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 .
Status of the Application
This Office action is in response to the amendment of November 4, 2025 which amended claims 1 and 2.
Drawings
The Amendments to the specification have overcome the previous drawing objections.
Claim Objections
The Amendment to claim 1 has overcome the previously set forth claim objection.
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 6 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.
Regarding claim 6, line 1, "a radial length of the first air path" is indefinite. The
term "a radial length" is ambiguous and is not a term known in the art. The radial length is not a variable that is clearly defined since it could be a radial length of the first air path but this radial distance varies (as shown by the plural lower arrows in the annotated Fig. 3 below) or the radial distance could be a radial thickness of the path which also varies (as shown by the upper arrows in the annotated Fig. 3 below) or something else.
PNG
media_image1.png
382
682
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1-4, 6, and 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being
anticipated by Xiong et al. (WO 2023/029426 A1 using US 2024/0209865 A1 as English
translation equivalent; hereinafter Xiong).
Regarding claim 1, Xiong discloses a blower apparatus (Figure 25),
comprising: a blower housing [100, 600, 840], wherein the blower housing [100,
600, 840] has an air inlet [601] and an air outlet [A, 841] (see annotated Figures 1
and 6 below for all reference letters); a motor [200, 300]; a blade base [530], driven
by the motor [200, 300] to rotate along a base axis [B] for carrying external air from the air inlet [601] to the air outlet [A, 841]; and a plurality of fan blades [510] extending
from the blade base [530], wherein each fan blade [510] comprises multiple edges
[C, D, E], wherein a first edge [C] is closest to the base axis [B], wherein a second
edge [D] connects the first edge [C] and a third edge [E], wherein the third edge [E]
is farthest from the base axis [B], and wherein an angle [F] between the first edge
[C] of the fan blade [510] and the base axis [B] is equal or less than 80 degrees
(paragraphs 0060, 0062, 0067, 0070, 0082, 0084-0085, 0100-0102, Figures 1-2, 16, 20-
21, 24-26, and annotated Figure 6 below);
wherein the blower housing [100, 600, 840] comprises a first air path (see [101, 102]) and a second air path (see [201, 123]), wherein the first air path and the second air path are both configured to carry the external air from the air inlet to the air outlet (the external air flowing along both the first path and the second path enters at the inlet and exits at the outlet opening A), and wherein the second air path is configured to cool the motor [200, 300] (paragraphs 0060, 0082, 0084-0088, and Figures 1, 16, and 21);
when the plurality of fan blades rotate, the external air enters the blower housing through the air inlet (see annotated Fig. 21 below), with one portion (labeled in the annotated figure below) of the external air flowing along the first air path toward the air outlet, and another portion (labeled in the annotated figure below) of the external air flowing along the second air path through the plurality of fan blades toward the air outlet.
PNG
media_image2.png
510
738
media_image2.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image3.png
492
562
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 2, Xiong discloses the blower apparatus of claim 1, wherein the first air path (see [101, 102]) carries more air than the second air path (see [201, 123]).
Regarding claim 3, Xiong discloses the blower apparatus of claim 2, wherein
the motor [200, 300], the blade base [530], and the plurality of fan blades [510] are
disposed inside the blower housing [100, 600, 840], wherein the plurality of fan blades [510] and the blade base [530] are positioned facing the air inlet [601]
(paragraphs 0060, 0070, and Figures 1, 6, 21, and 25).
Regarding claim 4, Xiong discloses the blower apparatus of claim 3, wherein
the blower housing [100, 600, 840] comprises an air inlet pipe [600] and an air
outlet pipe (bottom split sleeve portion of mounting sleeve [840] containing exhaust
holes [841]), wherein the air inlet [601] is disposed on the air inlet pipe [600],
wherein the air outlet [A, 841] is disposed on the air outlet pipe (bottom split sleeve
portion of mounting sleeve [840] containing exhaust holes [841]), wherein an upper
duct [100] and a lower duct [210] are provided between the air inlet pipe [600] and
the air outlet pipe (bottom split sleeve portion of mounting sleeve [840] containing
exhaust holes [841]), wherein the upper duct [100] is connected to the air inlet pipe
[600], wherein the upper duct [100] comprises a first passage [101, 102]
communicating with the first air path (see [101, 102]) and a second passage [201,
123] communicating with the second air path (see [201, 123]), and wherein the first
passage [101, 102] is formed around the outer periphery of the second passage
[201, 123] (paragraphs 0060, 0082, 0084-0088, and Figures 1, 16, and 21).
Regarding claim 6, Xiong discloses the blower apparatus of claim 4, wherein a
ratio of a radial length of the first air path (see [101, 102]) within the upper duct
[100] to an outer diameter of the fan blades [510] is greater than 0.05 (see Figure 1;
wherein the length of the first air path (see [101, 102]) is at least 5% as long as the
outer diameter of the rotary blades [510], also see paragraph 6 above), and wherein a
ratio of a diameter of the air outlet [A, 841] to the outer diameter of the fan blades
[510] is greater than 0.15 (see annotated Figure 1 above; wherein the diameter of the
air outlet, specifically portion [A], is greater than the outer diameter of the rotary blades
[510], i.e., the ratio is greater than 1).
Regarding claim 15, Xiong discloses the blower apparatus of claim 1, further
comprising a handle [830] connected to the blower housing [100, 600, 840],
wherein the handle [830] is configured for an operator to grip (paragraphs 0100-
0102 and Figures 24-26).
Claims 1 and 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by
Conrad et al. (US 2016/0120131 A1; hereinafter Conrad).
Regarding claim 1, Conrad discloses a blower apparatus [10], comprising: a
blower housing [12], wherein the blower housing [12] has an air inlet [20] and an
air outlet [44, 46, 48]; a motor [34]; a blade base [24], driven by the motor [34] to
rotate along a base axis [G] (see annotated Figure 3 below for all reference letters) for
carrying air from the air inlet [20] to the air outlet [44, 46, 48]; and a plurality of fan
blades [32] extending from the blade base [24], wherein each fan blade [32]
comprises multiple edges [H, I, J], wherein a first edge [H] is closest to the base
axis [G], wherein a second edge [I] connects the first edge [H] and a third edge [J],
wherein the third edge [J] is farthest from the base axis [G], and wherein an angle
[K] between the first edge [H] of the fan blade [32] and the base axis [G] is equal or
less than 80 degrees (paragraphs 0017-0028, Figures 1-2, 7-9, and annotated Figure
3 below).
PNG
media_image4.png
578
608
media_image4.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 15, Conrad discloses the blower apparatus of claim 1, further
comprising a handle [98] connected to the blower housing [12], wherein the
handle [98] is configured for an operator to grip (paragraphs 0017, 0028, and
Figures 1-3).
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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claim 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Xiong as
applied to claim 4 above, and further in view of Lee (US 2022/0252076 A1).
Regarding claim 7, Xiong discloses the blower apparatus of claim 4, wherein a
minimum distance between an outer edge of the fan blades [510] and an inner
wall surface of the air inlet pipe [600] is present (Figure 1). Xiong is silent as to the
specific distance between an outer edge of the fan blades and the inner wall surface of
the air inlet pipe. Lee, however, teaches a similar blower apparatus [100] comprising
fan blades [620] in an air inlet pipe [510], wherein a minimum distance between an outer
edge of the fan blades [620] and an inner wall surface [515] of the air inlet pipe [510] is
between 0.3 mm and 3 mm (0.5-2.5 mm) (paragraphs 0029-0030, 0042-0043, and
Figures 1-2 and 6-7). It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in
the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to configure a minimum
distance between an outer edge of Xiong's fan blades and an inner wall surface of the
air inlet pipe to be between 0.3 mm and 3 mm because Lee teaches that this
configuration avoids the blades scraping the casing inner wall, reduces noise, and
increases blowing efficiency (paragraph 0043).
Claim 14 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Xiong as
applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Tang et al. (CN 217306902 U using
machine translation; hereinafter Tang).
Regarding claim 14, Xiong does not disclose a backplate and power supply
assembly. Tang, however, teaches a similar blower apparatus (Figure 1) comprising a
blower housing [100], further comprising a backplate [200] and a power supply
assembly (page 5: "battery"), wherein the backplate [200] comprises a mounting
slot [20], wherein the blower housing [100] is at least partially mounted (see [fourth
terminal [61]) in the mounting slot [20], wherein the power supply assembly (page
5: "battery") is mounted on the backplate [200] to supply power to the motor, and
wherein the backplate [200] is configured to be worn by a user and is positioned
against the user's back (page 5 and Figures 1-3 and 7). It would have been obvious
to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed
invention to configure Xiong's blower apparatus to be used in conjunction with a
backplate and power supply assembly because Tang teaches that blowers can be used
in this manner for gardening (pages 1 and 7).
Claim 14 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Conrad as
applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Tang.
Regarding claim 14, Conrad does not disclose a backplate configured to be worn
by a user. Tang, however, teaches a similar blower apparatus (Figure 1) comprising a
blower housing [100], further comprising a backplate [200] and a power supply
assembly (page 5: "battery"), wherein the backplate [200] comprises a mounting
slot [20], wherein the blower housing [100] is at least partially mounted (see [fourth
terminal [61]) in the mounting slot [20], wherein the power supply assembly (page
5: "battery") is mounted on the backplate [200] to supply power to the motor, and
wherein the backplate [200] is configured to be worn by a user and is positioned
against the user's back (page 5 and Figures 1-3 and 7). It would have been obvious
to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed
invention to configure Conrad's lawn, leaf, and turf blower apparatus to be used in
conjunction with a backplate and power supply assembly because Tang teaches that
blowers can be worn by a user for gardening (pages 1 and 7).
Claims 16-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over
Conrad as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Peters et al. (US
2022/0232762 A1; hereinafter Peters).
Regarding claims 16 and 17, Conrad discloses the blower apparatus of claim
1, further comprising a receiver [66], and a rotation motor [52] (wherein linear
movement of actuator [52] causes rotation of control lever [50]), wherein the blower
housing [12] is mountable on a vehicle [80] via a mounting bracket [82], wherein
the receiver [66] is configured to receive a command to drive the rotation motor
[52] to adjust a direction of the air outlet [44, 46, 48] (specifically, outlet tube [48]),
further comprising a controller [58], wherein the controller [58] is configured to be
operated by a user to send the command to the receiver [66] (paragraphs 0023-
0025, 0027, and Figures 1-2 and 7-9). Conrad does not disclose the receiver being a
wireless receiver or the controller being a wireless controller. Peters, however, teaches
a similar riding lawn mower [10] comprising a wireless receiver [195] and a wireless
controller [140, 190] (paragraphs 0022, 0035-0038, and Figures 1A and 3B). It would
have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing
date of the claimed invention to configure Conrad's receiver and controller to be
wireless because Peters teaches that wireless receivers and controllers can be used on
riding lawn mowers as an alternative to wired connections to wirelessly communicate
selections made by the operator to an actuator to cause a corresponding control impact
on the work assembly, functional component, or accessory that the actuator is operably
coupled to and configured to control (paragraphs 0035 and 0036-0038). This eliminates
wires which offers benefits of aesthetics, convenience, mobility, and simplification.
Regarding claim 18, the modified Conrad discloses the blower apparatus of
claim 17, wherein the wireless controller [58] is fixedly mounted on a control
handle [68] of the vehicle [80] via a clamp (see curved connection between mounting
pad [68] and control [58] in Figures 1-2) (paragraph 0025 and Figures 1-2 and 7).
Regarding claim 19, the modified Conrad discloses the blower apparatus of
claim 17, wherein the wireless controller [58] is rod-shaped (see knob [62]) and
forms a part of the control handle [68] (paragraph 0025 and Figures 1-2; wherein the
mounting pad [68] and control [58] are integrally affixed).
Regarding claim 20, the modified Conrad discloses the blower apparatus of
claim 19, wherein the rod-shaped wireless controller [58] is attached to the operated by a user to send the command to the receiver [66] (paragraphs 0023-0025, 0027, and Figures 1-2 and 7-9). Conrad does not disclose the receiver being a wireless receiver or the controller being a wireless controller. Peters, however, teaches a similar riding lawn mower [10] comprising a wireless receiver [195] and a wireless controller [140, 190] (paragraphs 0022, 0035-0038, and Figures 1A and 3B). It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing
date of the claimed invention to configure Conrad's receiver and controller to be
wireless because Peters teaches that wireless receivers and controllers can be used on
riding lawn mowers as an alternative to wired connections to wirelessly communicate
selections made by the operator to an actuator to cause a corresponding control impact
on the work assembly, functional component, or accessory that the actuator is operably
coupled to and configured to control (paragraphs 0035 and 0036-0038). This eliminates
wires which offers benefits of aesthetics, convenience, mobility, and simplification.
PNG
media_image5.png
362
594
media_image5.png
Greyscale
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 5 and 8-13 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base
claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the
limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject
matter: Regarding claim 5, the combination including the upper duct being conically
shaped and gradually tapering toward the air inlet and the lower duct being conically
shaped and gradually tapering toward the air outlet in the invention as claimed is neither
disclosed nor rendered obvious by the prior art. Regarding claim 8, the combination
including an outer side of the motor being encased by a sleeve, wherein the sleeve is
housed within the lower duct, wherein the second air path is formed between the sleeve
and the motor, wherein a guiding cone is connected to the side of the lower duct facing
the air outlet, wherein a radius of the guiding cone gradually decreases in the airflow
direction of the second air path, wherein the guiding cone is provided with an opening
for airflow to exit, and wherein the first air path and the second air path communicate at
the opening in the invention as claimed is neither disclosed nor rendered obvious by the
prior art.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed November 4, 2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
The applicant argues with regards to the rejections under 35 USC 112b and the radial length limitation that this is a known term in the art. While the term is generally understood and used under a variety of conditions understanding the length requires a proper reference frame for judging the starting point and the ending point. Further, the Applicant suggest that the radial length could be defined as the distance in Fig. 3 of their arguments on page 13 of the arguments. This is not found persuasive since the distance illustrated is variable along the duct and because these starting and end points have not been defined by the claim.
With regards to the rejections under 35 USC 102 of claim 1 the applicant argues on page 9 that claim 1 requires “the blower housing 1-10 has two separate air paths, namely, a first air path 1-103 that is configured to carry air from the air inlet 1-111 to the air outlet 1-141 (see Figs. 3, 4), and a second air path 1-104 that is also configured to carry air from the air inlet 1-111 to the air outlet 1-141 (see Figs. 3, 8).” This is not found persuasive since the claim language does not limit the two paths to being “separate” as argued by the applicant. In response to applicant's argument that the references fail to show certain features of the invention, it is noted that the features upon which applicant relies (i.e., the air paths being separate) are not recited in the rejected claim(s). 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). Further, it is noted that as shown in the applicant’s own Fig. 3 the air entering through the inlet 606 flows to both air flow paths and the paths are not separate as argued. Also the applicant argus that the second air path of Xiong is not configured to carry air from the inlet since it gets are from the first air path. This is not found persuasive because the air in the first air path is air from the inlet. It is noted that once again the applicant is arguing details disclosed but not present in the claims.
The applicant argues against claim 4, on page 11, asserting that the element 210 cannot be considered as a lower duct because it is not a pipe, tube of channel and is designed to hold the stator and windings. This is not persuasive because the element 210 is annular and does define a flow path and is a channel having a cooling flow there thru. The fact that it also holds a stator does not change the analysis. Using the applicant’s example of a pipe being a duct if a pipe had a protective lining or coating on it's interior surface it would not suddenly become a non-duct or non-pipe element. Similarly the fact that the element 210 holds a stator does not eliminate this element from broadly defining a duct since it defines the air path thereon.
With regards to claim 6 and in view of its broad and confusing language as noted above claim 6 is still considered anticipated as far as the claim can be understood.
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 CHARLES G FREAY whose telephone number is (571)272-4827. The examiner can normally be reached Mon - Fri: 8:00 - 5:00.
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
CGF
May 22, 2026
Prosecution Insights