DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, see page 5, lines 7-20, filed August 7, 2025, with respect to the rejection(s) of claim(s) 1 under 35 USC 102 have been fully considered and are persuasive. Specifically, Zacharias fails to teach the ornament comprises a hollow body in the shape of a cylindrical tube, and the hollow body has a chamber which is configured to receive a fragrance to emit the fragrance while in motion. Therefore, the rejection has been withdrawn. However, upon further consideration, a new ground(s) of rejection is made in view of TW M526,160 to Zheng. Zacharias teaches an ornament which is a whistle. Zheng teaches a whistle which has a shape of a cylindrical tube. Webb teaches an ornament which has a fragrance in a hollow chamber to emit a fragrance.
The correction to the specification is noted with appreciation. The objection to the specification has been withdrawn. The cancellation of claims 17-20 have overcome the rejection of claim 17 under 35 USC 112 and the objection to the drawings.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claims 1, 4-6, 8, and 10-16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
Claim 1, lines 3-8 and 12-15 state the fan blade decoration has an ornament, wherein the ornament comprised a hollow body which is configured to allow the ornament to emit a sound as the ornament is in motion, and has a chamber configured to receive a fragrance such that the ornament emits a fragrance while in motion, however upon inspection of the applicant’s specification, there does not appear to be support for an embodiment of the ornament which performs both functions.
Upon inspection of the applicant’s specification, paragraphs 31-32 refer to “other embodiments” where the ornament may have “various functionality” and provides the example of a motion sensor causing the ornament to flash light or emit a sound “such as music, or other noises, or the like”, and the ornament may comprise a whistle configured to emit a sound when in motion. The examiner notes this embodiment does not include emitting a fragrance. Paragraph 33 also refers to “some embodiments” where the ornament may be configured to emit a fragrance. The ornament has a compartment configured to receive and hold the fragrance. The examiner notes the embodiments in paragraph 33 do not refer to emitting a sound or noise.
The general reference to “some embodiments” or “other embodiments” does not clearly establish that the specification is referring to the same embodiments. Further the term “may” suggests the recited functions are optional.
The examiner notes the drawings show numerous embodiments of the invention – including various shapes of the ornament. The specification does not associate the functions with any specific embodiment or explain how the embodiments would perform each function – let alone perform multiple functions. The examiner further notes the amendment to claim 1 defined the ornament as a hollow body in the shape “cylindrical tube”, and the second end of the tube is angled from the horizontal. Only Figures 1 and 5 meet this definition. The specification does not specifically describe either embodiment. As best the examiner understands the embodiments, the ornament would act as a whistle while rotating when air passes through the central cavity of the hollow body. If the hollow body is then filled with a fragrance to emit the fragrance, then it appears the airflow would be blocked, and the ornament would no longer be capable of acting as a whistle. Thus, there does not appear to be support for these embodiments performing both functions together as claimed.
The applicant has not provided sufficient disclosure to show possession of the claimed invention. Under 35 USC 112(a), possession is shown by describing the claimed invention. Claim 1 contains subject matter which was not described in such a way as to reasonably convey that the inventor or joint inventors had possession of the claimed invention, and therefore claim 1 is rejected under 35 USC 112(a) for failing the written description requirement.
Claims 4-6, 8, and 10-16 depend from claim 1 and contain its limitations and therefore are rejected for the same reason.
Claim 10 depends from claim 1 and further states the ornament has a motion sensor powered by a battery and light, wherein the light activates when the ornament is in motion. This functionality raises the same issue. Paragraph 31 refers to “some embodiments” of the ornament being able to flash lights and emit a sound. It is unclear if the claimed cylindrical tube embodiments would be capable of performing both of these functions – let alone the combined three functions of claim 10.
Claims 11 and 12 depend from claim 10 and contain its limitations and therefore are rejected for the same reasons.
Claim Objections
Claim 1 is objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 1, line 4 recites “the shape” which lacks proper antecedent basis and should be changed to “a shape”.
Appropriate correction is required.
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) 1, 6, 8, 13, 15, and 16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 2008/0248714 to Zacharias in view of TW M526,160 to Zheng (a machine translation will be referred to herein) and in further view of US 7,217,014 to Nielson and US 2018/0140736 to Webb.
In Reference to Claim 1
Zacharias teaches:
A fan blade decoration system comprising:
a fan (F) having one or more fan blades (B); and
one or more fan blade decorations each comprising a clip (16), a tether (18) and an ornament (12, 48), wherein the ornament being comprised of a hollow body (center of whistle 48), the hollow body having a first end (front side) and a second end (back side), the ornament is configured to emit a sound (whistle) as the ornament is in motion (see paragraph 31);
the tether connecting the ornament to the clip; and
wherein each clip is configured to removably secure to one fan blade, wherein each tether is configured to secure each ornament to each clip, and wherein each fan blade decoration is configured to spin with the fan blade to which it is attached when the fan is in motion (see paragraphs 20-23, and Figures 1, 2, 3, and 5).
Zacharias fails to teach:
The hollow body is in a shape of a cylindrical tube, the second end is angled from the horizontal, the ornament further comprises two apertures proximate to the first end configured to receive the tether, the hollow body comprising a chamber defined by the cylindrical tube, the first end, and the second end, the chamber being configured to receive a fragrance such that the ornament emits the fragrance while in motion.
Zheng teaches:
A whistle (200) comprising a hollow body (tube with open space in middle) in the shape of a cylindrical tube (see Figure 1), the hollow body having a first end (top having first port 210) and a second end (bottom having second port 220) with the second end being angled from the horizontal, the hollow body further comprising a chamber (open space within hollow body) defined by the cylindrical tube, the first end, and the second end (see page 2, lines 20-28 and Figure 1).
PNG
media_image1.png
539
418
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Nielson teaches:
A ceiling fan (column 5, line 21) comprising an ornament (adornment 11, 13, 15, 21, 23, 25, 27, 31, 33, 35, 41, 43, or 45, column 4, lines 40-57) comprising two apertures (openings through top of ornament) proximate to a first end (top) configured to receive a tether (string or wire 77), the tether connecting the ornament to a clip (magnet 71) (see column 5, line 56 through column 6, line 4 and Figure 8).
PNG
media_image2.png
571
695
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Webb teaches:
A ceiling fan (see paragraph 3, lines 14-15) comprising an ornament (dispenser 10) comprising a chamber (slot or void 18) configured to receive a fragrance (fragrant element) such that the ornament emits the fragrance while in motion (see paragraph 52 and Figures 1 and 2).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the fan blade decoration system of Zacharias by reshaping the whistle ornament to have a hollow body in a shape of a cylindrical tube having a second end at an angle from the horizontal as taught by Zheng which is a simple substitution which would yield a predictable result. In this case, the predictable result would be an ornament with a cylindrical tube shape and the cylindrical tube would have the second end angled with respect to the horizontal direction such that the ornament emits a sound when in motion.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the fan blade decoration system of Zacharias by adding two apertures to the first end configured to receive the tether as taught by Nielson as both references are directed to ornaments for ceiling fans, and for the purpose of being able to reliably attach the ornament to the clip via the tether by securing attaching the ornament to the tether.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the fan blade decoration system of Zacharias by adding a fragrance to the chamber as taught by Webb as both references are directed to ceiling fans having ornaments, and for the purpose of freshening the air with the fragrance.
In Reference to Claim 6#
Zacharias as modified by Zheng, Nielson, and Webb teaches:
The fan blade decoration system of claim 1, wherein the ornament is comprised of a photoluminescent material (photoreactive material 34 which is glow-in-the-dark) (see paragraph 27 of Zacharias).
In Reference to Claim 8#
Zacharias as modified by Zheng, Nielson, and Webb teaches:
The fan blade decoration system of claim 1, wherein the sound produced by the ornament is a whistle (see paragraph 31 of Zacharias).
In Reference to Claim 13#
Zacharias as modified by Zheng, Nielson, and Webb teaches:
The fan blade decoration system of claim 1, comprising the ornament.
Nielson further teaches the ornament is comprised of a reflective material (mirror or reflective material, see column 5, lines 41-47).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the fan blade decoration system of Zacharias as modified by Zheng, Nielson, and Webb by forming the ornament of a reflective material as taught by Nielson for the purpose of which is a simple substitution which would yield predictable results. In this case, the predictable result would be an ornament having the desired aesthetic appearance, which would be reflective like a mirror.
In Reference to Claim 15#
Zacharias as modified by Zheng, Nielson, and Webb teaches:
The fan blade decoration system of claim 1, comprising the tether.
Nielson further teaches the tether is comprised of a reflective material (metallic materials, see column 5, lines 56-64). The examiner considers metal to be a reflective material.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the fan blade decoration system of Zacharias as modified by Zheng, Nielson, and Webb by forming the tether of a reflective material as taught by Nielson for the purpose of which is a simple substitution which would yield predictable results. In this case, the predictable result would be a tether having the desired aesthetic appearance, which would be reflective.
In Reference to Claim 16#
Zacharias as modified by Zheng, Nielson, and Webb teaches:
The fan blade decoration system of claim 1, comprising the tether.
Nielson further teaches the tether is comprised of a transparent material (fishing line, see column 5, lines 49-51). The examiner considers fishing line to be a transparent material.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the fan blade decoration system of Zacharias as modified by Zheng, Nielson, and Webb by forming the tether of a transparent material as taught by Nielson for the purpose of which is a simple substitution which would yield predictable results. In this case, the predictable result would be a tether having the desired aesthetic appearance, which would be transparent.
Claim(s) 4 and 5 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 2008/0248714 to Zacharias as modified by TW M526,160 to Zheng, US 7,217,014 to Nielson and US 2018/0140736 to Webb as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of US 8,622,700 to Coffey.
In Reference to Claim 4
Zacharias as modified by Zheng, Nielson, and Webb teaches:
The fan blade decoration system of claim 1, comprising the clip.
Zacharias as modified by Zheng, Nielson, and Webb fails to teach:
The clip is comprised of photoluminescent material.
Coffey teaches:
A fan comprising a clip (connection between pull chain and fan body) and a tether (pull chain), wherein the clip is comprised of photoluminescent material (“any material that incorporates phosphorescence”, column 2, lines 51-53) (see column 2, lines 49-62).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the fan blade decoration system of Zacharias as modified by Zheng, Nielson, and Webb by forming the clip of a photoluminescent material as taught by Coffey as both references are directed to fans having tethers attached to the fan body, and for the purpose of allowing the clip to produce light.
In Reference to Claim 5
Zacharias as modified by Zheng, Nielson, and Webb teaches:
The fan blade decoration system of claim 1, comprising the tether.
Zacharias as modified by Zheng, Nielson, and Webb fails to teach:
The tether is comprised of photoluminescent material.
Coffey teaches:
A fan comprising a clip (connection between pull chain and fan body) and a tether (pull chain), wherein the tether is comprised of photoluminescent material (“any material that incorporates phosphorescence”, column 2, lines 51-53) (see column 2, lines 49-62).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the fan blade decoration system of Zacharias as modified by Zheng, Nielson, and Webb by forming the tether of a photoluminescent material as taught by Coffey as both references are directed to fans having tethers attached to the fan body, and for the purpose of allowing the tether to produce light.
Claim(s) 10-12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 2008/0248714 to Zacharias as modified by TW M526,160 to Zheng, US 7,217,014 to Nielson and US 2018/0140736 to Webb as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of US 7,385,528 to Gomez.
In Reference to Claim 10
Zacharias as modified by Zheng, Nielson, and Webb teaches:
The fan blade decoration system of claim 1, comprising the ornament comprises a battery (not shown, see paragraph 26, lines 16-19 of Zacharias) and a light (30 of Zacharias) (see paragraph 26 of Zacharias).
Zacharias as modified by Zheng, Nielson, and Webb fails to teach:
The ornament is further comprised of a motion sensor, wherein the motion sensor will signal the light to activate when the ornament is in motion.
Gomez teaches:
A fan blade decoration system comprising an ornament (80) comprising a motion sensor (76), a power source (41), and a light (72), wherein the motion sensor will signal the light to activate when the ornament is in motion (see column 5, lines 32-65 and Figure 6).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the fan blade decoration system of Zacharias as modified by Zheng, Nielson, and Webb by adding a motion sensor and configuring the motion sensor to signal the light to activate when the ornament is in motion as taught by Gomez as both references are directed to ornaments having lights, and for the purpose of being able to selectively activate the lights.
In Reference to Claims 11 and 12#
Zacharias as modified by Zheng, Nielson, Webb, and Gomez teaches:
The fan blade decoration system of claim 10 wherein the light flashes when activated (“blinking lights”, paragraph 26, lines 10-12 of Zacharias) and wherein the light turns on solid when activated (normal operation of light emitting diodes, paragraph 26, lines 10-11 of Zacharias).
Claim(s) 14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 2008/0248714 to Zacharias as modified by TW M526,160 to Zheng, US 7,217,014 to Nielson and US 2018/0140736 to Webb as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of US 6,971,854 to Krakowski.
In Reference to Claim 14
Zacharias as modified by Zheng, Nielson, and Webb teaches:
The fan blade decoration system of claim 1, comprising the clip.
Zacharias as modified by Zheng, Nielson, and Webb fails to teach:
The clip is comprised of a reflective material.
Krakowski teaches:
A fan blade decoration system comprising a clip (mirror hook, column 2, line 60) for an ornament (20), wherein the clip is comprised of a reflective material (mirror, column 2, lines 57-63).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the fan blade decoration system of Zacharias as modified by Zheng, Nielson, and Webb by forming the clip of a reflective material as taught by Krakowski as both references are directed to fans having ornaments attached by clips, and which is a simple substitution which would yield predictable results. In this case, the predictable result would be a clip having the desired aesthetic appearance, which would be reflective.
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 JASON GREGORY DAVIS whose telephone number is (571)270-3289. The examiner can normally be reached M-Th: 8:00-5:00, F: 8:00-12:00.
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, Nathan Wiehe can be reached at (571) 272-8648. 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.
/JASON G DAVIS/Examiner, Art Unit 3745
/NATHANIEL E WIEHE/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3745