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 .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on February 2nd, 2026 has been entered.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 1 and 14 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on the same previous combination of references applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
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.
Claims 1-8, 10, 14, 18-20, and 22-23 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Dou (CN 104763689) in view of Whitmire (US 20190242392).
Regarding claims 1 and 22;
Dou discloses a bladeless fan, comprising: a base (102) having an impeller (Figure 8) disposed therein; a support rod (104) extending from the base, the impeller and the support rod being axially aligned along a central axis of the base; and a fan arm (18) movably coupled to the support rod at a connection joint (106), the fan arm having first and second fan arm portions (14) in which first and second nozzles (14g) are disposed, respectively; wherein the first and second nozzles are horizontally offset from the central axis of the base (Figure 8); and wherein at least a portion of the connection joint is horizontally aligned with the central axis of the base (Figure 8). The first and second fan arm portions extend along a common axis of the fan arm with the common axis extending through a distal end of the first and second fan arm portions (see the three common axes extending along the distal ends of respective fan arms, Figure 3).
Dou fails to teach the first fan arm portion is movable relative to the second fan arm portion, the first fan arm portion is configured to rotate relative to the second farm arm portion such that a direction of airflow from the first nozzle is different from a direction of airflow from the second nozzle.
Whitmire teaches a bladeless fan with a plurality of fan arms (108) extending from a central air distribution zone (104). Each fan arm includes nozzle (124) and an outlet (132) with air distribution (see arrows in Figure 3). Each fan arm is independently rotated about its shared longitudinal axis (B) that extends from end to end (Figure 1; Paragraphs 28-29).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the bladeless fan of Dou such that first fan arm portion is movable relative to the second fan arm portion, the first fan arm portion is configured to rotate relative to the second farm arm portion such that a direction of airflow from the first nozzle is different from a direction of airflow from the second nozzle as taught by Whitmire for the purposes of supplying the air flow in multiple directions about the respective longitudinal axes.
Regarding claims 2-3, Dou in view of Whitmire teaches the bladeless fan according to claim 1 above. Dou further discloses a motor configured to rotate the impeller is disposed within the base, the motor being axially aligned with the impeller along the central axis of the base (paragraph 60), and wherein a diffuser configured to evenly distribute airflow is disposed within the base, the diffuser being axially aligned with the impeller along the central axis of the base (Paragraph 60).
Regarding claims 4-8, Dou in view of Whitmire teaches the bladeless fan according to claim 1 above. Dou further discloses wherein the support rod is connected to the base at a first end and extends outwardly therefrom along the central axis of the base and terminating at a second end opposite of the first end (Figure 8), a distance between the first and second ends of the support rod is longer than a distance between the connection joint and an end of the fan arm, a distance between the first and second ends of the support rod is longer than a maximum length of the first fan arm portion or the second fan arm portion, a distance between the first and second ends of the support rod is longer than half of a total length of the fan arm, wherein a distance between the first and second ends of the support rod is longer than a distance between a surface on which the base is positioned and the first end of the support rod (see Figure 8, all dimensions of respective limitations are within the claimed ranges).
Regarding claim 10, Dou in view of Whitmire teaches the bladeless fan according to claim 1 above. Dou further discloses the support rod comprises an inner lumen (Figure 9), and wherein first and second fan lumens in fluid communication are formed in the first and second nozzles, respectively (see Figures 5-6; references 12, 120).
Regarding claim 14;
Dou discloses a bladeless fan, comprising: a base (102) having an impeller therein (Figure 8), an elongate support (104) extending from the base and having an inner lumen (Figure 9) configured to receive airflow from the impeller, and a fan arm (18) movably coupled (coupling 106) to the base and having first and second fan arm portions (14) positioned on opposite sides thereof and configured to receive airflow flowing through the inner lumen in the elongate support, the fan arm extending along a longitudinal axis that is offset from a longitudinal axis of the elongate support and a longitudinal axis of the base (fan arm 18 extends in direction perpendicularly to the longitudinal axis of the elongate support and base and therefore is extending at an offset relative therefrom).
Dou fails to teach the first fan arm portion is movable relative to the second fan arm portion.
Whitmire teaches a bladeless fan with a plurality of fan arms (108) extending from a central air distribution zone (104). Each fan arm includes nozzle (124) and an outlet (132) with air distribution (see arrows in Figure 3). Each fan arm is independently rotated about its shared longitudinal axis (B) that extends from end to end (Figure 1; Paragraphs 28-29).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the bladeless fan of Dou such that the first fan arm portion is movable relative to the second fan arm portion as taught by Whitmire for the purposes of supplying the air flow in multiple directions (see background section of Li of the problem sought to be solved).
Dou discloses the bladeless fan according to claim 14 above.
Dou fails to explicitly disclose the first and second fan arm portions each comprise a nozzle opening, each nozzle opening having a length that is about 90 percent of a length of the respective fan arm portion.
Dou further discloses that the nozzle opening has a length that is substantially similar to the length of the respective fan arm portion (Figure 6). Additionally, the length of the nozzle(s) can be adjusted (see Figure 2 through the utilization of spacer(s) 140; additionally, the dimensions of the nozzles can be adjusted as necessary).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the bladeless fan of Dou such that the first and second fan arm portions each comprise a nozzle opening, each nozzle opening having a length that is about 90 percent of a length of the respective fan arm portion for the purposes of optimizing the noise and head of the respective nozzle exits.
Regarding claims 19-20;
Dou in view of Whitmire teaches the bladeless fan according to claim 14 above.
Dou fails to teach a maximum diameter of the inner lumen is approximately two times greater than a maximum diameter of first or second fan lumens formed within the first or second fan arm portions, respectively, and a length of the elongate support is about five times greater than a maximum diameter of the inner lumen of the elongate support.
The modification of the dimensions of the respective circumferences of inner lumen is greater than maximum circumference of first/second fan lumens allows for larger air intake volume while narrowing the flow to help accelerate the airflow at the nozzles and reduction in noise through mechanical stability. In duct/airway design, cross-sectional size is result effective variable to control velocity, pressure drop, balance between branches, and noise. Designers routinely pick sizes to avoid sudden expansions/contractions, keep target velocities, balance flow between outlets. Avoiding sudden expansion at the branched region reduces separation turbulence and loss coefficient with the predictable result of lower pressure losses/less noise; avoiding sudden contraction prevents choking/whistling giving a predictable result of stable velocity and uniform distribution. At the top of MPEP 2144.04, it explains that various modifications, including changes in size and proportion, are “common practices which the court has held normally require only ordinary skill in the art and hence are considered routine expedients.” Specifically, §§IV. A cites, Gardner v. TEC Syst., Inc., 725 F.2d 1338, 220 USPQ 777 (Fed. Cir. 1984), cert. denied, 469 U.S. 830, 225 USPQ 232 (1984), wherein the Federal Circuit held that, where the only difference between the prior art and the claims was a recitation of relative dimensions of the claimed device and a device having the claimed relative dimensions would not perform differently than the prior art device, the claimed device was not patentably distinct from the prior art device. The applicant has not disclosed that having the device with the claimed dimensions solves any stated problem or is for any particular purpose. Further, there is no readily apparent significance or advantage to this limitation. Thus, a device having the claimed relative dimensions would not perform differently than the prior art device. It therefore 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 bladeless fan of Dou such a maximum diameter of the inner lumen is approximately two times greater than a maximum diameter of first or second fan lumens formed within the first or second fan arm portions, respectively, and a length of the elongate support is about five times greater than a maximum diameter of the inner lumen of the elongate support because this modification does not patentably distinguish the claimed device, nor cause the device to perform differently, and thus the modification of the dimensions would have been obvious which achieves the predictable results of avoiding sudden expansion at the branched region reduces separation turbulence and loss coefficient with the predictable result of lower pressure losses/less noise and avoiding sudden contraction prevents choking/whistling giving a predictable result of stable velocity and uniform distribution.
Regarding claim 23, Dou in view of Whitmire teaches the bladeless fan according to claim 1 above. Dou as modified by Whitmire further teaches the first fan arm portion is configured to rotate about the common axis of the fan arm while maintaining alignment with the second fan arm portion (Whitmire Paragraphs 28-29; Dou as modified by Whitmire allows for both arm portions to extend along the same common axis with only the rotational orientation of the nozzle/outlet changes).
Claims 9, 11-13, and 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Dou (CN 104763689) in view of Whitmire (US 20190242392), and further in view of Dyson (US 8469660).
Regarding claim 9;
Dou in view of Whitmire teaches the bladeless fan according to claim 4 above.
Dou fails to teach the connection joint is movable between the first and second ends of the support rod.
Dyson teaches a bladeless fan with a nozzle (14) connected to a support rod (34) at a connection joint (37), the connection joint being movable between the respective ends of the support rod (Figures 1-2) through a telescoping adjustment.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the bladeless fan of Dou such that the connection joint is movable between the first and second ends of the support rod as taught by Dyson for the purposes of adjusting the height of the flow of air through the nozzles.
Regarding claims 11-13;
Dou in view of Whitmire and Dyson teaches the bladeless fan according to claim 9 above.
Dou fails to teach a maximum circumference of the inner lumen is greater than a maximum circumference of the first and second fan lumens, the connection joint comprises a branched airway in fluid communication with the inner lumen and the first and second fan lumens, and a maximum circumference of the branched airway is equal to a maximum circumference of the inner lumen, and wherein a minimum circumference of the branched airway is equal to a maximum circumference of the first and second fan lumens.
It is known to one of ordinary skill in the art of bladeless fans to have respective guiding pathways to branch the flow. Such a branching allows for even airflow distribution and reducing the pressure drop for more directed airflow. Additionally, the modification of the dimensions of the respective circumferences of inner lumen is greater than maximum circumference of first/second fan lumens allows for larger air intake volume while narrowing the flow to help accelerate the airflow at the nozzles and reduction in noise through mechanical stability. In duct/airway design, cross-sectional size is result effective variable to control velocity, pressure drop, balance between branches, and noise. Designers routinely pick sizes to avoid sudden expansions/contractions, keep target velocities, balance flow between outlets. Avoiding sudden expansion at the branched region reduces separation turbulence and loss coefficient with the predictable result of lower pressure losses/less noise; avoiding sudden contraction prevents choking/whistling giving a predictable result of stable velocity and uniform distribution. At the top of MPEP 2144.04, it explains that various modifications, including changes in size and proportion, are “common practices which the court has held normally require only ordinary skill in the art and hence are considered routine expedients.” Specifically, §§IV. A cites, Gardner v. TEC Syst., Inc., 725 F.2d 1338, 220 USPQ 777 (Fed. Cir. 1984), cert. denied, 469 U.S. 830, 225 USPQ 232 (1984), wherein the Federal Circuit held that, where the only difference between the prior art and the claims was a recitation of relative dimensions of the claimed device and a device having the claimed relative dimensions would not perform differently than the prior art device, the claimed device was not patentably distinct from the prior art device. The applicant has not disclosed that having the device with the claimed dimensions solves any stated problem or is for any particular purpose. Further, there is no readily apparent significance or advantage to this limitation. Thus, a device having the claimed relative dimensions would not perform differently than the prior art device. It therefore 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 bladeless fan of Dou such that the connection joint comprises a branched airway in fluid communication with the inner lumen and the first and second fan lumens for the purposes of allowing for even airflow distribution and reducing the pressure drop for more directed airflow, and a maximum circumference of the inner lumen is greater than a maximum circumference of the first and second fan lumens and a maximum circumference of the branched airway is equal to a maximum circumference of the inner lumen, and wherein a minimum circumference of the branched airway is equal to a maximum circumference of the first and second fan lumens to have the claimed dimensions, because this modification does not patentably distinguish the claimed device, nor cause the device to perform differently, and thus the modification of the dimensions would have been obvious which achieves the predictable results of avoiding sudden expansion at the branched region reduces separation turbulence and loss coefficient with the predictable result of lower pressure losses/less noise and avoiding sudden contraction prevents choking/whistling giving a predictable result of stable velocity and uniform distribution.
Regarding claim 17;
Dou in view of Whitmire teaches the bladeless fan according to claim 14 above.
Dou fails to teach the elongate support is configured to be adjustable in length such that a length of the elongate support is between about 50 percent and about 100 percent of a length of the fan arm.
Dyson teaches a bladeless fan with a nozzle (14) connected to a support rod (34) at a connection joint (37), the connection joint being movable between the respective ends of the support rod (Figures 1-2) through a telescoping adjustment. Changing the length of the elongate support is therefore adjustable relative to the nozzle length.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the bladeless fan of Dou such that the elongate support is configured to be adjustable in length such that a length of the elongate support is between about 50 percent and about 100 percent of a length of the fan arm as taught by Dyson for the purposes of adjusting the height of the flow of air through the nozzles; the relative sizing of the respective dimensions amounts to the design choice of the sizing of the fan itself and does not patentably distinguish the claimed device, nor cause the device to perform differently, and thus the modification of the dimensions would have been obvious.
Claims 15-16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Dou (CN 104763689) in view of Whitmire (US 20190242392), and further in view of Katsumata (JP 2018162755).
Dou in view of Whitmire teaches the bladeless fan according to claim 14 above.
Dou fails to teach the fan arm has a length that is about two times greater than a length of the elongate support and the fan arm has a length that is about three times greater than a length of the base.
Katsumata teaches a bladeless fan with a base (12), an elongate support (13), and a fan arm (2) which includes a plurality of nozzles (4). The fan arm is substantially larger than the length of the base (Figures 6-8), and the fan arm is also larger than the elongated support.
At the top of MPEP 2144.04, it explains that various modifications, including changes in size and proportion, are “common practices which the court has held normally require only ordinary skill in the art and hence are considered routine expedients.” Specifically, §§IV. A cites, Gardner v. TEC Syst., Inc., 725 F.2d 1338, 220 USPQ 777 (Fed. Cir. 1984), cert. denied, 469 U.S. 830, 225 USPQ 232 (1984), wherein the Federal Circuit held that, where the only difference between the prior art and the claims was a recitation of relative dimensions of the claimed device and a device having the claimed relative dimensions would not perform differently than the prior art device, the claimed device was not patentably distinct from the prior art device. The applicant has not disclosed that having the device with the claimed dimensions solves any stated problem or is for any particular purpose. Further, there is no readily apparent significance or advantage to this limitation. Thus, a device having the claimed relative dimensions would not perform differently than the prior art device. 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 bladeless fan of Dou such that the fan arm has a length that is about two times greater than a length of the elongate support and the fan arm has a length that is about three times greater than a length of the base as taught by Katsumata because this modification does not patentably distinguish the claimed device, nor cause the device to perform differently, and thus the modification of the dimensions would have been obvious.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JUSTIN D SEABE whose telephone number is (571)272-4961. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday, 9:00-5:30.
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, Nathaniel Wiehe can be reached at 571-272-8648. 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.
/JUSTIN D SEABE/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3745
Prosecution Insights