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 10-12, 15, & 17-20 are objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 10, line 1 should read “according to claim 2”
Claim 11, line 1 should read “according to claim 10”
Claim 12, line 1 should read “according to claim 11”
Claim 15, line 1 should read “according to claim 2”
Claim 17, line 1 should read “according to claim 16, wherein the blower further comprises”
Claim 18, line 1 should read “according to claim 17”
Claim 19, line 1 should read “according to claim 18”
Claim 20, line 1 should read “according to claim 16”
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: “ejection mechanism” in claims 1 & 17.
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 3-6 & 13 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 3 recites the limitation “a first end of the elastic member abuts against the wind tube”; this limitation renders the claim indefinite because it appears to conflict with the depicted invention. In this case, while the claims recites an abutment between the elastic member and the wind tube, the supplied figures 51-55 clearly show that the end of the spring 920 actually abuts against mounting cover 930. Stated another way, the figures depict the end of the spring abutting indirectly against the wind tube, via the intermediate cover 930. This is not what the claim recites, and in fact, the claim appears to be implying directly abutment/contact between the spring and the wind tube. This conflict in scope between the disclosure and the claim renders the true scope of Claim 3 ambiguous, and thus, indefinite. Therefore, the metes and bounds of the claim cannot be discerned. For examination purposes herein, the examiner has interpreted the limitation in question as requiring indirect abutment between the spring and the wind tube (as is supported by the originally filed specification).
Claim 13 recites the limitation “the two ends of the elastic member are respectively in contact with the wind tube and the body”; this limitation renders the claim indefinite because it appears to conflict with the depicted invention. In this case, while the claims recites contact between the elastic member and the wind tube, the supplied figures 51-55 clearly show that the end of the spring 920 actually abuts against mounting cover 930. Stated another way, the figures depict the end of the spring abutting indirectly against the wind tube, via the intermediate cover 930. This is not what the claim recites, and in fact, the claim appears to be implying directly abutment/contact between the spring and the wind tube. This conflict in scope between the disclosure and the claim renders the true scope of Claim 13 ambiguous, and thus, indefinite. Therefore, the metes and bounds of the claim cannot be discerned. For examination purposes herein, the examiner has interpreted the limitation in question as requiring indirect contact between the spring and the wind tube (as is supported by the originally filed specification).
Appropriate correction is required.
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)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 1-3, 7-12, & 14-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by US 5,560,078 to Toensing et al.
In regards to independent Claims 1 & 16, and with particular reference to Figures 1-5 & 24-27, Toensing et al. (Toensing) discloses:
1. A blower (Fig. 1), comprising: a body (1) comprising a fan assembly (39; Fig. 2), a motor (17; Fig. 2) driving the fan assembly to rotate about a fan axis (29; Fig. 2), and a housing (2) formed with a grip (4) for a user to hold (Figs. 1-2), wherein the fan assembly and the motor are arranged in the housing (Fig. 2); a wind tube (44; Fig. 24), detachably connected to the body (Fig. 24; col. 9, lines 54-55; “detachable”), through which air passes (col. 13, lines 1-14); and an ejection mechanism (45, 46), wherein the ejection mechanism applies an ejection force so that the wind tube tends to be separated from the body (“resilient tabs 45 are simply depressed which removes the lips 46 from the slots 50 and which allows the tabs 45 and the tube 44 to be pulled away from the housing outlet”; col. 10, lines 7-11).
16. A blower (Fig. 1), comprising: a body (1) comprising a fan assembly (39; Fig. 2), a motor (17; Fig. 2) driving the fan assembly to rotate about a fan axis (29; Fig. 2), and a housing (2; Fig. 2) formed with a grip (4; Fig. 2) for a user to hold, wherein the fan assembly and the motor are arranged in the housing (Fig. 2); a wind tube (44; Fig. 24), detachably connected to the body (Fig. 24; col. 9, lines 54-55; “detachable”), through which air passes (col. 13, lines 1-14); and an unlocking member (45, 46), wherein, when the unlocking member is pushed in a direction away from the body, the wind tube moves away from the body (“resilient tabs 45 are simply depressed which removes the lips 46 from the slots 50 and which allows the tabs 45 and the tube 44 to be pulled away from the housing outlet”; col. 10, lines 7-11).
In regards to Claim 2, the ejection mechanism comprises an elastic member (45), and the elastic member is arranged between the wind tube and the body (Fig. 24).
In regards to Claim 3, the body is circumferentially arranged with a mounting portion (28, 47, 53; Fig. 24), the elastic member is arranged in the mounting portion (“resilient tabs 45 of the blower tube 44 are inserted into the receptacles 47”), a first end (i.e. proximal end; see Fig. 24) of the elastic member abuts against the wind tube (Fig. 24), and a second end (i.e. distal lip 46; see Fig. 24) of the elastic member abuts against the mounting portion (Fig. 24; “the lips 46 of the tabs 45 engage the slots 50 of the receptacles 47, thus retaining the blower tube 44 onto the housing outlet 28”).
In regards to Claim 7, two elastic members (45) are provided (Figs. 27-28), and the two elastic members are arranged opposite to each other relative to the fan axis (Figs. 27-28).
In regards to Claim 8, two elastic members (45) are located on two sides of the body along the circumferential direction of the body (Figs. 27-28).
In regards to Claim 9, a centerline of the body (i.e. centerline of outlet portion 28) is parallel to the horizontal direction (as shown in Fig. 3), and two elastic members (45) are located on the upper and lower sides of the body (Figs. 27-28).
In regards to Claim 10, Toensing discloses an unlocking member (46) wherein, when the unlocking member is pushed in a direction away from the body, the wind tube moves away from the body (“resilient tabs 45 are simply depressed which removes the lips 46 from the slots 50 and which allows the tabs 45 and the tube 44 to be pulled away from the housing outlet”; col. 10, lines 7-11).
In regards to Claim 11, the unlocking member (46) is fixed to the outer side of the wind tube (via spring tab 45; see Figs. 24-28).
In regards to Claim 12, the surface of the unlocking member (46) is a non-slip surface (Fig. 27 shows a slanted surface of unlocking member 46, which prevents axial slippage of a user’s finger).
In regards to Claim 14, the ejection mechanism provides the ejection force to the wind tube so that the wind tube has a tendency to separate from the body (“resilient tabs 45 are simply depressed which removes the lips 46 from the slots 50 and which allows the tabs 45 and the tube 44 to be pulled away from the housing outlet”; col. 10, lines 7-11).
In regards to Claims 15 & 19, the elastic member (45) is a spring or a rubber ring (“resilient tab”; in other words, Toensing discloses spring tabs)
In regards to Claim 17, Toensing discloses an ejection mechanism (45, 46) applying an ejection force so that the wind tube tends to be separated from the body (“resilient tabs 45 are simply depressed which removes the lips 46 from the slots 50 and which allows the tabs 45 and the tube 44 to be pulled away from the housing outlet”; col. 10, lines 7-11).
In regards to Claim 18, the ejection mechanism comprises an elastic member (45), and the elastic member is arranged between the wind tube and the body (Fig. 24), and, when the unlocking member (46) is pushed, the elastic member (45) is elastically reset (“resilient tabs 45 are simply depressed which removes the lips 46 from the slots 50 and which allows the tabs 45 and the tube 44 to be pulled away from the housing outlet”; col. 10, lines 7-11).
In regards to Claim 20, the unlocking member (46) is fixed to the outer side of the wind tube (apparent in Figs. 24 & 27-28).
Claim(s) 1-6 & 10-11, & 13-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by US 2022/0099096 to Numata.
In regards to independent Claims 1 & 16, and with particular reference to Figures 1-12, Numata discloses:
1. A blower (1; Fig. 1), comprising: a body (8) comprising a fan assembly (885), a motor (881) driving the fan assembly to rotate about a fan axis (A0), and a housing (81, 83) formed with a grip (83) for a user to hold (Fig. 1), wherein the fan assembly and the motor are arranged in the housing (Fig. 1); a wind tube (4), detachably connected to the body (Fig. 1; paras. 65, 82, 103-114), through which air passes (Fig. 1; para. 75); and an ejection mechanism (9), wherein the ejection mechanism applies an ejection force (i.e. spring force from spring 95) so that the wind tube tends to be separated from the body (paras. 95-106; “When the user further pushes (moves) the nozzle 4 rearward, as shown in FIG. 11, the rear end surfaces 114 of the claws 112 abut on (come into contact with) the abutment surfaces 936 of the receiving recesses 935 of the slide sleeve 93, respectively, and move the slide sleeve 93 rearward relative to the lock sleeve 91 against the biasing force of the biasing spring 95”).
16. A blower (Fig. 1), comprising: a body (8) comprising a fan assembly (885), a motor (881) driving the fan assembly to rotate about a fan axis (A0), and a housing (81, 83) formed with a grip (83) for a user to hold, wherein the fan assembly and the motor are arranged in the housing (Fig. 1); a wind tube (4), detachably connected to the body (Fig. 1; paras. 65, 82, 103-114), through which air passes (Fig. 1; para. 75); and an unlocking member (93), wherein, when the unlocking member is pushed in a direction away from the body, the wind tube moves away from the body (para. 114; “the slide sleeve 93 is biased by the biasing spring 95 and moved to the front position (see FIG. 5) as the nozzle 4 is moved forward and separated from the air duster”).
In regards to Claim 2, the ejection mechanism comprises an elastic member (95), and the elastic member is arranged between the wind tube and the body (Fig. 1).
In regards to Claim 3, the body is circumferentially arranged with a mounting portion (813; Figs. 1 & 5), the elastic member (95) is arranged in the mounting portion (Fig. 5), a first end (i.e. left end) of the elastic member abuts (at least indirectly) against the wind tube (via intermediate sleeve 93; Fig. 12), and a second end (i.e. right end) of the elastic member abuts against the mounting portion (Fig. 5).
In regards to Claim 4, the ejection mechanism (9) further comprises a mounting cover (93) slidably connected to the mounting portion (Figs. 5 & 11-12), the first end of the elastic member abuts against the mounting cover (Figs. 5 & 12), and a side of the mounting cover facing away from the elastic member abuts against the wind tube (Figs. 1 & 11-12).
In regards to Claim 5, the mounting cover (93) extends out of the mounting portion (i.e. radially outward from, as seen best in Fig. 5), and the end surface of the wind tube abuts against the mounting cover (Figs. 11-12).
In regards to Claim 6, a limiting protrusion (931) protrudes along the circumference of the mounting cover (93) (Figs. 11-12), a retaining edge (814) is provided at a notch (i.e. groove) of the mounting portion (813) (Fig. 5), and the limiting protrusion (931) is limited to the retaining edge (Figs. 11-12).
In regards to Claim 10, Numata discloses an unlocking member (93) wherein, when the unlocking member is pushed in a direction away from the body, the wind tube moves away from the body (para. 114; “the slide sleeve 93 is biased by the biasing spring 95 and moved to the front position (see FIG. 5) as the nozzle 4 is moved forward and separated from the air duster”).
In regards to Claim 11, the unlocking member (93) is fixed to the outer side of the wind tube (as shown best in Fig. 12, member 93 is attached at 936 to the outer end/side 118 of the wind tube).
In regards to Claim 13, the elastic member (95) is annular (i.e. a coil spring; see Figs. 5 & 12) and is disposed on the wind tube or the body (Figs. 1 & 5), and the two ends of the elastic member are respectively in contact (at least indirectly) with the wind tube and the body (Fig. 12).
In regards to Claim 14, the ejection mechanism provides the ejection force to the wind tube so that the wind tube has a tendency to separate from the body (paras. 95-106; “When the user further pushes (moves) the nozzle 4 rearward, as shown in FIG. 11, the rear end surfaces 114 of the claws 112 abut on (come into contact with) the abutment surfaces 936 of the receiving recesses 935 of the slide sleeve 93, respectively, and move the slide sleeve 93 rearward relative to the lock sleeve 91 against the biasing force of the biasing spring 95”; para. 114; “the slide sleeve 93 is biased by the biasing spring 95 and moved to the front position (see FIG. 5) as the nozzle 4 is moved forward and separated from the air duster”).
In regards to Claims 15 & 19, the elastic member (95) is a spring or a rubber ring (“a biasing spring 95”; para. 95)
In regards to Claim 17, Numata discloses an ejection mechanism (9) applying an ejection force so that the wind tube tends to be separated from the body (paras. 95-106; “When the user further pushes (moves) the nozzle 4 rearward, as shown in FIG. 11, the rear end surfaces 114 of the claws 112 abut on (come into contact with) the abutment surfaces 936 of the receiving recesses 935 of the slide sleeve 93, respectively, and move the slide sleeve 93 rearward relative to the lock sleeve 91 against the biasing force of the biasing spring 95”; para. 114; “the slide sleeve 93 is biased by the biasing spring 95 and moved to the front position (see FIG. 5) as the nozzle 4 is moved forward and separated from the air duster”).
In regards to Claim 18, the ejection mechanism comprises an elastic member (95), and the elastic member is arranged between the wind tube and the body (Fig. 12), and, when the unlocking member (93) is pushed, the elastic member (95) is elastically reset (paras. 95-106; “When the user further pushes (moves) the nozzle 4 rearward, as shown in FIG. 11, the rear end surfaces 114 of the claws 112 abut on (come into contact with) the abutment surfaces 936 of the receiving recesses 935 of the slide sleeve 93, respectively, and move the slide sleeve 93 rearward relative to the lock sleeve 91 against the biasing force of the biasing spring 95”; para. 114; “the slide sleeve 93 is biased by the biasing spring 95 and moved to the front position (see FIG. 5) as the nozzle 4 is moved forward and separated from the air duster”).
In regards to Claim 20, the unlocking member (93) is fixed to the outer side of the wind tube (apparent in Fig. 12).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. See also US 2022/0412364 to Takano et al., US 2016/0195097 to Patrick, and US 6,158,082 to Beckey et al., each of which discloses a handheld blower unit having a wind tube.
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
Prosecution Insights