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 Claims
Examiner acknowledges receipt of Applicant’s amendments and arguments filed with the Office on January 7th, 2026 in response to the Non-Final Office Action mailed on October 7th, 2025. Per Applicant's response, Claims 1, 11, 14, 16, 18, & 21 have been amended and Claims 19-20 have been cancelled. All other claims have been left in their previously-presented form. Consequently, Claims 1-9, 11-18, & 21 now remain pending in the instant application. The Examiner has carefully considered each of Applicant’s amendments and/or arguments, and they will be addressed below.
Drawings
The drawings were previously objected to because Figures 2-1 through 3-10, Figures 3-15 through 3-18, and Figures 3-21 through 3-23 had unclear element labels. Applicant has provided corrected drawing sheets in the response filed January 7th, 2026. However, the newly submitted drawings introduce additional issues.
The drawings filed January 7th, 2026 are once again objected to because the reference numerals therein conflict with the reference numerals found in the corrected drawings previously filed on September 2nd, 2025. In particular, the most recently filed drawings do not contain the corrected reference numerals “21a”, “22a”, & “23a” found in the corrected drawings and specification filed on September 2nd, 2025. Instead, they revert back to the old numerals “21”, “22, & “23” (see Fig. 1-7, for example) found in the originally filed drawings. This is improper. Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
Claim Objections
Claims 1-9 & 11-21 were objected to for minor informalities. Applicant has provided the required corrections, thereby obviating these objections.
Claim 11 is objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 11, line 11 should read “a boost feedback branch[[,]] configured to:”
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
Claims 1-9 were 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. Applicant has provided the necessary corrections to remedy these issues, rendering the rejections moot.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 11 have been considered but are moot due to the new grounds of rejection necessitated by Applicant’s amendments. Please refer to the updated rejections below.
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(s) 11 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 2017/0089349 to Bylund et al. (Bylund) in view of US 2016/0298635 to Su et al.
In regards to independent Claim 11, and with particular reference to Figures 1-4, Bylund discloses:
11. A portable fan (“blower”; Abstract; para. 15), comprising: an airflow portion (110, 120, 150; Fig. 1) comprising rotation air blades (“impeller or fan assembly”; para. 21) and a drive portion (“three-phase motor”; para. 15) that is driveably connected to the rotation air blades (paras. 15, 21), wherein the drive portion is a three-phase motor (para. 15 describes use of a three phase DC motor) that is configured to drive the rotation air blades to rotate to generate an airflow (paras. 15, 21); a handheld portion (132, 142, 144) connected to the airflow portion (Figs. 1-2), wherein a switch (146; “switch”; para. 20) is arranged inside the handheld portion (Figs. 1-2; paras. 19-20) and is an infinite speed adjustment switch (paras. 19-20, 22; “stepless”; “motor speed may increase in proportion to the amount of compression”); a battery (paras. 15, 18) arranged inside the handheld portion (i.e. within compartment 142; Figs. 1-2); a master control circuit (160; “processing circuitry”; “processor”; “memory”; para. 23; Figs. 3-4); a fan drive circuit (“control unit”; para. 17; arranged within housing portion 132; Fig. 1) wherein the fan drive circuit is configured to drive the three-phase motor to rotate (Abstract; paras. 2, 5, 15, 19) and is electrically connected to the master control circuit to receive control signals (paras. 23-29)
While Bylund clearly discloses much of Applicant’s recited invention, he does not further disclose a boost feedback branch, configured to: sample a voltage output to the three-phase motor provide the voltage to the master control circuit to enable the master control circuit to adjust a pulse width of the control signals to output a target voltage to the three-phase motor, as claimed.
However, Su et al. (Su) discloses another handheld blower unit (1’; Figs. 9-12) similar to Bylund, and which comprises an airflow portion (2’, 7’, 9’; Fig. 9) comprising rotation air blades (17; Fig. 12) and a drive portion (16; Fig. 12) that is driveably connected to the rotation air blades (Fig. 12), wherein the drive portion is, like Bylund, a three-phase DC motor that is configured to drive the rotation air blades to rotate to generate an airflow (para. 72); a handheld portion (5), connected to the airflow portion (Fig. 10), wherein a battery (50) is electrically connected to and supplies power to the DC motor (Fig. 9; see power cord 8 and para. 70), a master control circuit (13’) (Fig. 18), and a fan drive circuit (6, 29a, 59) having a variable speed adjustment switch (6), wherein the fan drive circuit is configured to drive the DC motor to rotate (paras. 68, 70, 78). Su goes on to specifically disclose a boost feedback branch (30, 57; Fig. 18; “voltage divider circuit”; para. 102; “processor”; para. 104), configured to: sample a voltage (i.e. battery voltage) output to the three-phase motor (para. 102) and provide the voltage to the master control circuit (13’) to enable the master control circuit to adjust a pulse width of the control signals to output a target voltage to the three-phase motor (paras. 104-105; “attenuate the power to, or turn off the power to, blower 1, 1′”). Su makes clear that through the boost feedback branch (i.e. voltage boost feedback), the battery voltage supplied to the DC motor can be optimized in order to protect the blower from damage (para. 104). Therefore, to one of ordinary skill desiring a leaf blower with improved reliability, it would have been obvious to utilize the techniques disclosed in Su in combination with those seen in Bylund in order to obtain such a result. Consequently, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at a time before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Bylund’s blower with the boost feedback branch of Su in order to obtain predictable results; those results being an improved blower that ensures safer operating voltage levels supplied to the motor, and thus, more reliable blower operation (as taught in Su).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 1-9, 12-18, & 21 are allowed.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter: Applicant’s amendments filed on January 7th, 2026 have overcome the claim objections and 112(b) rejections noted in the previous office action. Furthermore, Applicant’s amendments have altered the dependencies of Claims 12-18 & 21 to now depend on allowable Claim 1. For all of these reasons, Claims 1-9, 12-18, & 21 are now in proper condition for allowance.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendments filed January 7th, 2026 have 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 ALEXANDER BRYANT COMLEY whose telephone number is (571)270-3772. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 9AM-6PM CST.
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, Mark Laurenzi can be reached at 571-270-7878. 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.
/ALEXANDER B COMLEY/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3746
ABC