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 Interpretation
The term “about” is defined by 1-15% of the value in paragraph 44 of the instant application’s specification.
Double Patenting
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a nonstatutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13.
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer.
Claims 1-9, 11, 13, 18-20 ae rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 11 of U.S. Patent No. 12442379 in view of Zhong US 12097523 and Stutts US 20030111746.
Instant application
US Patent No. 12442379
Claim 1: A fan comprising: a head assembly comprising a fan and a motor coupled to the fan, the head assembly comprising an articulation mechanism and a plurality of legs coupled to the articulation mechanism;
a base assembly detachably coupled to the head assembly, the base assembly comprising a base and a support having a first end coupled to the base and a second end opposite the first end, the support comprising a housing and an elongate receiving portion arranged within the housing at the second end of the support, the receiving portion configured to receive the plurality of legs to detachably couple the head assembly to the base assembly; and
a misting system comprising a supply tank, a pump, and a nozzle configured to atomize a liquid stored in the supply.
Claim 11: A fan comprising: a head assembly having a fan and a motor operatively coupled to the fan, the head assembly including an articulation mechanism and a plurality of legs coupled to the articulation mechanism; and
a base assembly detachably coupled to the head assembly, the base assembly having a base and a support with a first end coupled to the base and a second end opposite the first end, the support including a housing and an elongate receiving portion arranged within the housing at the second end of the support, the plurality of legs being removably received within the receiving portion.
However, Mathias is silent as to:
a misting system comprising a supply tank, a nozzle and a pump.
From the same field of endeavor, Zhong teaches:
a misting system comprising a supply tank (Col 6, line 18-26 and Col 9, line 54- Col 10, line 7: Water source), nozzle (Fig 12: 20) and a pump (Fig 9: 163).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to have modified Mathias’s misting system with the integral side nozzles, pump and supply of Zhong to improve the convenience of operation (Col 15, line 2-5).
Claim 2-8, 9, and 11
see rejection in 35 USC 103 section for obviousness type analysis
Claim 13: A misting fan comprising: a fan device comprising a head assembly and a base assembly coupled to the head assembly, the base assembly comprising a base and a support;
a supply tank coupled to at least one of the support or the base; and a pump configured to draw fluid from the supply tank to a nozzle disposed on the head assembly.
Claim 11: A fan comprising: a head assembly having a fan and a motor operatively coupled to the fan,
a base assembly detachably coupled to the head assembly,
However, Mathias is silent as to:
a supply tank coupled to at least one of the support or the base; and
a pump configured to draw fluid from the supply tank to a nozzle disposed on the head assembly.
From the same field of endeavor, Zhong teaches:
a supply tank (Col 6, line 18-26 and Col 9, line 54- Col 10, line 7: Water source),
nozzle (Fig 12: 20) and
a pump (Fig 9: 163) configured to draw fluid from the supply tank to a nozzle disposed on the head assembly.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to have modified Mathias’s misting system with the integral side nozzles, pump and supply of Zhong to improve the convenience of operation (Col 15, line 2-5).
From the same field of endeavor, Stutts teaches:
wherein the supply tank is coupled to the base (Fig 1: 30 is connected to the base 12).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to have modified Mathias to have a tank attached to the base as taught by Stutts to allow for the unit to be self-contained to reduce leakage from hoses and other sources (Par 30).
Claim 18-20
see rejection in 35 USC 103 section for obviousness type analysis
Claims 1-9, 11, 13, 18-20 are provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 1 of copending Application No. 19/335711 in view of Zhong US 12097523 and Stutts US 20030111746.
Instant application
Application No. 19/335711
Claim 1: A fan comprising: a head assembly comprising a fan and a motor coupled to the fan, the head assembly comprising an articulation mechanism and a plurality of legs coupled to the articulation mechanism;
a base assembly detachably coupled to the head assembly, the base assembly comprising a base and a support having a first end coupled to the base and a second end opposite the first end, the support comprising a housing and an elongate receiving portion arranged within the housing at the second end of the support, the receiving portion configured to receive the plurality of legs to detachably couple the head assembly to the base assembly; and
a misting system comprising a supply tank, a pump, and a nozzle configured to atomize a liquid stored in the supply.
Claim 1: A fan device, comprising: a head assembly having a fan and a motor operatively coupled to the fan, the head assembly including an articulation mechanism and a plurality of legs coupled to the articulation mechanism; and
a base assembly configured to detachably couple to the head assembly, wherein the fan device is movable between a first configuration, in which the base assembly is placed on a surface and coupled to the head assembly, and a second configuration, in which the plurality of legs is placed on the surface and the base assembly is detached from the head assembly.
However, Mathias is silent as to:
a misting system comprising a supply tank, a nozzle and a pump.
From the same field of endeavor, Zhong teaches:
a misting system comprising a supply tank (Col 6, line 18-26 and Col 9, line 54- Col 10, line 7: Water source), nozzle (Fig 12: 20) and a pump (Fig 9: 163).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to have modified Mathias’s misting system with the integral side nozzles, pump and supply of Zhong to improve the convenience of operation (Col 15, line 2-5).
Claim 2-8, 9, and 11
see rejection in 35 USC 103 section for obviousness type analysis
Claim 13: A misting fan comprising: a fan device comprising a head assembly and a base assembly coupled to the head assembly, the base assembly comprising a base and a support;
a supply tank coupled to at least one of the support or the base; and a pump configured to draw fluid from the supply tank to a nozzle disposed on the head assembly.
Claim 1: A fan device, comprising: a head assembly having a fan and a motor operatively coupled to the fan, and a base assembly configured to detachably couple to the head assembly,
However, Mathias is silent as to:
a supply tank coupled to at least one of the support or the base; and
a pump configured to draw fluid from the supply tank to a nozzle disposed on the head assembly.
From the same field of endeavor, Zhong teaches:
a supply tank (Col 6, line 18-26 and Col 9, line 54- Col 10, line 7: Water source),
nozzle (Fig 12: 20) and
a pump (Fig 9: 163) configured to draw fluid from the supply tank to a nozzle disposed on the head assembly.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to have modified Mathias’s misting system with the integral side nozzles, pump and supply of Zhong to improve the convenience of operation (Col 15, line 2-5).
From the same field of endeavor, Stutts teaches:
wherein the supply tank is coupled to the base (Fig 1: 30 is connected to the base 12).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to have modified Mathias to have a tank attached to the base as taught by Stutts to allow for the unit to be self-contained to reduce leakage from hoses and other sources (Par 30).
Claim 18-20
see rejection in 35 USC 103 section for obviousness type analysis
This is a provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejection.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claims 1-8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mathias et al. US 20250075704 in view of Zhong US 12097523.
Regarding claim 1, Mathias discloses: A fan (Fig 1A) comprising:
a head assembly (105) comprising a fan (160) and a motor (Fig 10: 151) coupled to the fan, the head assembly comprising an articulation mechanism (Fig 5: 200) and a plurality of legs (175) coupled to the articulation mechanism;
a base assembly (Fig 1B: 110) detachably coupled to the head assembly, the base assembly comprising a base (115) and a support (122) having a first end (183) coupled to the base and a second end (184) opposite the first end, the support comprising a housing (120) and an elongate receiving portion (Fig 6: 300) arranged within the housing at the second end of the support, the receiving portion configured to receive the plurality of legs to detachably couple the head assembly to the base assembly (Par 27); and
a misting system (Fig 2: 150) comprising a nozzle (155) configured to atomize a liquid stored in the supply (Par 28).
However, Mathias is silent as to:
a misting system comprising a supply tank and a pump.
From the same field of endeavor, Zhong teaches:
a misting system comprising a supply tank (Col 6, line 18-26 and Col 9, line 54- Col 10, line 7: Water source), nozzle (Fig 12: 20) and a pump (Fig 9: 163).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to have modified Mathias’s misting system with the integral side nozzles, pump and supply of Zhong to improved to convenience of operation (Col 15, line 2-5).
Regarding claim 2, Mathias as modified by Zhong in the rejection of claim 1, where Zhong teaches:
wherein the nozzle is disposed within an outer perimeter of the head assembly (Fig 12: 20).
Regarding claim 3, Mathias as modified by Zhong in the rejection of claim 1, where Zhong teaches:
wherein the head assembly further comprises a housing, and the nozzle is disposed in a recessed portion of the housing (Fig 7: Housing 134 has 133 with a hole/ recessed portion and the nozzle is located within).
Regarding claim 4, Mathias as modified by Zhong in the rejection of claim 1, where Zhong teaches:
wherein the misting system further comprises a second nozzle spaced from the nozzle by about a diameter of the head assembly (Fig 12: two 20 located at a diameter of the head).
Regarding claim 5, Mathias as modified by Zhong in the rejection of claim 1, where Mathias discloses:
a grill (Fig 2: 145) forming a forward portion of the head assembly, and a hub (Center of 145) disposed at a central portion of the grill , wherein the nozzle is disposed on the hub (150).
Regarding claim 6, Mathias as modified by Zhong in the rejection of claim 1, where Zhong teaches:
wherein the nozzle is disposed at an angle relative to a plane coplanar with a front of the head assembly (Fig 7: 133 that holds the nozzle is angled).
Regarding claim 7, Mathias as modified by Zhong in the rejection of claim 1, where Zhong teaches: (Fig 7: 133 that holds the nozzle is angled). However, they are silent as to:
wherein the angle is between 15 and 75 degrees from the plane coplanar with the front of the head assemble.
While Zhong seems to fall within applicants range, the specific range is not disclosed. There is also no criticality or unexpected results in Applicant’s disclosure for the claimed range. The courts have held that “where 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.” See MPEP 2144.05 II A.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to have nozzle agnel between 15 and 75 degrees if through routine experimentation such a range was found to produce the spray angle satisfy the requirement of a user (which is one of the goals of Zhong Col 11, line 56- Col 12, line 2).
Regarding claim 8, Mathias as modified by Zhong in the rejection of claim 1, where Zhong teaches:
wherein the pump is disposed within the head assembly (Fig 8 and 9: pump is within the head).
Claims 9 and 11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mathias et al. US 20250075704 and Zhong US 12097523 as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Stutts US 20030111746.
Regarding claim 9, Mathias as modified by Zhong in the rejection of claim 1, where they are silent as to:
wherein the supply tank is coupled to the base.
From the same field of endeavor, Stutts teaches:
wherein the supply tank is coupled to the base (Fig 1: 30 is connected to the base 12).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to have modified Mathias to have a tank attached to the base as taught by Stutts to allow for the unit to be self-contained to reduce leakage from hoses and other sources (Par 30).
Regarding claim 11, Mathias as modified by Zhong in the rejection of claim 1, where they are silent as to:
wherein the supply tank is coupled to the support.
From the same field of endeavor, Stutts teaches:
wherein the supply tank is coupled to the support (Fig 1: 30 is connected to the base 12 which in turn is connected to the upper support 15).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to have modified Mathias to have a tank attached to the base as taught by Stutts to allow for the unit to be self-contained to reduce leakage from hoses and other sources (Par 30).
Claims 13 and 18-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mathias et al. US 20250075704 in view of Zhong US 12097523 and Stutts US 20030111746.
Regarding claim 13, Mathias discloses: A misting fan (Fig 1A) comprising:
a fan device (100) comprising a head assembly (105) and a base assembly (Fig 1B: 110) coupled to the head assembly, the base assembly comprising a base (115) and a support (122);
However, Mathias is silent as to:
a supply tank coupled to at least one of the support or the base; and
a pump configured to draw fluid from the supply tank to a nozzle disposed on the head assembly.
From the same field of endeavor, Zhong teaches:
a supply tank (Col 6, line 18-26 and Col 9, line 54- Col 10, line 7: Water source),
nozzle (Fig 12: 20) and
a pump (Fig 9: 163) configured to draw fluid from the supply tank to a nozzle disposed on the head assembly.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to have modified Mathias’s misting system with the integral side nozzles, pump and supply of Zhong to improve the convenience of operation (Col 15, line 2-5).
From the same field of endeavor, Stutts teaches:
wherein the supply tank is coupled to the base (Fig 1: 30 is connected to the base 12).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to have modified Mathias to have a tank attached to the base as taught by Stutts to allow for the unit to be self-contained to reduce leakage from hoses and other sources (Par 30).
Regarding claim 18, Mathias as modified by Zhong and Stutts in the rejection of claim 13, where Stutts teaches:
wherein the supply tank further comprises a supply tank port (Fig 2: 33) configured to attach to a first end of a hose, and the head assembly comprises a head assembly port configured to attach to a second end of the hose (34).
Regarding claim 19, Mathias as modified by Zhong and Stutts in the rejection of claim 13, where Stutts teaches:
wherein a ratio of a bounded volume of the misting fan to a bounded volume of the fan device is less than 1.5 (Fig 2: The tank addition does not increase the cube volume of the total fan, therefore not increasing the space of the fan).
Regarding claim 20, Mathias as modified by Zhong and Stutts in the rejection of claim 13, where Stutts teaches:
wherein the ratio of the bounded volume of the misting fan to the bounded volume of the fan device is about 1 (Fig 2: The tank addition does not increase the cube volume of the total fan, therefore not increasing the space of the fan).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 10, 12, 14-17 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.
Claim 10 recites “wherein a bottom surface of the supply tank forms a port configured to receive a boss protruding from the base” and is considered allowable subject matter. The bottom of the tank attaching the a boss of the base along with the combination of the subject matter of claim 1 is not taught by a fan misting system in the prior art found.
Claim 12 recites “wherein a rear surface of the supply tank forms a receiving portion configured to receive a latch on the support” and is considered allowable subject matter. The tank attaching to a latch on the support of the fan assembly along with the combination of the subject matter of claim 1 is not taught by a fan misting system in the prior art found.
Claim 14 distinguishes itself in the same manner as in claim 10.
Claim 15-17 distinguishes itself in the same manner as in claim 12
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Ritter US 12607374, White US 7395676, and Stearns US 20150247644, Natschke et al. US 6086053 and Hanish et al. US 6257502 discloses a fan with a center misting system. Godinez US 20170312704, Hicks et al. US 6237896, and Hubert et al. US 20130219933 discloses a fan with a supply tank for a misting system. Altman et al. US 20130175714 and Keeney US 6272874 discloses a pump assembly attached to a fan. Wiegel US 3296739 discloses an outer diameter nozzle misting system. CN208686628 and CN210106209 disclose fans with legs.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Andrew J Marien whose telephone number is (469)295-9159. The examiner can normally be reached 9:00 am- 6:00 pm CST, Monday through Friday.
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, 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.
/Andrew J Marien/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3745
Prosecution Insights