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 Objections
Claims 1, 3, 6, 8, 11, 13, 16, recite the term “motor” in relation to the motor that is part of the fan assembly, while claims 5 and 15 recite a “driving motor”. Optionally, consider using the term --fan motor-- to refer to the motor that drives the fan/blower, for further distinction from the drive motor.
In claims 5 and 15, consider --a driving motor that is positioned apart from the fan assembly and in mechanical communication with the one or more movable elements to propel the walk-behind blower
In claims 6 and 16, consider -- gradually increase a target rotational velocity [[at]] of the motor from a static state--
In claims 9 and 19, consider --wherein the one or more movable elements comprises a forward wheel rotatably mounted forward from the first end and a rear wheel rotatably mounted rearward from the first end--.
Double Patenting
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a nonstatutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13.
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer.
Claim 1, 2, 3, 8, 11, 12, and 13 provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 1 and 15 of copending Application No. 19/354,223 in view of Suchoza (US 20240423128 A1; application 18/749,702 claims benefit of provisional application 63/522,521 filed 06/22/2023, the provisional application provides support for the cited aspects of the reference; a copy of the provisional may be obtained from Patent Center or Open Data Portal)
Instant Claims
Reference Claims
1.A walk-behind blower comprising:
a frame;
one or more movable elements mounted to the frame to movably support the frame;
a housing supported on the frame, the housing defining an airflow conduit extending therethrough between a first end and a second end; and
a fan assembly disposed between the first end and the second end, the fan assembly comprising an axial fan having a plurality of fan blades, and a motor rotatably connected to the axial fan.
1. A walk-behind blower comprising:
a frame;
one or more movable elements mounted to the frame to movably support the frame;
a housing supported on the frame, the housing defining an airflow conduit extending therethrough between a first end and a second end,
at least a portion of the housing being movable relative to the frame to selectively redirect an airflow from the airflow conduit; and
a fan assembly disposed between the first end and the second end to motivate the airflow through the airflow conduit.
11. A walk-behind blower comprising:
a frame;
one or more movable elements mounted to the frame to movably support the frame;
a battery compartment attached to the frame to receive a battery pack;
a housing attached on the frame, the housing defining an airflow conduit extending therethrough between a first end and a second end;
and a fan assembly disposed between the first end and the second end, the fan assembly comprising a blower fan having a plurality of fan blades, and a motor rotatably connected to the blower fan, the motor being in electrical communication with the battery pack to motivate rotation of the blower fan.
15. A walk-behind blower comprising:
a frame;
one or more movable elements mounted to the frame to movably support the frame;
a housing supported on the frame, the housing defining an airflow conduit extending therethrough between a first end and a second end,
at least a portion of the housing being movable relative to the frame to selectively redirect an airflow from the airflow conduit;
a propulsion motor in mechanical communication with the one or more movable elements to motivate travel of the walk-behind blower;
a fan assembly disposed between the first end and the second end to motivate the airflow through the airflow conduit; a positional motor attached to the housing in mechanical communication with the housing to selectively redirect the air conduit according to a directional input signal; and a plurality of batteries attached to the frame in electric communication with the propulsion motor, the fan assembly, and the positional motor.
The limitations of claim 1 that are not present in claims 1 and 15 of the reference application are the fan assembly comprising an axial fan having a plurality of fan blades, and a motor rotatably connected to the axial fan.
Suchoza, in the same field of endeavor, related to blowers, teaches a fan assembly comprising an axial fan having a plurality of fan blades (impeller 336, fig. 12, is described as causing axial airflow, [0079] two fan blades shown at 336, fig. 12) and a motor rotatably connected to the axial fan (motor, not shown, as in [0078]). Suchoza teaches that blade arrangement allows as for a compact size for a fan ([0079]), and that electric arrangements are efficient ([0006])
Therefore, it would have been obvious for a person ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have modified the reference claims 1 and 15 to arrive at instant claim 1 to include an axial fan having a plurality of fan blades for the purpose of a compact size. As for the difference regarding a motor, a person of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, would have utilized a motor, as taught by Suchoza as electric arrangements are efficient, and so that the fan can be driven and serve its purpose of inducing airflow.
The limitations of claim 2-3, 12-13 that are not present in claims 1 and 15 of the reference application are an elbow nozzle attached to the housing on the second end in downstream fluid communication with the airflow conduit, wherein the elbow nozzle is rotatably mounted to the housing to rotate about a motor axis of the airflow conduit.
Suchoza, teaches an elbow nozzle attached to the housing on the second end in downstream fluid communication with the airflow conduit (elbow nozzle 338, fig .14; [0081], the elbow nozzle is attached to the a second end 332, as shown in fig. 14, [0078], and as the second end is the air outlet so it is downstream), wherein the elbow nozzle is rotatably mounted to the housing to rotate about a motor axis of the airflow conduit (elbow 338 can swing left and right [relative to 322] as in [0081] via a gear arraignment, fig. 14; see motor axis [or axis of rotation of fan driven by motor] as axis A, fig. 14, [0078]).
Suchoza teaches that the nozzle increases the flow velocity of the air flow and increases it’s pressure ([0078]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious for a person ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have modified the reference claims 1 and 15 to arrive at instant claims 2-3 12-13, to have an elbow nozzle attached to the housing on the second end in downstream fluid communication with the airflow conduit, wherein the elbow nozzle is rotatably mounted to the housing to rotate about a motor axis of the airflow conduit, as taught by Suchoza for the benefits of increased pressure and flow velocity.
The limitations of claim 8 that are not present in claims 1 and 15 of the reference application are a battery compartment attached to the frame rearward from the first end to receive a battery pack, wherein the motor is in electrical communication with the battery pack to motivate rotation of the axial fan.
Suchoza, teaches a battery compartment attached to the frame to receive a battery pack (battery pack is 28, fig. 4; [0032-0034], a portion of the frame rails 18 and cross members 20 define a compartment within, and the battery is further enclosed aby cover 52, fig. 1; [0039], and indirectly attached to a frame 26, fig. 4, and in any case the modification would have a battery component as part of the blower, and thus through assembly would have it attached directly/indirectly to a frame), the motor is in electrical communication with the battery pack to motivate rotation of the blower fan (the battery 28 powers receptacle 304, fig. 11; [0076] and the fan [motor of fan] is powered as in [0083]).
Suchoza teaches that that this battery powered electric arrangement is efficient and compact ([0004-0006]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious for a person ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have modified the reference claims 1 and 15 to arrive at instant claim 8, to include a battery compartment attached to the frame rearward from the first end to receive a battery pack, wherein the motor is in electrical communication with the battery pack to motivate rotation of the axial fan, using the teachings of Suchoza for a compact and efficient electrically powered arrangement.
The limitations of claim 11 that are not present in claims 1 and 15 of the reference application are a battery compartment attached to the frame to receive a battery pack; and the fan assembly comprising a blower fan having a plurality of fan blades, and a motor rotatably connected to the blower fan, the motor being in electrical communication with the battery pack to motivate rotation of the blower fan. Reference claim 15 (not reference claim 1), however provides a plurality of batteries attached to the frame in electric communication with the propulsion motor, the fan assembly, and the positional motor.
Suchoza, in the same field of endeavor, related to blowers, teaches a battery compartment attached to the frame to receive a battery pack (battery pack is 28, fig. 4; [0032-0034], a portion of the frame rails 18 and cross members 20 define a compartment within, and the battery is further enclosed aby cover 52, fig. 1; [0039], and indirectly attached to a frame 26, fig. 4, and in any case the modification would have a battery component as part of the blower, and thus through assembly would have it attached directly/indirectly to a frame), the fan assembly comprising an blower fan having a plurality of fan blades (impeller 336, fig. 12, is described as causing axial airflow, [0079] two fan blades shown at 336, fig. 12) and a motor rotatably connected to the blower fan (motor, not shown, as in [0078]), the motor is in electrical communication with the battery pack to motivate rotation of the blower fan (the battery 28 powers receptacle 304, fig. 11; [0076] and the fan [motor of fan] is powered as in [0083]).
Suchoza teaches that that blade arrangement allows as for a compact size for a fan ([0079]), and that this battery powered electric arrangement is efficient and compact ([0004-0006]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious for a person ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have modified the reference claims 1 and 15 to arrive at instant claim 11, with a battery compartment attached to the frame to receive a battery pack; and a motor rotatably connected to the blower fan, the motor being in electrical communication with the battery pack to motivate rotation of the blower fan using the teachings of Suchoza for a compact and efficient electrically powered arrangement, and to include an blower fan having a plurality of fan blades for the purpose of a compact size.
Claim 6 and 16 provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 1 and 15 of copending Application No. 19/354,223 in view of Suchoza (US 20240423128 A1) and further in view of Takeda (US 20230065201 A1).
The limitations of claim 6 and 16 that are not present in claims 1 and 15 of the reference application are a controller in communication with the motor, the controller being configured to direct a progressive fan velocity to gradually increase a target rotational velocity at the motor from a static state (term gradual understood as guided by MPEP 2173.05(b) to mean progressive).
Takeda, in the same field of endeavor, related to blowers (2, fig. 1; [0123], with a motor 30, fig. 2; [0133]), teaches of providing a soft starting arrangement ([0188]) with a controller in communication with the motor (controller 40, fig. 2 with control circuit 50, fig. 2, provides PWM signals as in [0146]), the controller being configured to direct a progressive fan velocity to gradually increase a target rotational velocity at the motor from a static state ([0151] provides that the controller is operated when a normally open [i.e. circuit disconnected] button is pressed, and after the motor is started [from an off state], the power is gradually increased through PWM, to the target duty ratio [or target power, which in the case of Takeda, is based on the trigger or dial position, [0130,0170-0172]]). Takeda teaches that this prevents a high inrush current ([0073,0188]), which reduces the amount of heat generated in electrical components caused by high current ([0005-0006]; examiner notes that high current causes heating and resistive/ohmic losses in wiring as well as in any electronic drive, as wiring would have some electrical resistance). This arrangement would result in a gradual (progressive) increase in power of the fan and it’s velocity to a target.
Therefore, would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have modified the reference claims 1 and 15 to arrive at instant claims 6, 16, with the soft starting arrangement of Takeda, and have included a controller in communication with the motor, the controller being configured to direct a progressive fan velocity to gradually increase a target rotational velocity at the motor from a static state, to avoid a high inrush current, and reduce energy waste and heat.
Claim 7 and 17 provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 1 and 15 of copending Application No. 19/354,223 in view of Suchoza (US 20240423128 A1) and further in view of Tokumaru (US 6105206 A).
The limitations of claim 7 and 17 that are not present in claims 1 and 15 of the reference application are wherein an axial length is defined from the first end to the second end, the axial length being between 10 inches and 20 inches. However, there would be an axial length is defined from the first end to the second end in claim 1 and 15 of copending Application No. 19/354,223 as the airflow conduit in the reference claim has physical existence, and would thus have a length.
Tokumaru, in the same field of endeavor, related to blowers, provides for a blower housing [conduit] with blower blades inside (blower housing 17, fig. 2, with fan 21, col 3 lines 19-34). Tokumaru teaches that the length of the housing [analogous to an axial length is defined from the first end to the second end) is a result effective variable because it can affect the blower’s power requirements and thus weight, but a longer length reduces noise (col 3 lines 44-53).
MPEP 2144.05 provides that discovering workable ranges would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art, if the range has been shown to be a result effective variable, and if it has not been demonstrated that the range is critical. In this case the applicant did not demonstrate criticality of the variable, as the applicant provides for multiple ranges and did not show unexpected results within the range (“In some embodiments, the axial length may be between 10 inches and 20 inches (e.g., between 12 inches and 16 inches)” (spec. at [0019])).
As Tokumaru shows that the length is a result effective variable, and because the applicant did not demonstrate criticality of the claimed variable, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have modified the reference claims 1 and 15 to arrive at instant claims 7, 17 such that the axial length being between 10 inches and 20 inches, as a optimization of a result effective variable, with predictable results.
This is a provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejection.
Not every claim of the instant application is rejected under provisional nonstatutory double patenting. The examiner has determined that the other claims, not rejected under provisional non-statutory double patenting above, are not obvious over the reference claim(s) alone, or in view of the prior art.
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 following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
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:
“movable elements” in claims 1, 4, 5, 11, 14, 15, corresponding to movable elements as in [0045] (i.e. wheels)
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.
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.
The term “movable elements” in claims 9 and 19 are provided with sufficient structure (wheels) such that a 35 USC 112(f) interpretation would not be appropriate.
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)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 1-5, 8-15, 18-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Suchoza (US 20240423128 A1; application 18/749,702 claims benefit of provisional application 63/522,521 filed 06/22/2023, the provisional application provides support for the cited aspects of the reference; a copy of the provisional may be obtained from Patent Center or Open Data Portal).
With respect to claim 1, Suchoza discloses: A walk-behind blower (blower mounted to a power machine as in [0006], a person can walk behind the machine) comprising:
a frame (frame 26, fig. 12; [0073], also see fig. 4);
one or more movable elements mounted to the frame to movably support the frame (movable elements 36 and 38, [0035-0036], which are wheels/tires, it is noted that the rear motive element 36 is part of a drive wheel assembly 30, fig. 4; motive elements are 112(f) equivalent as tires, the frame is arranged as in fig. 4);
a housing supported on the frame (housing 326, fig. 14, see assembly in fig. 12; [0078]), the housing defining an airflow conduit extending therethrough between a first end and a second end (the housing is a fan housing, with a conduit defined as it flow air within, and the air would flow from a first end 334, fig. 14; [0078], to a second end at outlet 332, fig. 14; [0078]; the housing is supported on the frame as it connects via a receiver 302, fig. 11 as in [0073,0077-0078, 0080]);
and a fan assembly disposed between the first end and the second end (fan assembly including impeller 336, fig. 12 and a motor [not shown] within as in [0078]), the fan assembly comprising an axial fan having a plurality of fan blades (impeller 336, fig. 12, is described as causing axial airflow, [0079] two fan blades shown at 336, fig. 12) and a motor rotatably connected to the axial fan (motor, not shown, as in [0078]).
With respect to claim 2, Suchoza discloses the limitations of claim 1 above, and further discloses further comprising an elbow nozzle attached to the housing on the second end in downstream fluid communication with the airflow conduit (elbow nozzle 338, fig .14; [0081], the elbow nozzle is attached to the second end 332, as shown in fig. 14, and as explained in claim 1, the second end is the air outlet so it is downstream)
With respect to claim 3, Suchoza discloses the limitations of claim 2 above, and further discloses wherein the elbow nozzle is rotatably mounted to the housing to rotate about a motor axis of the airflow conduit (elbow 338 can swing left and right [relative to 322] as in [0081] via a gear arraignment, fig. 14; see motor axis [or axis of rotation of fan driven by motor] as axis A, fig. 14, [0078]).
With respect to claim 4, Suchoza discloses the limitations of claim 2 above, and further discloses further comprising a handle assembly attached to the frame and extending rearward relative to the housing (handle arrangement would be the levers 70, fig. 2, which are pivotable as in [0044-0045], and this can extend rearward of housing 326, fig. 14, see relative positioning of components in fig. 4 and 12; indirectly attached/connected to frame as part of overall assembly), wherein the one or more movable elements are disposed rearward from the elbow nozzle (one of the wheels 30, fig. 4 is rear of the elbow nozzle, see relative positioning of components in fig. 4 and 12).
With respect to claim 5, Suchoza discloses the limitations of claim 1 above, and further discloses a driving motor in mechanical communication with the one or more movable elements to propel the walk-behind blower apart from the fan assembly (driving motor at wheel hub 32, fig. 4; [0035] to drive movable element 30, which is separate from that of the fan assembly).
With respect to claim 8, Suchoza discloses the limitations of claim 1 above, and further discloses a battery compartment attached to the frame rearward from the first end to receive a battery pack (battery pack is 28, fig. 4; [0032-0034], a portion of the frame rails 18 and cross members 20 define a compartment within, and the battery is further enclosed by cover 52, fig. 1; [0039]), wherein the motor is in electrical communication with the battery pack to motivate rotation of the axial fan (the battery 28 powers receptacle 304, fig. 11, [0076]; and the fan [motor of fan] is powered as in [0083]).
With respect to claim 9, Suchoza discloses the limitations of claim 1 above, and further discloses wherein the one or more movable elements comprises a forward wheel rotatably mounted forward from first end and a rear wheel rotatably mounted rearward from first end (forward wheel 38, figs. 4 and 12, and rear wheel at 30, fig. 4, see relative placement in figs. 4 and 12, the forward wheel is completely forward of the fan and housing, and thus the first end, and the rear wheel is rear of the first end and the frame 26).
With respect to claim 10, Suchoza discloses the limitations of claim 1 above, and further discloses wherein the first end is disposed higher than the second end relative to a vertical direction (first end at inlet 334, fig. 14; [0078], is above second end at outlet 332, fig. 14; [0078]).
With respect to claim 11, Suchoza discloses: A walk-behind blower (blower mounted to a power machine as in [0006], a person can walk behind the machine) comprising:
a frame (frame 26, fig. 12; [0073], also see fig. 4);
one or more movable elements mounted to the frame to movably support the frame (movable elements 36 and 38, [0035-0036], which are wheels/tires, it is noted that the rear motive element 36 is part of a drive wheel assembly 30, fig. 4; motive elements are 112(f) equivalent as tires, the frame is arranged as in fig. 4);
a battery compartment attached to the frame to receive a battery pack (battery pack is 28, fig. 4; [0032-0034], a portion of the frame rails 18 and cross members 20 define a compartment within, and the battery is further enclosed aby cover 52, fig. 1; [0039], attached to frame 26 directly/indirectly as in fig. 4),
a housing attached on the frame (housing 326, fig. 14, see assembly in fig. 12; [0078]), the housing defining an airflow conduit extending therethrough between a first end and a second end (the housing is a fan housing, with a conduit defined as it flow air within, and the air would flow from a first end 334, fig. 14; [0078], to a second end at outlet 332, fig. 14; [0078]; the housing is attached on the frame as it connects via a receiver 302, fig. 11 as in [0073,0077-0078, 0080]);
and a fan assembly disposed between the first end and the second end (fan assembly including impeller 336, fig. 12 and a motor [not shown] within as in [0078]), the fan assembly comprising an blower fan having a plurality of fan blades (impeller 336, fig. 12, is described as causing axial airflow, [0079] two fan blades shown at 336, fig. 12) and a motor rotatably connected to the blower fan (motor, not shown, as in [0078]),
the motor is in electrical communication with the battery pack to motivate rotation of the blower fan (the battery 28 powers receptacle 304, fig. 11, [0076]; and the fan [motor of fan] is powered as in [0083]).
With respect to claim 12, Suchoza discloses the limitations of claim 11 above, and further discloses further comprising an elbow nozzle attached to the housing on the second end in downstream fluid communication with the airflow conduit (elbow nozzle 338, fig .14; [0081], the elbow nozzle is attached to the second end 332, as shown in fig. 14, and as explained in claim 1, the second end is the air outlet so it is downstream)
With respect to claim 13, Suchoza discloses the limitations of claim 12 above, and further discloses wherein the elbow nozzle is rotatably mounted to the housing to rotate about a motor axis of the airflow conduit (elbow 338 can swing left and right [relative to 322] as in [0081] via a gear arraignment, fig. 14; see motor axis [or axis of rotation of fan driven by motor] as axis A, fig. 14, [0078]).
With respect to claim 14, Suchoza discloses the limitations of claim 12 above, and further discloses further comprising a handle assembly attached to the frame and extending rearward relative to the housing (handle arrangement would be the levers 70, fig. 2, which are pivotable as in [0044-0045], and this can extend rearward of housing 326, fig. 14, see relative positioning of components in fig. 4 and 12; indirectly attached/connected to frame as part of overall assembly), wherein the one or more movable elements are disposed rearward from the elbow nozzle (one of the wheels 30, fig. 4 is rear of the elbow nozzle, see relative positioning of components in fig. 4 and 12).
With respect to claim 15, Suchoza discloses the limitations of claim 11 above, and further discloses a driving motor in mechanical communication with the one or more movable elements to propel the walk-behind blower apart from the fan assembly (driving motor at wheel hub 32, fig. 4; [0035] to drive movable element 30, which is separate from that of the fan assembly).
With respect to claim 18, Suchoza discloses the limitations of claim 11 above, and further discloses wherein the first end defines an air intake upstream from the airflow conduit (the air would flow from a first end [intake upstream] 334, fig. 14; [0078], to a second end at outlet 332, fig. 14; [0078]) and wherein the battery compartment is attached to the frame rearward from the first end (battery compartment at location of battery 28 is rear of frame 26, fig. 4, and would also be rear of the first end which is at the front of frame 26, based on a comparison of figs. 4, 12 and 14)
With respect to claim 19, Suchoza discloses the limitations of claim 11 above, and further discloses wherein the one or more movable elements comprises a forward wheel rotatably mounted forward from first end and a rear wheel rotatably mounted rearward from first end (forward wheel 38, figs. 4 and 12, and rear wheel at 30, fig. 4, see relative placement in figs. 4 and 12, the forward wheel is completely forward of the fan and housing, and thus the first end, and the rear wheel is rear of the first end and the frame 26).
With respect to claim 20, Suchoza discloses the limitations of claim 11 above, and further discloses wherein the first end is disposed higher than the second end relative to a vertical direction (first end at inlet 334, fig. 14; [0078], is above second end at outlet 332, fig. 14; [0078]).
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.
Claim(s) 6 and 16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Suchoza (US 20240423128 A1) and further in view of Takeda (US 20230065201 A1).
With respect to claim 6, Suchoza discloses the limitations of claim 1 above, however does not explicitly disclose a controller in communication with the motor, the controller being configured to direct a progressive fan velocity to gradually increase a target rotational velocity at the motor from a static state (term gradual understood as guided by MPEP 2173.05(b) to mean progressive).. Suchoza however teaches that the motor is powered by direct current ([0084] provides that the receptacle 304 supplies DC power, and [0083] provides that the blower is powered though outlet 304).
Takeda, in the same field of endeavor, related to blowers (2, fig. 1; [0123], with a motor 30, fig. 2; [0133]), teaches of providing a soft starting arrangement ([0188]) with a controller in communication with the motor (controller 40, fig. 2 with control circuit 50, fig. 2, provides PWM signals as in [0146]), the controller being configured to direct a progressive fan velocity to gradually increase a target rotational velocity at the motor from a static state ([0151] provides that the controller is operated when a normally open [i.e. circuit disconnected] button is pressed, and after the motor is started [from an off state], the power is gradually increased through PWM, to the target duty ratio [or target power, which in the case of Takeda, is based on the trigger or dial position, [0130,0170-0172]]). Takeda teaches that this prevents a high inrush current ([0073,0188]), which reduces the amount of heat generated in electrical components caused by high current ([0005-0006]; examiner notes that high current causes heating and resistive/ohmic losses in wiring as well as in any electronic drive, as wiring would have some electrical resistance). This arrangement would result in a gradual (progressive) increase in power of the fan and its velocity to a target.
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have modified Suchoza with the soft starting arrangement of Takeda, and have included a controller in communication with the motor, the controller being configured to direct a progressive fan velocity to gradually increase a target rotational velocity at the motor from a static state, to avoid a high inrush current, and reduce energy waste and heat.
With respect to claim 16, Suchoza discloses the limitations of claim 11 above, however does not explicitly disclose a controller in communication with the motor, the controller being configured to direct a progressive fan velocity to gradually increase a target rotational velocity at the motor from a static state (term gradual understood as guided by MPEP 2173.05(b) to mean progressive). Suchoza however teaches that the motor is powered by direct current ([0084] provides that the receptacle 304 supplies DC power, and [0083] provides that the blower is powered though outlet 304).
Takeda, in the same field of endeavor, related to blowers (2, fig. 1; [0123], with a motor 30, fig. 2; [0133]), teaches of providing a soft starting arrangement ([0188]) with a controller in communication with the motor (controller 40, fig. 2 with control circuit 50, fig. 2, provides PWM signals as in [0146]), the controller being configured to direct a progressive fan velocity to gradually increase a target rotational velocity at the motor from a static state ([0151] provides that the controller is operated when a normally open [i.e. circuit disconnected] button is pressed, and after the motor is started [from an off state], the power is gradually increased through PWM, to the target duty ratio [or target power, which in the case of Takeda, is based on the trigger or dial position, [0130,0170-0172]]). Takeda teaches that this prevents a high inrush current ([0073,0188]), which reduces the amount of heat generated in electrical components caused by high current ([0005-0006]; examiner notes that high current causes heating and resistive/ohmic losses in wiring as well as in any electronic drive, as wiring would have some electrical resistance). This arrangement would result in a gradual (progressive) increase in power of the fan and its velocity to a target.
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have modified Suchoza with the soft starting arrangement of Takeda, and have included a controller in communication with the motor, the controller being configured to direct a progressive fan velocity to gradually increase a target rotational velocity at the motor from a static state, to avoid a high inrush current, and reduce energy waste and heat.
Claim(s) 7 and 17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Suchoza (US 20240423128 A1) and further in view of Tokumaru (US 6105206 A).
With respect to claim 7, Suchoza discloses the limitations of claim 1 above, an axial length is defined from the first end to the second end (a length can be defined from first end 334, fig. 14 to second end at outlet 332, fig. 14; [0078] as it physically exists and thus has a length) however does not explicitly disclose wherein the axial length being between 10 inches and 20 inches.
Tokumaru, in the same field of endeavor, related to blowers, provides for a blower housing [conduit] with blower blades inside (blower housing 17, fig. 2, with fan 21, col 3 lines 19-34). Tokumaru teaches that the length of the housing [analogous to an axial length is defined from the first end to the second end) is a result effective variable because it can affect the blower’s power requirements and thus weight, but a longer length reduces noise (col 3 lines 44-53).
MPEP 2144.05 provides that discovering workable ranges would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art, if the range has been shown to be a result effective variable, and if it has not been demonstrated that the range is critical. In this case the applicant did not demonstrate criticality of the variable, as the applicant provides for multiple ranges and did not show unexpected results within the range (“In some embodiments, the axial length may be between 10 inches and 20 inches (e.g., between 12 inches and 16 inches)” (spec. at [0019])).
As Tokumaru shows that the length is a result effective variable, and because the applicant did not demonstrate criticality of the claimed variable, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have modified Suchoza such that the axial length being between 10 inches and 20 inches, as a optimization of a result effective variable, with predictable results.
With respect to claim 17, Suchoza discloses the limitations of claim 11 above, an axial length is defined from the first end to the second end (a length can be defined from first end 334, fig. 14 to second end at outlet 332, fig. 14; [0078] as it physically exists and thus has a length) however does not explicitly disclose wherein the axial length being between 10 inches and 20 inches.
Tokumaru, in the same field of endeavor, related to blowers, provides for a blower housing [conduit] with blower blades inside (blower housing 17, fig. 2, with fan 21, col 3 lines 19-34). Tokumaru teaches that the length of the housing [analogous to an axial length is defined from the first end to the second end) is a result effective variable because it can affect the blower’s power requirements and thus weight, but a longer length reduces noise (col 3 lines 44-53).
MPEP 2144.05 provides that discovering workable ranges would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art, if the range has been shown to be a result effective variable, and if it has not been demonstrated that the range is critical. In this case the applicant did not demonstrate criticality of the variable, as the applicant provides for multiple ranges and did not show unexpected results within the range (“In some embodiments, the axial length may be between 10 inches and 20 inches (e.g., between 12 inches and 16 inches)” (spec. at [0019])).
As Tokumaru shows that the length is a result effective variable, and because the applicant did not demonstrate criticality of the claimed variable, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have modified Suchoza such that the axial length being between 10 inches and 20 inches, as an optimization of a result effective variable, with predictable results.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Kawaguchi (US 6226833 B1) is a battery blower with a flexible nozzle to the front and appears to anticipate some of the claims:
PNG
media_image1.png
572
561
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Street (US 20210114673 A1) is an blwoer with an axially adjustable nozzle tip and also appears to anticipate some of the claims:
PNG
media_image2.png
585
575
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Shumaker (US 20160113207 A1) is an axially adjustable nozzle for a blower.
Wang (CN 211898097 U) is an axial fan blower layout.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Steven Huang whose telephone number is (571)272-6750. The examiner can normally be reached Monday to Thursday 6:30 am to 2:30 pm, Friday 6:30 am to 11:00 am (Eastern Time).
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, David Posigian can be reached at 313-446-6546. 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.
/Steven Huang/Examiner, Art Unit 3723
Prosecution Insights