contrary to its ordinary meaning, the written description must clearly redefine the claim term and set forth the uncommon definition so as to put one reasonably skilled in the art on notice that the applicant intended to so redefine that claim term. Process Control Corp. v. HydReclaim Corp., 190 F.3d 1350, 1357, 52 USPQ2d 1029, 1033 (Fed. Cir. 1999). The applicant shows orthographic projections onto a surface as orthogonal to a surface of the 3D object that is being projected. This is in contrast to an orthographic projection meaning orthogonal to the plane that the object is being projected onto. The term is indefinite because the specification does not clearly redefine the term. Based on the accepted definition it is noted that an orthographic projection onto a curved surface could have different locations.
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 (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of 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.
Claims 13-15, 27-28, and 33-34 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lee (U.S Pre-Grant Publication 20170370596) hereinafter Lee in view of Hayamitsu et al. (U.S Pre-Grant Publication 20180163748) hereinafter Hayamitsu and Hosoda et al. (U.S Patent 3,805,542) hereinafter Hosoda.
PNG
media_image1.png
657
641
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 13, Lee discloses:
A neck fan {[0001[}, comprising:
a shell, having a top wall defining a plurality of air outlets and a bottom wall opposite to the top wall {Annotated Figure 1, (I) is a top wall with a plurality of outlets including (IIIa) and (IIIb) along the top wall circumference; (II) is a bottom wall opposite the top wall. It is noted that the outlet of (IIIb) cannot be seen due to the perspective but are present due to the implicit symmetrical configuration of the fan, see MPEP 2112 / 2144.01};
a fan assembly, arranged in the shell and configured to generate wind flowing towards the plurality of air outlets {Annotated Figure 1 / Figure 5, (31) is a fan assembly that is arranged in the shell and generates air flow towards the plurality of outlets (IIIa) and (IIIb)},
wherein the fan assembly is disposed between the top wall and the bottom wall of the shell {Annotated Figure 1 (31) is disposed between (I) and (II)};
the plurality of air outlets comprise at least one first air outlet and at least one second air outlet {Annotated Figure 1, (IIIa) and (IIIb) are part of the plurality of air outlets};
the at least one second air outlet is dis-communicated with the at least one first air outlet via a portion of the top wall disposed between the at least one second air outlet and the at least one first air outlet {Annotated Figure 1, (IIIb) is dis-communicated with (IIIa) via the top wall portion (Ia) shown as a dotted line to reference that portion of the top wall;
the wind generated by the fan assembly is capable of flowing towards both the at least one first air outlet and the at least one second air outlet {Annotated Figure 1 / Figure 5, (31) is a fan assembly that is arranged in the shell and generates air flow towards the plurality of outlets (IIIa) and (IIIb)}
an orthographic projection of the at least one first air outlet onto the bottom wall of the shell is a first orthographic projection {Annotated Figure 1, (IVa) is a rough approximation by the examiner of the first orthographic projection}
an orthographic projection of the at least one second air outlet onto the bottom wall of the shell is a second orthographic projection {Annotated Figure 1, (IVb) is a rough approximation by the examiner of the second orthographic projection};
an orthographic projection of the fan assembly onto the bottom wall of the shell is a third orthographic projection {Annotated Figure 1, (IVc) is a rough approximation by the examiner of the third orthographic projection}
an orthographic projection of the portion of the top wall disposed between the at least one second air outlet and the at least one first air outlet onto the bottom wall of the shell is a fourth orthographic projection {Annotated Figure 1, no depiction is made as the fourth orthographic projection would cover most/all of the bottom wall} and
no overlapping is formed between the first orthographic projection and the third orthographic projection {Annotated Figure 1, (IVa) and (IVc) have no overlap}
no overlapping is formed between the second orthographic projection and the third orthographic projection {Annotated Figure 1, (IVb) and (IVc) have no overlap} and
the third orthographic projection is at least partially overlapping with the fourth orthographic projection {Annotated Figure 1 (IVc) would have at least partially overlapping with the fourth orthographic projection which covers most of the bottom wall}.
Chen does not disclose:
a wind guide tongue, connected to and extending from the top wall of the shell
wherein the wind guide tongue is curved, surrounds a portion of the fan assembly, and is configured to guide the wind to flow towards the plurality of air outlets
wherein the wind guide tongue comprises a connection end connected to the top wall of the shell and an air-guiding end away from the top wall of the shell;
the air-guiding end of the wind guide tongue comprises a bending portion and a free end;
the free end is extending from the bending portion towards the top wall of the shell; and
the free end is spaced apart from the top wall of the shell
Hayamitsu pertains to centrifugal fan casings which is analogous art as it is both in the same field of endeavor of centrifugal fans (and their casings) as well as being reasonably pertinent to the problem faced by the inventor of having centrifugal fan efficiently deliver air.
Hayamitsu teaches:
a wind guide tongue, connected to and extending from the top wall of the shell {Figure 7, (275C) is connected as a “single member” with the top wall of (20C); [0064]}
wherein the wind guide tongue is curved, surrounds a portion of the fan assembly, and is configured to guide the wind to flow towards the plurality of air outlets {Figure 7, (275C) is curved surrounds a portion of fan (21c), and is configured to guide the wind towards the plurality of outlets (22c); [0064]/[0066]}
wherein the wind guide tongue comprises a connection end connected to the top wall of the shell and an air-guiding end away from the top wall of the shell {Figure 7, the wind guide tongue (275c) has a connection end at the top of the figure that is connected to the top wall of the shell; the air guiding end is at the bottom which is away from the top wall of the shell}
wherein, the air-guiding end of the wind guide tongue comprises a bending portion and a free end {Annotated Figure 1 (I) comprises a bending portion near the leader of (275c) and a free end at the bottom region of (275c)}
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have added a wind guide tongue(s) as taught by Hayamitsu to the neck fan of Lee. One of ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to do so as the wind guide tongue is used to guide the air towards the outlets in a compact space {Hayamitsu [0066]-[0067].
Hosoda pertains to centrifugal fan casings which is analogous art as it is both in the same field of endeavor of centrifugal fans (and their casings) as well as being reasonably pertinent to the problem faced by the inventor of having centrifugal fan efficiently deliver air.
PNG
media_image2.png
668
708
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Hosoda teaches:
the free end is extending from the bending portion towards the top wall of the shell {Annotated Figure 2 and Figure 3, (Ib) extends from the bending portion (Ia) towards the top of the shell}; and
the free end is spaced apart from the top wall of the shell {Annotated Figure 2 and Figure 3, (Ib) is spaced from the top wall of the shell defined by the top portion of (1)}.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have used an a bending portion with a semicircular shape that has the free end extend towards the top wall of the shell as taught by Hosoda for the free end of the wind guide tongue as taught by the combination of Lee, Hayamitsu, and Liang. One of ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to do so wind guiding structures around a centrifugal fan are known to have bending portions with semicircular shapes to smoothly and effectively guide flows in 2 different directions {Hosoda Column 4 lines 32-40 and Column 3 lines 43-55}.
Regarding claim 14, the combination of Lee, Hayamitsu, and Hosoda further teaches:
wherein, the wind guide tongue is disposed between the at least one first air outlet and the fan assembly {Hayamitsu Figure 7, (275c) is between first air outlet which is the left instance of (22c) at the top and the fan assembly (21c); this relationship also applies to the first air outlet (IIIa) of Lee when modified by Hayamitsu}
the wind guide tongue is configured to guide a first portion of the wind to flow towards the at least one first air outlet and guide a second portion of the wind to flow towards the at least one second air outlet {Hayamitsu Figure 7, (275c) guides a first portion of the airflow caused by the fan to flow towards the first air out which is the left instance of (22c) at the top. It also guides a second portion of the wind to flow towards the at least one second air outlet which are the middle and right instances of (22c) at the top. This relationship also applies to the first and second air outlets (IIIa) and (IIIb) of Lee when modified by Hayamitsu}.
Regarding claim 15, the combination of Lee, Hayamitsu, and Hosoda further teaches:
wherein the air-guiding end is configured to guide the first portion of the wind to flow towards the at least one first air outlet {Hayamitsu Figure 7, the air guiding end is at the bottom which is away from the top wall of the shell. This portion guides a first portion of the airflow caused by the fan to flow towards the first air out which is the left instance of (22c) at the top. This relationship also applies to the first air outlet (IIIa) of Lee when modified by Hayamitsu }
Regarding claim 27, the combination of Lee, Hayamitsu, and Hosoda further teaches:
wherein, the shell further defines an air duct {Annotated Figure 1, airflow arrows show the interior of the shell acts as an air duct including (VII) except for the battery mounting portions (32)}, and
the plurality of air outlets are communicated with the air duct {Annotated Figure 1, airflow arrows show air duct (VII) sends air flow to the air outlets};
the neck fan further comprises a fan partition plate arranged in the shell {Annotated Figure 1 (Va/Vb) is arranged in the shell)},
the shell and the fan partition plate cooperatively define a fan receiving space and an air outputting channel communicating with the air duct {Annotated Figure 1, the shell and (Va/Vb) cooperatively define the space in which the fan (31) is received as well as the air outputting channel (VI) which communicates with the air duct (VII)};
the fan assembly is received in the fan receiving space and configured to generate wind flowing along the air outputting channel to the air duct to further reach the plurality of air outlets {Annotated Figure 1, (31) is received in the fan receiving space and generates airflow along the air outputting channel (VI) as shown by the arrows that reaches the plurality of air outets}.
Regarding claim 28, the combination of Lee, Hayamitsu, and Hosoda further teaches:
wherein, the fan partition plate comprises a fan receiving portion and an air outputting portion {Annotated Figure 1, the fan partition plate includes a fan receiving portion (Va) and an air outputting portion (Vb)},
the fan receiving portion and the shell cooperatively define the fan receiving space {Annotated Figure 1, (Va) and the shell cooperatively define a fan receiving space that extends a bit further than the size of the fan (31)}, and
the air outputting portion and the shell cooperatively define the air outputting channel {Annotated Figure 1, the air outputting portion (Vb) and the shell cooperatively define the air outputting channel (VI)};
the fan partition plate further comprises a protruding portion at a position where the fan receiving portion and the air outputting portion are connected to each other {Annotated Figure 1, the point where the fan receiving portion and air outputting portion may be roughly considered where the leader (32) points. This may be considered the protruding portion}, and
the protruding region is protruding towards an interior of the shell and away from the shell {Annotated Figure 1, the protruding portion described in the paragraph above protrudes towards the interior of the shell as the extension of this point is away from the bottom wall of the shell} .
Regarding claim 33, the combination of Lee, Hayamitsu, and Hosoda further teaches:
wherein the at least one first air outlet comprise two first air outlets {Annotated Figure 1 (IIIa) may also include other adjacent outlets as shown by the dotted circle};
the bending portion and the free end are configured to guide an equal amount of air to flow through the two first air outlets {This a function limitation. The examiner finds that the structure recited in the combination of Lee, Hayamitsu, and Hosoda is substantially identical to that of the claims; therefore the claimed properties / functions are presumed to be inherent, see MPEP 2112.01 I}
Regarding claim 34, the combination of Lee, Hayamitsu, and Hosoda teaches the neck fan of claim 13 but does not explicitly teach:
wherein, the portion of the top wall, which is disposed between the at least one second air outlet and the at least one first air outlet and dis- communicates the at least one second air outlet from the at least one first air outlet, defines at least one blind hole that is fluidly dis-communicated with the fan assembly.
Lee discloses a shell comprising a region with solid sections except for any potential outlets between the at least one first outlet and the at least one second outlet (IIIa) and (IIIb) in Annotated Figure 1.
Since applicant has not disclosed that having a blind hole / recess formed in this solid region of the shell solves any stated problem or is for any particular purpose and it appears that the shell of Liu would perform equally well with a recess in this solid region as claimed by applicant, it would have been an obvious matter of design choice to modify the shell of the combination of Lee, Hayamitsu and Hosoda by using a blind hole / recess as claimed.
It is noted that the examiner finds that the presence of a solid region which blocks airflow from exiting the shell is done for functional/performance/engineering reasons as described in paragraph [0108] of the instant application. In contrast, the presence of a recess / blind hole in this region where airflow is blocked is not found to be done for functional / performance / engineering reasons. There is no functionality discussed for the blind hole / recess itself in the shell compared to a smooth region of shell. For the exterior of a shell of the fan, a region with a smooth shell and no recess functions identically to a region with a shell that does have a recess / blind hole. The recess is therefore found to have no mechanical function. The presence of the recess appears to be a shallow indentation (9) in Figure 67 which mimics the outlets 3 and 4 in appearance. This further points to the recess being present for aesthetic design purposes rather than a mechanical function.
Additionally, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have used a recess in a solid region of the shell between outlets. One of ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to do so for aesthetic purposes {see MPEP 2144.04 I}.
Claims 17-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lee in view of Hayamitsu, and Hosoda as applied to claim 13 above, and further in view of Wang (WO2020248670) hereinafter Wang.
Regarding claim 17, The combination of Lee, Hayamitsu, and Hosoda teaches the neck fan of claim 13, but is silent regarding the dimensions of the components and gaps between components and is therefore silent regarding, “wherein the bending portion is an arc of a circle, and a diameter of the arc of the bending portion is in a range from 0.5mm to 5mm”.
Wang pertains to neck fans. Wang teaches a size of the neck fan may be between 1 cm to 8 cm (10 mm to 80 mm) {page 10, paragraph 12}.
Since Lee is silent regarding the dimensions and sizes of the gaps between components, one of ordinary skill in the art would have to choose. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have chosen the diameter of the fan of the combination of Lee, Hayamitsu, and Hosoda to be 10 mm to 80 mm as taught by Wang. Additionally, one of ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to do so as a fan to be worn around the neck could not be too large, but at the same time must be large enough to supply adequate airflow to address the problem of humans being overheated {Wang page 1, paragraph 1; page 10, paragraph 12}.
Hosoda teaches the bending portion has a portion that is roughly circular and that has a diameter that is relatively small compared to the diameter of the fan, clearly less than one half {Figure 4, (3h) compared to (D); see MPEP 2125; no “precise proportions” are relied upon}.
Since Lee is silent regarding the dimensions and sizes of the gaps between components, one of ordinary skill in the art would have to choose. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have chosen the diameter of the bent portion to be less than one half of the diameter of the fan as taught by Hosoda for the neck fan of the combination of Lee, Hayamitsu, and Hosoda and Wang. Additionally, one of ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to do so as a large diameter of the curved portion is not necessary to reduce the noise and increase the efficiency of the fan {Hosoda Column 4 lines 32-40 and Column 3 lines 43-55}.
The combination of Lee, Hayamitsu, Hosoda, and Wang therefore teaches: a range of the diameter of the bent portion being less than 5mm to 40mm {a diameter of the bent portion being less than one half of the diameter of the fan that is 10mm to 80mm}.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have chosen a diameter of the bent portion to be in the range of 0.5mm to 5mm. One of ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to do so as overlapping ranges are obvious, see MPEP 2144.05 I.
Regarding claim 18, the combination of Lee, Hayamitsu, Hosoda, and Wang teaches the neck fan of claim 17, but is silent regarding most of the dimensions of the components and gaps between components and is therefore silent regarding, “wherein a distance from a center of the circle of the arc of the bending portion to the top wall of the shell is in a range from 6mm to 25mm”.
Hosoda teaches:
the center of the circle of the arc of the bending portion is roughly at the same vertical location of the center of the fan {Annotated Figure 2 (IV) is roughly at the same vertical location as the center of the fan}.
Hosoda therefore teaches the distance from center of the bending portion to the top wall (see Fig. 3) is roughly represented by 0.5D + Bd. The distance Bd is taught by Hosoda as being between 0.1D to 0.4D {Column 4 lines 60-65}. Therefore the distance is roughly 0.6D to 0.9D.
Since Lee is silent regarding the dimensions and sizes of the gaps between components, one of ordinary skill in the art would have to choose. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have chosen the distance between the center of the bending portion to the top wall of the shell to be roughly 0.6D to 0.9D as taught by Hosoda for the neck fan of the combination of Lee, Hayamitsu, Hosoda, and Wang. Additionally, one of ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to do so as this range is helpful to reduce the noise and increase the efficiency of the fan {Hosoda Column 4 lines 60-65}.
The combination of Lee, Hayamitsu, Hosoda, and Wang therefore teaches: a range of the diameter of the bent portion being from 6mm to 72mm {the distance is roughly 0.6D to 0.9D for a diameter of the fan that is 10mm to 80mm}.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have chosen a distance from the center of the bending portion to the top wall of the shell to be in the range of 6mm to 25mm. One of ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to do so as overlapping ranges are obvious, see MPEP 2144.05 I.
Regarding claim 19, the combination of Lee, Hayamitsu, and Hosoda teaches the neck fan of claim 13 and wherein the fan assembly has a circumferential wall {Lee, (31) has an outer circumferential wall at the max radius}.
Lee is silent regarding the dimensions of the components and gaps between components and is therefore silent regarding, “a distance between the curved wind guide tongue and the circumferential wall of the fan assembly is in a range from 1mm to 6mm”.
Hosoda pertains to centrifugal fan casings which is analogous art as it is both in the same field of endeavor of centrifugal fans (and their casings) as well as being reasonably pertinent to the problem faced by the inventor of having centrifugal fan efficiently deliver air.
Hosoda teaches:
The distance between the curved wind guide tongue and the circumferential wall of the fan assembly is 0.02 to 0.20 of the diameter {Figure 4 (Ad); Column 4 lines 49-54}.
Since Lee is silent regarding the dimensions and sizes of the gaps between components, one of ordinary skill in the art would have to choose. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have chosen the distance between the wind guide tongue and the circumferential wall of Lee to be 0.02 to 0.20 the size of the diameter of the fan as taught by Hosoda. Additionally, one of ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to do so to reduce noise and increase the efficiency of the fan {Hosoda Column 4 lines 49-54}.
Wang pertains to neck fans. Wang teaches a size of the neck fan may be between 1 cm to 8 cm (10 mm to 80 mm) {page 10, paragraph 12}.
Since Lee is silent regarding the dimensions and sizes of the gaps between components, one of ordinary skill in the art would have to choose. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have chosen the diameter of the fan of Lee to be 10 mm to 80 mm as taught by Wang. Additionally, one of ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to do so as a fan to be worn around the neck could not be too large, but at the same time must be large enough to supply adequate airflow to address the problem of humans being overheated {Wang page 1, paragraph 1; page 10, paragraph 12}.
The combination of Lee, Hayamitsu, Hosoda, and Wang therefore teaches a distance between the curved wind guide tongue and the circumferential wall of the fan assembly is in a range from 0.2 mm to 16 mm {see teachings directly above related to Hosoda and Wang as well as math below}
10
m
m
×
0.02
=
0.2
m
m
80
m
m
×
0.2
=
16
m
m
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have chosen the distance between the wind guide tongue and the circumferential wall of Lee to be 1 mm to 6 mm based on the teachings of Hosoda and Wang. One of ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to do so as overlapping ranges are obvious, see MPEP 2144.05 I.
Regarding claim 20, the combination of Lee, Hayamitsu, and Hosoda teaches the neck fan of claim 13 and wherein, a diameter of circle of the curved wind guide tongue is greater than a diameter of the fan assembly {Hayamitsu Figure 7, the diameter of (275c) is greater than a diameter of the fan assembly (21c); it is also clear to a person of ordinary skill in the art that the diameter of the wind guide tongue is larger than a diameter of the fan assembly, see MPEP 2125}.
Lee and Hayamitsu are silent regarding the dimensions of the components and gaps between components and is therefore silent regarding, “a distance between the curved wind guide tongue and the circumferential wall of the fan assembly is in a range from 1mm to 6mm”.
Wang pertains to neck fans. Wang teaches a size of the neck fan may be between 1 cm to 8 cm (10 mm to 80 mm) {page 10, paragraph 12}.
Since Lee is silent regarding the dimensions and sizes of the gaps between components, one of ordinary skill in the art would have to choose. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have chosen the diameter of the fan of Chen to be 10 mm to 80 mm as taught by Wang. Additionally, one of ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to do so as a fan to be worn around the neck could not be too large, but at the same time must be large enough to supply adequate airflow to address the problem of humans being overheated {Wang page 1, paragraph 1; page 10, paragraph 12}.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have chosen diameter of the curved wind guide tongue to be in a range from 40mm to 60mm based on the teachings of Wang that the fan diameter is 10mm to 80mm as well as Lee teaching that the wind guide tongue is only slightly larger in diameter than the fan assembly. One of ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to do so as overlapping ranges are obvious, see MPEP 2144.05 I.
Conclusion
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 MICHAEL K. REITZ whose telephone number is (571)272-1387. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 7:30 a.m. -5:30 p.m.
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, Courtney Heinle can be reached at 5712703508. 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.
/MICHAEL K. REITZ/Examiner, Art Unit 3745