DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed March 12,2026 have been fully considered.
The applicant argues claim 1 has been amended to include allowable subject matter from dependent claim 5 and its intervening claims. The entirety of the limitations of claim 5 has not been incorporated into claim 1. The applicant notes paragraph 53 of the office action of December 18, 2025 describing the third axis of rotation of Song when modified by Li is not parallel to the first axis in any orientation of the arm. The examiner finds amended claim 1 only recites with regard to the third axis that it is parallel to the first axis in a first fan orientation. No details of any joint structure are recited or any other limitations which preclude the third axis from being coincident with the first axis. Additionally, claim 4 recites that the third axis is different than the first and second axes; therefore, it must be possible to interpret a third axis as the same or coincident with the first or second axes (or the claim would not be further limiting). The examiner therefore interprets the third axis in the rejections below for claim 1 and its dependent claims as being coincident with the first axis.
Claim 15 and its dependent claims are found allowable as discussed in the Allowable Subject Matter section.
The changes to the rejections are necessitated by the amendments; therefore the rejections are final.
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.
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.
Claims 1, 6, 10-12, and 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Song (WO2023197690) hereinafter Song in view of Dou et al. (CN104763689) hereinafter Dou and Gammack et al. (U.S Pre-Grant Publication US 20110110805) hereinafter Gammack.
Regarding claim 1, Song discloses:
PNG
media_image1.png
621
440
media_image1.png
Greyscale
A bladeless fan {Figure 17; [0050]}, comprising:
a base configured to be positioned on a surface {Figure 17, below (27) is positioned on a surface},
a support rod coupled to the base {Figure 17 (27) is coupled to the base described above}; and
a fan arm rotatably coupled to the support rod at a connection joint {Annotated Figure 17, both left and right instances of (31) are coupled to the support rod via (1) at the connection joint (I) which includes left and right instances of (32)},
the fan arm being rotatable about a second axis perpendicular to the first axis and parallel to the surface {Figures 17/19, the fan arm rotates about an axis that is in/out of the page. This axis is perpendicular to a first axis that is vertical and is parallel to the surface as the surface extends both left/right and in/out of the page}.
the fan arm having first and second fan arm portions rotatably coupled to opposite sides of the connection joint {Annotated Figure 1, first and second arms are the left and right instances of (31)},
wherein first and second airflow openings are formed in the first and second and portions, respectively {Figure 17, each instance of (31) also has airflow openings (4)}, and
wherein rotation of an impeller is configured to generate airflow that is emitted from the fan arm {Figure 17, (1) houses an impeller in the same manner as the earlier embodiments of the figures such as Figures 6, 7 and 13; (16)/(19)}.
Song does not disclose:
The impeller rotates within the base
a portion of the base being rotatable relative to the surface
wherein the first and second fan arm portions are rotatable about a third axis parallel to the first axis in a first fan orientation
Dou pertains to bladeless fans. Dou teaches:
The impeller rotates within the base {Figure 8, the base has an unlabeled impeller near the bottom that rotates within}
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have had the base include the impeller and route the air upward as taught by Dou for the configuration of Song rather than having the impeller at the top of the support rod. One of ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to do so as doing so is a simple substitution (see MPEP 2143 I B) based on the following analysis. Both configurations of having the impeller at the top of the tower of the bladeless fan and having the impeller at the base were known in the art with their functions of supplying air to the fan outlet being known as described in the discussion above (Dou describes having to route the air through the support rod (104)). One of ordinary skill in the art would be able to perform the substitution with the result being predictable as a person of ordinary skill in the art understands the air would have to simply be routed through the tower as taught by Dou; the functionality is otherwise substantially identical. Additionally, having the heavy impeller components at the base improves the stability of the fan making it less likely to fall over.
Gammack pertains to bladeless fans. Gammack teaches:
a portion of the base being rotatable relative to the surface about a first axis perpendicular to the surface {Figure 3 (20) is the upper portion of the base and rotates relative to the stationary surface; the upper base portion (20) rotates about (56a) which has an axis that is vertical which is perpendicular to the flat surface on which it sits; [0060]}
wherein the first and second fan arm portions are rotatable about a third axis parallel to the first axis in a first fan orientation {There may be considered a third axis that is parallel and coincident with the first axis which the first and second arm portions are rotatable about as they are rotatable about the first axis as described above. No details of any joint structure are recited or any other limitations which preclude the third axis from being coincident with the first axis}
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have an oscillating/rotating base as taught by Gammack for the configuration of Song. One of ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to do so as doing so to distribute the air flow over an area {Gammack [0025]; [0077]}.
Regarding claim 6, the combination of Song, Dou, and Gammack further teaches:
wherein the support rod is coupled to the base such that the support rod is configured to rotate together with the portion of the base {Gammack Figures 2/3, the entirety of (20) and structures connecting to it including the support rod (34) rotate with the upper portion of the base (20); [0060]}.
Regarding claim 10, the combination of Song, Dou, and Gammack further teaches:
wherein the first and second fan arm portions are independently moveable {Song, Figure 17; the left and right instances of (31) each have their own instances of (32) and are therefore independently moveable}.
Regarding claim 11, the combination of Song, Dou, and Gammack further teaches:
wherein at least one of movement of the base, movement of the support rod, movement of the fan arm, movement of the connection joint, and movement of the first and second fan and portions is a motorized movement {Gammack Figure 3, there is a motor for oscillating the base, [0060]}.
Regarding claim 12, the combination of Song, Dou, and Gammack further teaches:
wherein the bladeless fan is in wireless communication with a user device, and wherein the motorized movement is configured to be remotely controlled via the user device {Gammack Figure 3, the motorized movement described in claim 11 is controlled remotely via remote control which is implicitly wireless, see MPEP 2144.01; [0060]}.
Regarding claim 14, the combination of Song, Dou, and Gammack further teaches:
wherein the generated airflow flows {The following airflow is based on the combination of Song, Dou, and Gammack. The teachings of Dou where the impeller is moved to the based also results in changing the airflow routing of Song to similar to that of Dou}:
from the base into an airway of the support rod {Dou Figure 8, air flows from the base (102) where the impeller is into the airway of the support rod (104)},
through an airway of the connection joint {Dou Figure 8, air flows through (106) as it has a hollow joint; Song also has the connection joint hollow; [0053]},
through an airway of the fan arm {Song Figure 17, (31) has an airway}, and
through the first and second airflow openings to be emitted from a plurality of nozzles {Song Figure 17 (4) has of openings that are nozzles that emit the air, see MPEP 2144.01}.
Claims 13 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Song in view of Dou and Gammack as applied to claim 1 above, and in further view of Li et al. (CN209083703) hereinafter Li.
Regarding claim 13, the combination of Song, Dou, and Gammack teaches the bladeless fan of claim 1, but does not teach:
wherein the first and second airflow openings are configured to emit air in different directions from each other
Li pertains to bladeless fans. Li teaches:
wherein the first and second airflow openings are configured to emit air in different directions from each other {Li Figure 3, the rotation about (6) causes the arms to emit air in different directions; Li page 2, 4th paragraph}
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have the first and second fan arms have the additional rotational axis along the lateral direction as taught by Li for bladeless fan the combination of Song, Dou, and Gammack. One of ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to do so as continuous air can be supplied in multiple directions {Li page 2, 4th paragraph}
Claims 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Song in view of Dou and Gammack as applied to claim 1 above, and in further view of Park (KR101979679) hereinafter Park.
Regarding claim 7, the combination of Song, Dou, and Gammack teaches the bladeless fan of claim 1, but does not teach:
wherein the support rod is movably coupled to the base such that the support rod is configured to rotate independently of the portion of the base.
Park pertains to a bladeless fan.
Park teaches:
wherein the support rod is movably coupled to the base such that the support rod is configured to rotate independently of the portion of the base {Figure 3 (112) can rotate independently of (200)}.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have the support rod be to be tiled based on the teachings of Park for the bladeless fan of the combination of Song, Dou, and Gammack. One of ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to do so as doing so to be able to adjust the rotation angle of the fan and where the air is directed {Park [0067]}.
Claim 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Song in view of Dou and Gammack as applied to claim 1 above, and in further view of Fitton et al. (U.S Pre-Grant Publication 20110236229) hereinafter Fitton.
Regarding claim 8, the combination of Song, Dou, and Gammack teaches the bladeless fan of claim 1, but does not teach:
wherein the support rod is configured to be tilted such that the support rod extends outwardly from the base at an acute angle relative to a central axis of the base.
Fitton pertains to bladeless fans. Fitton teaches:
wherein the support rod is configured to be tilted such that the support rod extends outwardly from the base at an acute angle relative to a central axis of the base {Figure 5 (42) is tilted relative to (40); [0042]. The disclosure of Fitton is also applicable to a tower/floor fan although not shown, see [0002]. The tower/floor fan has a support rod that would move with (42) which is tilted as described above}.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have the support rod be to be tiled based on the teachings of Fitton for the bladeless Fan of the combination of Song, Dou, and Gammack. One of ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to do so as doing so to be able to direct air to the desired location {Fitton [0042]}.
Claim 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Song in view of Dou and Gammack as applied to claim 1 above, and in further view of Parel et al. (U.S Pre-Grant Publication 20190264698) hereinafter Parel.
Regarding claim 9, the combination of Song, Dou, and Gammack teaches the bladeless fan of claim 1, but does not teach:
wherein a distance between the connection joint and the base is adjustable.
Parel pertains to bladeless fans. Parel teaches:
wherein a distance between the connection joint and the base is adjustable {Figure 4 (222) may telescope which results in the distance between the base and the connection joint in the fan assembly (200) at the top to be adjustable; [0024]}.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have the support rod be telescoping as taught by Parel which results in the claimed distance being adjustable of the combination of Song, Dou, and Gammack. One of ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to do so as doing so to be able to direct air to the desired location/height {Parel [0024]}.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 15-21 are allowed.
Claims 4-5 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:
Claim 4 requires the third axis be different than the first and second axis. As discussed in the rejection of claim 1, to reject the claim, the third axis must be the same as the first axis. There is insufficient evidence to have the fan arms rotatable about a third axis that is parallel to the first axis in a first fan orientation that is different than first and second axes for similar reasons as discussed with regard to claim 5 below.
Claim 5 recites, “wherein, in a first fan orientation, the fan arm is parallel to the support rod and the third axis is parallel to the first axis and perpendicular to the second axis, and wherein, in a second fan orientation, the fan arm is perpendicular to the support rod and the third axis is perpendicular to the first axis and parallel to the second axis.”
The closest prior art is Song. Song in Embodiment 3 teaches rotation of the arms themselves are about a single axis as described in the rejection of claim 3. The rotation in Embodiment 2 teaches rotation about a different axis, but the rotations are disclosed in the context of storage capability rather than adjustability of the airflow. The rejection of claim 4 relies upon the additional teachings of Li (CN209083703) to add another degree of rotation to the joint of Song. The axis of rotation are in/out of the page in Figure 19 of Song with the additional rotation of Li adding a rotation along an axis that extends left/right in the depiction of Figure 19 of Song. The third axis of rotation is therefore not parallel to the first axis in any orientation of the arm (as the rotational axes are fixed).
For the claim to be satisfied the third axis would have to be along the longitudinal direction of the arm. Cai (U.S Pre-Grant Publication 20220145901) teaches that the bladeless fan may have arms / ducts that rotate along their longitudinal axis as shown in Figures 4-7 to adjust the air supply angle. The arms / ducts of Cai only have the 1 rotational degree of freedom and are fixed in the other rotational degrees of freedom. If the longitudinal degree of freedom along the arm / duct of Cai were to be added to the configuration of Song, considerable redesign of the system would be required. The rotational degrees of freedom already present in the combination of Song and Li would not allow the teachings of Cai to be able to be easily implemented. The components responsible for the rotation in Cai would likely need to be included entirely in the rotating portion of the arm of Song for both rotational freedoms to be accommodated. There is insufficient evidence to suggest making this degree of modification.
Claim 15 recites, “a third adjustment point configured to allow rotational adjustment of at least a portion of the fan arm about a longitudinal axis of the fan arm”.
Since for claim 5 to be satisfied, the examiner finds the third axis would have to be along the longitudinal direction of the arm, the same reasons discussed above with regard to claim 5 apply to claim 15. Claims 16-21 are dependent upon claim 15 and therefore also contain allowable subject matter.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MICHAEL K. REITZ whose telephone number is (571)272-1387. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 7:30 a.m. -5:30 p.m.
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 5712703508. 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 K. REITZ/Examiner, Art Unit 3745
Prosecution Insights