DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application is being examined under the pre-AIA first to invent provisions.
Claim Objections
Claim 4 is objected to because of the following informalities:
In claim 4, “an center angle” should read “a center angle”.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of pre-AIA 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 –
(b) the invention was patented or described in a printed publication in this or a foreign country or in public use or on sale in this country, more than one year prior to the date of application for patent in the United States.
Claims 1-3 and 6 are rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Kim (KR2019 0002219).
PNG
media_image1.png
539
632
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 1, Kim teaches a handheld fan, at least comprising a mesh grid assembly (110, 120), a motor (140), and fan blades (130), wherein the mesh grid assembly comprises a front mesh component (110) and a rear mesh component (120), the front mesh component and the rear mesh component are fixedly combined with each other, at least one portion of the front mesh component extends in a direction away from the rear mesh component (see Fig. 3), and at least one portion of the rear mesh component extends in a direction away from the front mesh component (see Fig. 3); and the motor is accommodated between the front mesh component and the rear mesh component (see Fig. 3), and the motor drives the fan blades to rotate between the front mesh component and the rear mesh component.
Regarding claim 2, Kim teaches the front mesh component comprises a front mesh ring frame (see annotated figure), front mesh spokes (see annotated figure) and a front mesh central support (see annotated figure) arranged in sequence from outside to inside, the front mesh spokes extend in both a radial direction and an axial direction of the front mesh component, so that the front mesh ring frame and the front mesh central support are in mutual misalignment in the axial direction; the rear mesh component comprises a rear mesh ring frame (see annotated figure), rear mesh spokes (see annotated figure) and a motor base (see annotated figure) arranged in sequence from outside to inside, and the rear mesh spokes extend in both a radial direction and an axial direction of the rear mesh component, so that the rear mesh ring frame and the motor base are in mutual misalignment in the axial direction; the front mesh ring frame of the front mesh component and the rear mesh ring frame of the rear mesh component are fixedly combined with each other, so that the front mesh component and the rear mesh component are fixedly combined with each other; and the motor is fixed on the motor base of the rear mesh component.
Regarding claim 3, Kim teaches the front mesh spokes of the front mesh component extend from the front mesh ring frame to the front mesh central support along an arc path (see Fig. 3); and the rear mesh spokes of the rear mesh component extend from the rear mesh ring frame to the motor base along an arc path (see Fig. 3).
Regarding claim 6, Kim teaches the motor comprises an outer rotor motor (generally 140); the fan blades comprise a central support hub (130), and the central support hub is provided with fan blade bodies (fan blades attached to central hub 130, see Fig. 3) distributed along a circumferential direction thereof; and the central support hub of the fan blades are sleeved on an outer rotor of the motor (see Fig. 3).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
(a) A patent may not be obtained though the invention is not identically disclosed or described as set forth in section 102 of this title, if the differences between the subject matter sought to be patented and the prior art are such that the subject matter as a whole would have been obvious at the time the invention was made to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which said subject matter pertains. Patentability shall not be negatived by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claims 4-5 and 11-12 are rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over Kim.
Regarding claims 4-5 and 12, Kim teaches the handheld fan according to claim 3, but fails to explicitly teach an axial section of the front mesh component comprises the front mesh spokes which are arc-shaped, and a center angle α of the front mesh spokes comprises 70° to 80°, wherein an axial section of the rear mesh component comprises the rear mesh spokes which are arc-shaped, and a central angle ß of the rear mesh spokes comprises 70° to 80°.
However, Kim teaches the angle of the front and rear spokes have angles set to maximize flow direction (see translation, page 1 and claim 3). Thus, Kim teaches the angle of the spokes is a result effective variable.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the fan of Kim and change the center angle α of the front mesh spokes to comprise 70° to 80°, and the central angle ß of the rear mesh spokes to comprise 70° to 80° to optimize a result effective variable to maximize flow direction.
Regarding claim 11, Kim teaches the handheld fan according to claim 2, but fails to teach inside the front mesh central support of the front mesh component or the motor base of the rear mesh component is provided at least one lighting module.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the fan of Kim and change it so that inside the front mesh central support of the front mesh component or the motor base of the rear mesh component is provided at least one lighting module because Kim teaches a lighting module (170) is installed at the connection between front and rear mesh spokes.
Claim 7 is rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over Kim in view of Tzeng (US11536279).
Regarding claim 7, Kim teaches the handheld fan according to claim 6, but fails to teach an outer diameter of the central support hub is D1 and an outer diameter of the fan blade bodies is D2, and D1:D2=0.5-0.6.
In an analogous art, Tzeng teaches a blade rotor. Tzeng teaches a ratio between the rotor hub diameter and blade diameter is 0.3 to 0.85. Tzeng teaches this arrangement improves vibration and noise (see Col. 2 lines 8-27).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the fan of Kim and change it so that an outer diameter of the central support hub is D1 and an outer diameter of the fan blade bodies is D2, and D1:D2=0.5-0.6 as taught by Tzeng to improve vibration and noise.
Claim 8 is rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over Kim in view of Ishigaki et al. (US2004/0067133).
Regarding claim 8, Kim teaches the handheld fan according to claim 6, but fails to teach a distance between adjacent blade bodies is L and an outer diameter of the blade bodies is D2, and L: D2=0.3-0.4.
In an analogous art, Ishigaki teaches a pump impeller. Ishigaki teaches a ratio between impeller outer diameter (D2) and inter-vane distance (L) is optimized for suction performance (see paragraphs [0106-0108]). Thus, Ishigaki teaches the ratio L:D2 is a result effective variable.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the fan of Kim and change it so that a distance between adjacent blade bodies is L and an outer diameter of the blade bodies is D2, and L: D2=0.3-0.4 according to Ishigaki to optimize a result effective variable to optimize performance.
Claim 13 is rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over Kim in view of Tzeng and Ishigaki.
Regarding claim 13, Kim in view of Tzeng teach the handheld fan according to claim 7, but fail to teach a distance between adjacent blade bodies is L and an outer diameter of the blade bodies is D2, and L: D2=0.3-0.4.
In an analogous art, Ishigaki teaches a pump impeller. Ishigaki teaches a ratio between impeller outer diameter (D2) and inter-vane distance (L) is optimized for suction performance (see paragraphs [0106-0108]). Thus, Ishigaki teaches the ratio L:D2 is a result effective variable.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the fan of Kim in view of Tzeng and change it so that a distance between adjacent blade bodies is L and an outer diameter of the blade bodies is D2, and L: D2=0.3-0.4 according to Ishigaki to optimize a result effective variable to optimize performance.
Claim 9 is rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over Kim in view of Rao et al. (WO2022/142379).
PNG
media_image2.png
665
360
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 9, Kim teaches the handheld fan according to claim 1, and further teaches a handle assembly (generally 150), but fails to teach wherein the handle assembly comprises a handheld portion and a pivot arm connected to one end of the handheld portion; and the mesh grid assembly is pivotally connected to the pivot arm of the handle assembly, so that the mesh grid assembly, the motor and the fan blades all swing in pitch and/or horizontally relative to the handle assembly.
In an analogous art, Rao teaches a fan. Rao teaches a pivot arm (see Fig. 4) attached to the fan head to allow for tilting movement of the fan rotor.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the fan of Kim and change it to have a handle assembly that comprises a handheld portion and a pivot arm connected to one end of the handheld portion; and the mesh grid assembly is pivotally connected to the pivot arm of the handle assembly, so that the mesh grid assembly, the motor and the fan blades all swing in pitch and/or horizontally relative to the handle assembly according to the teachings of Rao to allow for tilting movement of the fan rotor.
Claim 10 is rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over Kim in view of Rao and Oh et al. (US2016/0249718).
Regarding claim 10, Kim as modified teaches the handheld fan according to claim 9, but fails to teach the handle assembly further comprises a functional ring; the functional ring is pivoted to another end of the handheld portion relative to the pivot arm, and the functional ring is able to be rotated and positioned relative to the handheld portion.
In an analogous art, Oh teaches a holster system. Oh teaches a functional ring (27) that functions to deploy and rotate to prop up a handheld device (see paragraph [0146]).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the fan of Kim as modified and change it so that the handle assembly further comprises a functional ring; the functional ring is pivoted to another end of the handheld portion relative to the pivot arm, and the functional ring is able to be rotated and positioned relative to the handheld portion as taught by Oh to prop up the handheld device.
The limitations after “and/or” are considered optional.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Documents KR20230052553, KR20200124026, US6454537 and CN111577629 teach handheld fans.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to CAMERON A CORDAY whose telephone number is (571)272-0383. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8-4 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, Courtney Heinle can be reached at (571) 270-3508. 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.
/CAMERON A CORDAY/Examiner, Art Unit 3745
/COURTNEY D HEINLE/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3745