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 .
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election without traverse of Invention II in the reply filed on 11/11/2025 is acknowledged.
Claims 1-8 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected invention, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Election was made without traverse in the reply filed on 11/11/2025.
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Specification
The disclosure is objected to because of the following informalities:
“reduce vortex” in Paragraph [0036], Line 4 should read “reduce vortices”.
“reduce vortex” in Paragraph [0037], Line 3 should read “reduce vortices”.
“and reduce noise” in Paragraph [0040], Line 8 should read “and to reduce noise”.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Objections
Claims 9-10 and 13-15 are objected to because of the following informalities: “the outer blade(s)” and “the inner blade(s)” throughout Claims 9-10 and 13-15 should read “the plurality of outer blades” and “the plurality of inner blades”. Appropriate correction is required.
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: “driving mechanism” in claim 9.
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.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 9-17 are 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.
Claim 9 recites the limitation "the output shaft". There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Claim 9 fails to disclose an output shaft prior to the recitation of “the output shaft”.
The term “smoothly rising” in claim 16 is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “smoothly rising” is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention. It is unclear what makes the connecting cylinder “smoothly” rising.
Claims 10-15 and 17 are rejected due to their dependence upon rejected Claim 9.
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.
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) 9, 11-12, and 16-17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lee (US Publication No: 2017/0370596) in view of Chang (US Patent No: 7,241,110).
Regarding Claim 9: Lee discloses a neck fan (Figure 1, No. 1), comprising a main body (10), a driving mechanism (Figure 3, No. “M”), and a fan blade (31); wherein the main body is U-shaped (Figure 1), both ends of the U-shaped main body are provided with air inlet chambers (Figure 3 – chambers in which the fan blade 31 is situated), the fan blade is placed in the air inlet chamber (Figure 3), the side of the main body facing outward is provided with an air inlet (H1) corresponding to the air inlet chamber, and the driving mechanism is used for driving the fan blade to rotate (Paragraph [0053], Lines 7-9). Lee, however, fails to disclose the fan blade comprising a base, a plurality of outer blades, and a plurality of inner blades; wherein the base is generally circular and protrudes in the middle, including an annular outer disc, a connecting cylinder, and a circular inner disc, the outer disc is annularly arranged on the outside of the bottom end of the connecting cylinder, and the inner disc seals the top end of the connecting cylinder, and the inner disc is used for connecting the output shaft of the driving mechanism; and the outer blades are annularly arranged on the outside of the outer disc, and the inner blades are annularly arranged on the outside of the inner disc, so that both the outer blades and the inner blades are located on the same side of the base, and the outer blades and the inner blades are spaced apart; and wherein the driving mechanism is installed in the connecting cylinder.
Chang teaches a fan blade (Figure 2a, No. 2) comprising a base (200), a plurality of outer blades (240), and a plurality of inner blades (230); wherein the base is generally circular and protrudes in the middle (Figure 2a), including an annular outer disc (220), a connecting cylinder (Figure 2a – upper cylinder portion of disc 220), and a circular inner disc (210), the outer disc is annularly arranged on the outside of the bottom end of the connecting cylinder (Figure 2a), and the inner disc seals the top end of the connecting cylinder (Column 3, Lines 58-59 & 64-66), and the inner disc is used for connecting an output shaft of a driving mechanism (300); and the outer blades are annularly arranged on the outside of the outer disc (Figure 2a), and the inner blades are annularly arranged on the outside of the inner disc (Figure 2a), so that both the outer blades and the inner blades are located on the same side of the base (Figure 2a), and the outer blades and the inner blades are spaced apart (Figure 2a); and wherein the driving mechanism is installed in the connecting cylinder (Figure 2a; Column 3, Lines 26-28).
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to substitute the fan blade of Chang in for the fan blade of Lee. Both fan blades are known elements for heat dissipation, and substituting the fan blade of Chang in for the fan blade of Lee still results in the neck fan cooling the user. Therefore, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to substitute the fan blade of Chang in for the fan blade of Lee.
Regarding Claim 11: Lee, as modified by Chang, discloses the neck fan according to Claim 9, wherein the plurality of outer blades are evenly spaced and distributed on the outer disc, and the plurality of inner blades are evenly distributed on the inner disc (Chang: Figure 2a).
Regarding Claim 12: Lee, as modified by Chang, discloses the neck fan according to Claim 9, wherein the number of outer blades is greater than that of inner blades (Chang: Figure 2a). Lee, however, fails to disclose the ratio of the number of outer blades to the number of inner blades ranging from 1.1 to 2.
Lee, as modified by Chang, however, does disclose that the number of outer and inner blades can increase airflow and heat-dissipation of the fan blade (Column 1, Lines 29-32).
Therefore, the number of outer and inner blades, and thus the ratio of the plurality of outer blades to the plurality of inner blades, is recognized as a result-effective variable, i.e. a variable which achieves a recognized result. In re Antonie, 559 F.2d 618, 195 USPQ 6 (CCPA 1977); MPEP 2144.05(II)(B). In this case, the recognized result is that the ratio of outer to inner blades can increase airflow and heat-dissipation of the fan blade. Therefore, since the general conditions of the claim, i.e. that the fan blade has a greater number of outer blades than inner blades, were disclosed in the prior art by Lee, as modified by Chang, it is not inventive to discover the optimum workable range by routine experimentation, and it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide the fan blade of Lee, as modified by Chang, with the plurality of outer blades and inner blades in the claimed ratio, to increase airflow and heat-dissipation of the fan blade. It has been held that “[W]here the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation.” In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955); MPEP 2144.05(II)(A).
Regarding Claim 16: Lee, as modified by Chang, discloses the neck fan according to Claim 9, wherein the side of the outer disc facing the connecting cylinder is smoothly rising (Chang: Figure 2a).
Regarding Claim 17: Lee, as modified by Chang, discloses the neck fan according to Claim 9, wherein the main body is provided with an air outlet (Lee: Figure 3, No. H2) in the upward direction, and a wind tunnel is arranged below the air outlet (Figure 3); and a section of the wind tunnel near the air inlet chamber is enlarged in the direction towards the air inlet chamber (Figure 3).
Claim(s) 13 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lee and Chang as applied to claim 9 above, and further in view of Jeon (US Patent No: 9,624,932).
Regarding Claim 13: Lee, as modified by Chang, discloses the neck fan according to Claim 9, wherein both the plurality of outer blades and the plurality of inner blades are arc-shaped and curved in the same circumferential direction (Chang: Figure 2a); however, Lee fails to disclose the curvature of the plurality of outer blades being greater than that of the plurality of inner blades.
Jeon teaches an fan blade (Figure 6) comprising a plurality of outer (32) and inner (31) blades that are arc-shaped and curved in the same circumferential direction (Figure 6), wherein the curvature of the plurality of outer blades being greater than that of the plurality of inner blades (Claim 1).
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to make the curvature of the plurality of outer blades greater than that of the plurality of inner blades, as taught by Jeon, for the purpose of providing the fan blade with an improved structure to reduce resistance produced at a high static pressure and provide a high flow rate (Column 1, Lines 44-48).
Claim(s) 14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lee and Chang as applied to claim 9 above, and further in view of Wang (US Publication No: 2019/0120252).
Regarding Claim 14: Lee, as modified by Chang, discloses the neck fan according to Claim 9; however, Lee fails to disclose a part of the top of the side of the outer blade facing the inner disc is inclined downward, and the low point of the inclined side of the top of the outer blade is higher than the bottom of the inner blade.
Wang teaches a fan blade (Figure 1) comprising a plurality of outer (5) and inner (4) blades, wherein a part of the top of the side of the outer blade facing the inner disc is inclined downward, and the low point of the inclined side of the top of the outer blade is higher than the bottom of the inner blade (Figure 1).
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to substitute the top of the side of the outer blades of Wang in for the top of the side of the outer blades of Lee, as modified by Chang. Both tops are known elements for fan blade outer blades, and substituting the top of the side of the outer blades of Wang in for that of Lee, as modified by Chang, still results in the fan blade supplying wind to the user’s neck. Therefore, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to substitute the top of the side of the outer blades of Wang in for the top of the side of the outer blades of Lee, as modified by Chang.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 10 and 15 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims. The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter: The prior art fails to disclose a neck fan according to Claim 9, wherein the top of the plurality of outer blades is higher than the top of the connecting cylinder, and the top of the plurality of outer blades is flush with the top of the plurality of inner blades; or wherein the ratio of the height of the plurality of outer blades to the height of the plurality of inner blades is 4-6; the ratio of the width of the plurality of outer blades to the width of the plurality of inner blades is 1.5-2. Adair (US Publication No: 2018/0064574) discloses a neck fan comprising a fan blade (Figure 7, No. 38A-B); however, Adair fails to disclose the fan blade comprising a plurality of outer and inner blades and a connecting cylinder as claimed. Ling (US Publication No: 2017/0298950) discloses a fan blade comprising a plurality of outer (Figure 3A, No. 111) and inner (112) blades and a connecting cylinder (110a); however, Ling fails to disclose the top of the plurality of outer blades is higher than the top of the connecting cylinder, and the top of the plurality of outer blades is flush with the top of the plurality of inner blades; or wherein the ratio of the height of the plurality of outer blades to the height of the plurality of inner blades is 4-6; the ratio of the width of the plurality of outer blades to the width of the plurality of inner blades is 1.5-2. The prior art fails to disclose the neck fan as claimed in Claims 10 and 15; therefore, Claims 10 and 15 contain allowable subject matter.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MICHAEL L SEHN whose telephone number is (571)270-3564. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8:30 AM-6 PM, every other Friday off.
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.
/MICHAEL L SEHN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3745