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 Claims
This is the first action on the merits of application 19/027,722 filed on January 17, 2025. Claims 1-17 are currently pending and have been examined.
Specification
The disclosure is objected to because of the following informalities:
In para [0004], it appears the reference to “Chinese Patent Application No. CN1144679060A” includes an additional number and refers to --CN114467906A--, cited in the Information Disclosure Statement filed on February 13, 2025.
Appropriate correction is required.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to under 37 CFR 1.83(a). The drawings must show every feature of the invention specified in the claims. Therefore, the following features must be shown or the feature(s) canceled from the claim(s). No new matter should be entered.
In claim 1, lines 1-2, “more than one extension sleeve”; it appears only a single extension sleeve is shown (see Fig. 1).
In claim 1, line 15-16, “more than two groups of track devices disposed on the inner walls of the bottom sleeve and the extension sleeve”; it appears only two groups of track devices are disposed on the inner walls of each of the bottom sleeve and the extension sleeve (see Fig. 4-5).
In claim 1, lines 17-18, “more than two tracks disposed in parallel”; it appears only two track devices are disposed in parallel in each of the track devices (see Fig. 4).
In claim 2, lines 5-6, “the bottoms of the end cover, the first side plate and the second side plate enclose a second limiting groove”; it appears that the second limiting groove is not enclosed by bottoms of each of the end cover, first side plate, and second side plate (see Fig. 8).
In claim 7, lines 1-4, “wherein a vertical distance…is L1, and a vertical distance…is L2”; it appears that the drawings refer to a horizontal distance (left to right), instead of a vertical distance (up to down) (see Fig. 5). Under such an interpretation, it is suggested to amend the limitation to instead refer to --a distance from a top end of the track to a central vertical axis of the insect-and-fly repellent device-- and --a distance from a bottom end of the track to the central vertical axis of the insect-and-fly repellent device--.
In claim 8, lines 1-4, “wherein a vertical distance…is L3, and a vertical distance…is L4”; it appears that the drawings refer to a horizontal distance (left to right), instead of a vertical distance (up to down) (see Fig. 4). Under such an interpretation, it is suggested to amend the limitation to instead refer to --a distance from a top end of the limiting strip to a central vertical axis of the insect-and-fly repellent device-- and --a distance from a bottom end of the limiting strip to the central vertical axis of the insect-and-fly repellent device--.
In claim 12, lines 4-5, “the first rotating member is further provided with more than two first positioning posts”; it appears that the first rotating member is provided with only two first positioning posts (see Fig. 11).
The drawings are objected to under 37 CFR 1.83(a) because they fail to show the following features as described in the specification. Any structural detail that is essential for a proper understanding of the disclosed invention should be shown in the drawing. MPEP § 608.02(d).
In para [0009], “more than one extension sleeve”; it appears only a single extension sleeve is shown (see Fig. 1).
In para [0012], “The slide rail structures includes more than two groups of track devices”; it appears that the slide rail structure includes only two groups of track devices on each of the bottom sleeve and the extension sleeve (see Fig. 4-5).
In para [0012], “the track device includes more than two tracks disposed in parallel”; it appears only two track devices are disposed in parallel in each of the track devices (see Fig. 4).
In para [0029], “more than one extension sleeve 2”; it appears only a single extension sleeve is shown (see Fig. 1). The Examiner further notes that in para [0030], the specification states that “In this embodiment, the number of the extension sleeves 2 is one”.
In para [0034], “The slide rail structure 5 includes more than two groups of track devices”; it appears that the slide rail structure includes only two groups of track devices on each of the bottom sleeve and the extension sleeve (see Fig. 4-5). The Examiner further notes that in para [0035], the specification states that “in this embodiment, the number of track devices on the bottom sleeve 1 and the extension sleeve 2 are both two groups”
In para [0035], “The track devices include more than two tracks 51 disposed in parallel”; it appears only two track devices are disposed in parallel in each of the track devices (see Fig. 4).
In para [0059], “The first rotating member 81 is further provided with more than two first positioning posts 813”; it appears that the first rotating member is provided with only two first positioning posts (see Fig. 11).
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, 3, 8, and 12 are objected to because of the following informalities:
In claim 1, lines 15-16, it is suggested to amend the phrase “the inner walls” to --inner walls-- to clarify antecedent basis of the claim term.
In claim 3, line 2, it is suggested to amend the phrase “which can extend into the second limiting groove” to --configured to extend into the second limiting groove-- to clarify scope of the claim.
In claim 8, line 2, it is suggested to amend the phrase “the center line” to --a center line-- to clarify antecedent basis.
In claim 12, lines 8-9, it is suggested to amend the phrase “which can be inserted into the second blind hole” to --configured to be inserted into the second blind hole-- to clarify scope of the claim.
Appropriate correction is required.
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 1-17 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.
Throughout the claims, numerous elements are introduced as having a “plurality”, “more than one”, or “more than two” of said device, then are later referenced in singular form. Referencing elements in this manner renders the claims indefinite, as it is unclear how many of each element are present, and whether claim limitations refer to each of the plurality of previously recited elements or to a particular one of the plurality of previously recited elements. A non-exhaustive list of examples of this type of claiming is provided below. Applicant is suggested to review the claims for further incidences of elements being introduced in plural form, then later referred to in singular form.
In claim 1, “more than one extension sleeve”, later referred to as “the extension sleeve”.1
In claim 1, “first retaining rings” and “second retaining rings”, later referred to as “the first retaining ring” and “the second retaining ring”, respectively.
In claim 1, “more than two groups of track devices”, later referred to as “the track device”.
In claim 1, “more than two tracks”, later referred to as “the track”.
In claim 1, “locking devices”, later referred to as “the locking device”.
In claim 1, “locking holes”, later referred to as “the locking hole”.
In claim 2, “two first side plates”, later referred to as “the first side plate”.
In claim 6, “limiting devices”, later referred to as “the limiting device”.
In claim 6, “two limiting strips”, later referred to as “the limiting strip”.
In claim 11, “more than one group of positioning assemblies”, later referred to as “the positioning assembly”.
In claim 11, “first blind holes”, later referred to as “the first blind hole”.
In claim 12, “more than two first positioning posts”, later referred to as “the first positioning post”.
Claim 1, lines 7-8, recites “a slide rail structure…between the bottom sleeve and the extension sleeve” and “a slide rail structure…between the extension sleeve and the top sleeve”. However, the claim later refers to “the slide rail structure” in lines 8-9 and 15. It is thus unclear whether “the slide rail structure” refers to the structure between the bottom sleeve and extension sleeve, or to the structure between the extension sleeve and the top sleeve.
Claim 1, line 28 recites the limitation "the locking". There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. It is unclear whether “the locking” refers to the action of holding the device in an extended, use state, or whether it refers to one of the previously recited “locking” elements, such as the locking devices, locking blocks, or locking holes.
Claim 5, line 2, recites “two first side plates”. However, claim 2, upon which claim 5 is dependent, previously recites “two first side plates” in line 2. The claim is rendered indefinite, as it is unclear whether the limitation of claim 5 refers to the same or a different element than that of claim 2.
Claim 10, lines 1-3 recites “wherein the top of the top sleeve is provided with an installation part, a cross-sectional area of which is smaller than a minimum cross-sectional area of the top sleeve”. It is unclear how the top sleeve can comprise an installation part, yet the installation part have a cross-sectional area smaller than that of the top sleeve, as one would need to compare a cross-sectional area of the top sleeve to itself in order to make such a determination. It is further unclear how the installation part is related to other elements of the system, particularly the top sleeve, and the claim is thus rendered indefinite.
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.
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.
Claim(s) 1, 7, and 15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mommy Che Dugan (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=r8tpJM5UWxI, last visited on 01/28/2026), hereinafter Dugan, in view of Chen (US 2020/0240578 A1), hereinafter Chen, Noble et al. (US 11,846,299 B2), hereinafter Noble, and Lin et al. (CN 112567138 A), hereinafter Lin.
PNG
media_image1.png
704
746
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Annotated Figure 1. Dugan, Timestamp 0:54 (Examiner-Annotated)
PNG
media_image2.png
735
930
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Annotated Figure 2. Chen, Fig. 4, Perspective View Showing Slide Rail Structure
(Examiner-Annotated)
Regarding claim 1, as best understood based on the 35 U.S.C. 112(b) issues identified above, Dugan discloses a telescopic insect-and-fly repellent device (title, “Fly Fans for Table”), comprising a bottom sleeve (annotated fig. 1), more than one extension sleeve slidably disposed in the bottom sleeve (annotated fig. 1), and a top sleeve slidably disposed in the extension sleeve (annotated fig. 1; timestamp 0:20-0:24), wherein
a fan assembly is disposed on the top sleeve (annotated fig. 1);
cross-sectional areas of the bottom sleeve, the extension sleeve and the top sleeve are gradually increased from top to bottom (annotated fig. 1).
Dugan does not appear to specifically disclose:
a slide rail structure is disposed between the bottom sleeve and the extension sleeve; a slide rail structure is disposed between the extension sleeve and the top sleeve; with the slide rail structure, the insect-and-fly repellent device is switchable between a storage state and a use state;
a top end of the extension sleeve and a top end of the bottom sleeve are both provided with first retaining rings extending towards a center; a bottom end of the top sleeve and a bottom end of the extension sleeve are both provided with second retaining rings extending outwards; during usage, the first retaining ring and the second retaining ring resist each other, and the second retaining ring is provided with a first limiting groove;
the slide rail structure comprises more than two groups of track devices disposed on the inner walls of the bottom sleeve and the extension sleeve, and the track devices are uniformly disposed on the inner walls of the bottom sleeve and the extension sleeve; the track device comprises more than two tracks disposed in parallel; when the insect-and-fly repellent device is stretched and contracted, the track slides in the first limiting groove to prevent rotation;
a bottom of the extension sleeve and a bottom of the top sleeve are both provided with locking devices, and the locking device comprises a locking block driven by an elastic member;
the locking device further comprises an end cover, a chute is disposed on the end cover, and the locking block slides along the chute; the locking block comprises a locking part; a bottom of the top sleeve and a bottom of the extension sleeve are both provided with locking holes through which the locking part passes;
when the extension sleeve and the top sleeve are stretched to the use state, the locking part pops out along the locking hole, and the locking part abuts against the top ends of the bottom sleeve and the extension sleeve to complete the locking; when the locking part is pressed, the locking part is separated from the top ends of the bottom sleeve and the extension sleeve to push the extension sleeve and the top sleeve, so that the storage is realized.
However, Chen is in the field of fan assemblies (title; abstract) and teaches:
a slide rail structure (system of arcuate grooves 23 located on front and back of telescopic mechanism, as shown in annotated fig. 2 and Chen fig. 8-9) is disposed between the bottom sleeve and the extension sleeve (annotated fig. 2, grooves 23 disposed between each sleeve of telescopic mechanism 2); a slide rail structure is disposed between the extension sleeve and the top sleeve (annotated fig. 2, grooves 23 disposed between each sleeve of telescopic mechanism 2); with the slide rail structure, the insect-and-fly repellent device is switchable between a storage state and a use state (para [0050]);
the slide rail structure comprises more than two groups of track devices disposed on the inner walls of the bottom sleeve and the extension sleeve (annotated fig. 2 and Chen fig. 8-9, each set of grooves 23 located on front and back of telescopic mechanism 2, respectively), and the track devices are uniformly disposed on the inner walls of the bottom sleeve and the extension sleeve (fig. 4 and 8-9); the track device comprises more than two tracks disposed in parallel (annotated fig. 2, each longitudinal notch of each groove 23); when the insect-and-fly repellent device is stretched and contracted, the track slides in the first limiting groove to prevent rotation (annotated fig. 2 and Chen fig. 8-9; para [0050] and [0060]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the telescopic insect-and-fly repellent device with slidably disposed sleeves of Dugan to incorporate the slide rail structure as taught by Chen with a reasonable expectation of success to ensure consistent alignment of the sleeves with one another, such that the sleeves can be telescoped and collapsed in a more stable manner.
Additionally, Noble is in the field of fan assemblies (title; abstract) and teaches:
a top end of the extension sleeve (top end of shaft section 224B/224C) and a top end of the bottom sleeve (top end of shaft section 224D) are both provided with first retaining rings (lip 225) extending towards a center (fig. 5); a bottom end of the top sleeve (bottom end of shaft section 224A) and a bottom end of the extension sleeve (bottom end of shaft section 224B/224C) are both provided with second retaining rings (lip 225) extending outwards (fig. 5); during usage, the first retaining ring and the second retaining ring resist each other (fig. 5), and the second retaining ring is provided with a first limiting groove (fig. 5, groove formed by protrusion of lip 225 from wall of shaft section 224).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the telescopic insect-and-fly repellent device with slidably disposed sleeves of Dugan to incorporate the retaining rings as taught by Noble with a reasonable expectation of success to prevent unwanted detachment of the sleeves from one another, thereby allowing the sleeves to better structurally support one another (col 4, lines 9-21).
Additionally, Lin is in the field of fan assemblies (title) and teaches:
a bottom of the extension sleeve (bottom of second rod 208) and a bottom of the top sleeve (bottom of first rod 207) are both provided with locking devices (comprises top ball 224 and sixth elastic piece 225; fig. 12-13), and the locking device comprises a locking block (top ball 224) driven by an elastic member (sixth elastic piece 225; fig. 13);
the locking device further comprises an end cover (side wall of groove 223, shown on left side of fig. 13), a chute (containing groove 223) is disposed on the end cover (fig. 13), and the locking block slides along the chute (fig. 13); the locking block comprises a locking part (outer portion of top ball 224); a bottom of the top sleeve (bottom of first rod 207) and a bottom of the extension sleeve (bottom of second rod 208) are both provided with locking holes (opening of containing groove 223) through which the locking part passes (fig. 13);
when the extension sleeve and the top sleeve are stretched to the use state, the locking part pops out along the locking hole (fig. 13), and the locking part abuts against the top ends of the bottom sleeve and the extension sleeve to complete the locking (fig. 13; see page 40/42, third paragraph, beginning “Optionally, as shown, the supporting rod 2 comprises…”); when the locking part is pressed, the locking part is separated from the top ends of the bottom sleeve and the extension sleeve to push the extension sleeve and the top sleeve, so that the storage is realized (fig. 13; see page 40/42, third paragraph, beginning “Optionally, as shown, the supporting rod 2 comprises…”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the telescopic insect-and-fly repellent device with slidably disposed sleeves of Dugan to incorporate the locking devices as taught by Lin with a reasonable expectation of success to allow the device to be better secured in a telescoped, use state (see page 39/42, fourth paragraph, beginning “In some embodiments, the supporting rod 2…”).
PNG
media_image3.png
701
372
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Annotated Figure 3. Chen, Fig. 4, Perspective View Showing Tracks
(Examiner-Annotated)
Regarding claim 7, as best understood based on the 35 U.S.C. 112(b) issues identified above, Dugan as modified discloses the telescopic insect-and-fly repellent device according to claim 1, and further discloses wherein a vertical distance from a top of the track to a center line of the insect-and-fly repellent device is L1 (from Chen, annotated fig. 3), and a vertical distance from a bottom of the track to the center line of the insect-and-fly repellent device is L2 (from Chen, annotated fig. 3), wherein L1= L2 (from Chen, annotated fig. 3).
Regarding claim 15, as best understood based on the 35 U.S.C. 112(b) issues identified above, Dugan as modified discloses the telescopic insect-and-fly repellent device according to claim 1, and further discloses wherein the fan assembly further comprises a non-rechargeable battery disposed on the bottom plate (from Dugan, timestamp 0:15), and a key switch is disposed on the bottom sleeve (from Dugan, timestamp 0:28-0:30).
Claim(s) 6 and 8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being obvious over Mommy Che Dugan (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=r8tpJM5UWxI, last visited on 01/28/2026), hereinafter Dugan, in view of Chen (US 2020/0240578 A1), hereinafter Chen, Noble et al. (US 11,846,299 B2), hereinafter Noble, and Lin et al. (CN 112567138 A), hereinafter Lin, as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Berkshire (US D669940 S), hereinafter Berkshire.
PNG
media_image4.png
661
663
media_image4.png
Greyscale
Annotated Figure 4. Berkshire Fig. 2, Side View Showing Limiting Devices
(Examiner-Annotated)
Regarding claim 6, as best understood based on the 35 U.S.C. 112(b) issues identified above, Dugan as modified discloses the telescopic insect-and-fly repellent device according to claim 1, but does not appear to specifically disclose wherein the inner walls of the bottom sleeve and the extension sleeve are both provided with limiting devices, which are capable of preventing the extension sleeve and the top sleeve from swinging during storage; and the limiting device comprises two limiting strips arranged in parallel, the two limiting strips are respectively disposed at both sides of the locking hole, and the locking part slides between the two limiting strips during storage.
However, Berkshire is in the field of telescopic devices (title; fig. 2-3 and 6-7) and teaches wherein the inner walls of the bottom sleeve and the extension sleeve are both provided with limiting devices (annotated fig. 4 and fig. 6-7; multiple limiting devices provided per sleeve), which are capable of preventing the extension sleeve and the top sleeve from swinging during storage (fig. 2-3 and 6-7, extension of locking parts between limiting devices prevents “swinging”); and the limiting device comprises two limiting strips arranged in parallel (annotated fig. 4), the two limiting strips are respectively disposed at both sides of the locking hole (annotated fig. 4), and the locking part slides between the two limiting strips during storage (annotated fig. 4 and fig. 6-7).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the telescopic insect-and-fly repellent device with slidably disposed sleeves and locking part of Dugan as modified to incorporate the limiting devices as taught by Berkshire with a reasonable expectation of success to further ensure alignment of the sleeves with one another, such that the sleeves can be telescoped and collapsed in a more stable manner.
PNG
media_image5.png
661
622
media_image5.png
Greyscale
Annotated Figure 5. Berkshire Fig. 2, Side View Showing L3/L4
(Examiner-Annotated)
Regarding claim 8, as best understood based on the 35 U.S.C. 112(b) issues identified above, Dugan as modified discloses the telescopic insect-and-fly repellent device according to claim 6, and further discloses wherein a vertical distance from a top of the limiting strip to the center line of the insect-and-fly repellent device is L3 (from Berkshire, annotated fig. 5), and a vertical distance from a bottom of the limiting strip to the center line of the insect-and- fly repellent device is L4 (from Berkshire, annotated fig. 5), wherein L3= L4 (from Berkshire, annotated fig. 5).
Claim(s) 9-10, 14, and 16-17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being obvious over Mommy Che Dugan (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=r8tpJM5UWxI, last visited on 01/28/2026), hereinafter Dugan, in view of Chen (US 2020/0240578 A1), hereinafter Chen, Noble et al. (US 11,846,299 B2), hereinafter Noble, and Lin et al. (CN 112567138 A), hereinafter Lin, as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Luo (EP 4176716 A1), hereinafter Luo.
Regarding claim 9, as best understood based on the 35 U.S.C. 112(b) issues identified above, Dugan as modified discloses the telescopic insect-and-fly repellent device according to claim 1, but does not appear to specifically disclose wherein the top of the top sleeve is provided with a motor accommodating cavity; the motor accommodating cavity extends from the top of the top sleeve to the inside, and a mouth of the motor accommodating cavity is further provided with a motor cover plate; and
the fan assembly comprises a motor, a rotating shaft of the motor penetrates through the motor cover plate, and a fan blade assembly is disposed on the rotating shaft of the motor.
However, Luo is in the field of fan assemblies (title; abstract) and teaches wherein the top of the top sleeve (top of repelling device housing 202) is provided with a motor accommodating cavity (motor cavity 206a); the motor accommodating cavity extends from the top of the top sleeve to the inside (fig. 6), and a mouth of the motor accommodating cavity is further provided with a motor cover plate (upper cover plate 207; para [0021]-[0022]); and
the fan assembly (shown in fig. 6) comprises a motor (motor 206), a rotating shaft of the motor (shaft of motor 206) penetrates through the motor cover plate (fig. 6), and a fan blade assembly (rotating shaft 203) is disposed on the rotating shaft of the motor (fig. 6; para [0021]-[0022]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the telescopic insect-and-fly repellent device with fan assembly of Dugan as modified to incorporate the motor accommodating cavity, motor, rotating shaft, and fan blade assembly as taught by Luo with a reasonable expectation of success to effectively power the fan assembly, thereby allowing the device to operate automatically.
Regarding claim 10, as best understood based on the 35 U.S.C. 112(b) issues identified above, Dugan as modified discloses the telescopic insect-and-fly repellent device according to claim 9, and further discloses wherein the top of the top sleeve (from Luo, top of repelling device housing 202) is provided with an installation part (from Luo, upper surface of repelling device housing 202), a cross-sectional area of which is smaller than a minimum cross-sectional area of the top sleeve (from Luo, fig. 6, cross-sectional area of upper surface of housing 202 is smaller than cross-sectional area of remainder of housing 202), and the motor accommodating cavity is disposed in the installation part (from Luo, fig. 6).
Regarding claim 14, as best understood based on the 35 U.S.C. 112(b) issues identified above, Dugan as modified discloses the telescopic insect-and-fly repellent device according to claim 1, but does not appear to specifically disclose wherein a bottom plate for sealing the bottom sleeve is disposed at the bottom of the bottom sleeve;
the fan assembly further comprises a battery disposed on the bottom plate and a Printed Circuit Board (PCB) board, and the PCB board is provided with a key switch and a charging connector; and
the bottom sleeve is provided with a hole through which the key switch and the charging connector extend.
However, Luo is in the field of fan assemblies (title; abstract) and teaches wherein a bottom plate (insertion part 201) for sealing the bottom sleeve (repelling device housing 202) is disposed at the bottom of the bottom sleeve (fig. 1 and 3);
the fan assembly further comprises a battery (“battery” para [0021]) disposed on the bottom plate (para [0021], “A battery…is provided in the repelling device housing 202” and is therefore broadly considered “on” the bottom plate) and a Printed Circuit Board (PCB) board (“circuit board” para [0021]), and the PCB board is provided with a key switch (power button shown in fig. 1) and a charging connector (“charging port” para [0021]); and
the bottom sleeve is provided with a hole through which the key switch and the charging connector extend (fig. 1, power button is shown extending through a hole on the side of repelling device housing 202; para [0021], “charging port…is opened on the repelling device housing 202”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the telescopic insect-and-fly repellent device with sleeves and fan assembly of Dugan as modified to incorporate the bottom plate, battery, PCB board, key switch, and charging connector as taught by Luo with a reasonable expectation of success to allow the device to operate automatically and to provide a user with easy, direct control over operation of the device.
Regarding claim 16, as best understood based on the 35 U.S.C. 112(b) issues identified above, Dugan as modified discloses the telescopic insect-and-fly repellent device according to claim 14, and further discloses wherein a concave cavity depressed inward is disposed on the outer side of the bottom plate (from Dugan, timestamp 1:03) and a suspension bracket is rotatably disposed in the concave cavity (from Dugan, timestamp 1:03 and 1:06-1:11).
Regarding claim 17, as best understood based on the 35 U.S.C. 112(b) issues identified above, Dugan as modified discloses the telescopic insect-and-fly repellent device according to claim 16, and further discloses wherein the suspension bracket is U-shaped (from Dugan, timestamp 1:03), both ends of the suspension bracket are provided with hinge shafts extending outwards (from Dugan, timestamp 1:03), and both ends of the concave cavity are provided with hinge holes corresponding to the hinge shafts (from Dugan, timestamp 1:03).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 2-5 and 11-13 would be allowable if rewritten to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 2nd paragraph, set forth in this Office action and to include all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Conclusion
The cited references made of record in the contemporaneously filed PTO-892 form and not relied upon in the instant office action are considered pertinent to Applicant’s disclosure and may have one or more of the elements in Applicant’s disclosure and at least claim 1.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ERICA M HUEBNER whose telephone number is (703)756-4560. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9:30 AM - 6:00 PM ET.
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, Kimberly Berona, can be reached at (571) 272-6909. 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.
/E.M.H./Examiner, Art Unit 3647
/KIMBERLY S BERONA/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3647
1 The Examiner notes that claims 2-17 are rejected by virtue of dependency upon at least claim 1.