/COURTNEY D HEINLE/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3745 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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 04/22/2026 has been entered.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 04/08/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Regarding the amendments, applicant argues that the cited prior art doesn’t disclose that “the portion being in sliding contact with the further portion.” The examiner respectfully disagrees. Applicant has not provided any reason for their conclusory statement and there are no further arguments to respond to. See Fig. 11, 12, 15a-c, 16, 17a-b, 18 of Macqueen. For example, see 2280 in Fig. 15a-c sliding relative to, and in sliding contact, with the element right underneath or above it, or with whatever causes 2280 to slide according to Fig. 15b or Fig. 15c. As another example, in Fig. 16, see 3281 in sliding contact with the elements that it’s coupled with, as well as the coupling means itself. Note that “a further portion” is a broad limitation. See the rejection below for details.
Claim interpretation
Moveable is interpreted as having the capacity to move. Hence, an element being moveable, such as being moveable linearly, merely has to have the capacity to be moved linearly. In other words, if it is possible to be moved linearly, it reads on the claim limitation.
Claims recite directional limitations such as height, horizontal, bottom, top, outer, upward, and downward. There are no plane of reference in the claims to define these terms. Moreover, they are related to the orientation and installation of the fan assembly and the nozzle. Hence, they could be interpreted in any possible direction. For example, the bottom of an element could be any part of the element, because there is an installation orientation in which that part is considered “bottom” compared to the orientation of other elements.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1, 3-5, 7-11, 13, 14, 17, and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) and 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Macqueen et al. (KR 20210019067), referred to hereafter as Macqueen.
With regard to claim 1, Macqueen discloses a nozzle (2200, 3200, see Fig. 11, 12, 15a-c, 16, 17a-b, 18) for a fan assembly, the nozzle comprising: a first duct through which a first airflow moves (Fig. 11, 12, 15a-c, 16, 17a-b, 18), the first duct having a first outlet (2210, 3210) for emitting the first airflow; and a second duct through which a second airflow moves (Fig. 11, 12, 15a-c, 16, 17a-b, 18), the second duct having a second outlet (2220, 3220) for emitting the second airflow, wherein: the first and second outlets are arranged such that the first and second airflows collide (Fig. 15a-c, 17a-b, 18) to generate a combined airflow having a direction defined by the relative flow rates of the first and second airflows, the first duct comprises a portion (2280, 3281) moveable (note that moveable is interpreted as having the capacity to move) to vary a flow rate of the first airflow (Fig. 11, 12, 15a-c, 16, 17a-b, 18), the portion slides relative to a further portion of the first duct, the portion being in sliding contact with the further portion (Fig. 11, 12, 15a-c, 16, 17a-b, 18. For example, see 2280 in Fig. 15a-c sliding relative to, and in sliding contact, with the element right underneath or above it, or with whatever causes 2280 to slide according to Fig. 15b or Fig. 15c. As another example, in Fig. 16, see 3281 in sliding contact with the elements that it’s coupled with, as well as the coupling means itself. Note that “a further portion” is a broad limitation) such that an effective seal is maintained between the portion and the further portion (Fig. 11, 12, 15a-c, 16, 17a-b, 18. Note that “effective” is a broad limitation and subject to the interpretation of the reader).
It is noted that the phrase “to generate a combined airflow having a direction defined by the relative flow rates of the first and second airflows” is being treated as a statement of the intended use/result of the invention. When two airflows collide, the result is a combined airflow, and its direction is defined by the relative flow rates of the first and second airflows.
With regard to claim 3, Macqueen further discloses that the portion slides over an outer surface of the further portion (Fig. 15a-c, 17a-b, 18. See claim interpretation above regarding directional limitations such as over, outer).
With regard to claim 4, Macqueen further discloses that the portion defines a top of the first outlet (Fig. 15a-c, 17a-b, 18. Note that the claim does not define a plane of reference for where “top” and “bottom” are, and note that “top” and “bottom” are defined by the orientation of the fan and the point of view. See claim interpretation section).
With regard to claim 5, Macqueen further discloses that the portion defines a bottom of the first outlet (Fig. 15a-c, 17a-b, 18. Note that the claim does not define a plane of reference for where “top” and “bottom” are, and note that “top” and “bottom” are defined by the orientation of the fan and the point of view. See claim interpretation section).
With regard to claim 7, Macqueen further discloses that the portion is moveable to vary a height of the first outlet (Fig. 15a-c, 17a-b, 18. Also note that the claim does not define a plane of reference for the direction is which “height” is measured. See claim interpretation section).
With regard to claim 8, Macqueen further discloses that the first airflow is emitted over a guide body (2250, 3250) adjacent a bottom of the first outlet (Fig. 15a-c, 17a-b, 18).
With regard to claim 9, Macqueen further discloses that the guide body extends between the first outlet and the second outlet (Fig. 15a-c, 17a-b, 18).
With regard to claim 10, Macqueen further discloses that the guide body is an arcuate surface (Fig. 15a-c, 17a-b, 18).
With regard to claim 11, Macqueen further discloses that the first airflow is emitted upwards over the guide body and the second airflow is emitted downwards over the guide (Fig. 11, 12, 15a-c, 16, 17a-b, 18. See claim interpretation section).
With regard to claim 13, Macqueen further discloses that the first airflow is emitted from the first outlet along a first flow axis (Fig. 11, 12, 15a-c, 16, 17a-b, 18), and the axis along which the portion is moveable is perpendicular to the first flow axis (Fig. 11, 12, 15a-c, 16, 17a-b, 18).
With regard to claim 14, Macqueen further discloses that the combined airflow is projected from the nozzle via an opening provided in a housing of the nozzle (Fig. 11, 12, 15a-c, 16, 17a-b, 18), and the axis along which the portion is moveable is perpendicular to a surface defined by the opening (Fig. 11, 12, 15a-c, 16, 17a-b, 18).
With regard to claim 17, Macqueen discloses a fan assembly comprising the nozzle as claimed in claim 1 (Fig. 1-6).
With regard to claim 20, Macqueen further discloses that when the fan assembly rests on a horizontal surface, the first airflow is emitted from the first outlet in an upward direction and the second airflow is emitted from the second outlet in a downward direction (Fig. 11, 12, 15a-c, 16, 17a-b, 18. See claim interpretation section).
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 set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 148 USPQ 459 (1966), that are applied 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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claim 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Macqueen et al. (KR 20210019067), referred to hereafter as Macqueen in view of Paris (US 2017/0190240).
With regard to claim 6:
Macqueen discloses the nozzle of claim 1, as set forth above, and further discloses that movement of the portion varies a size of the first outlet.
Macqueen does not appear to explicitly disclose that a size of the second outlet is unchanged.
However, Paris, which is in the same field of endeavor of fans, teaches a nozzle for a fan with a first and second ducts having first and second airflows that collide to generate a combined airflow, a portion (63) moveable to vary a size of the first outlet, wherein a size of the second outlet is unchanged by movement of the portion (compare Fig. 1 with Fig. 4).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the application to combine prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results of varying the size of the outlet and resultantly the direction of the combined flow. This combination further provides the advantage of having less flow turbulence since the moveable portion doesn’t obstruct the second duct and outlet.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Claim 12 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Macqueen et al. (KR 20210019067), referred to hereafter as Macqueen in view of Kim et al. (US 2014/0099875), referred to hereafter as Kim.
With regard to claim 12:
Macqueen discloses the nozzle of claim 1, as set forth above.
Macqueen does not appear to explicitly disclose a mesh positioned downstream of at least one of the first outlet or the second outlet.
However, Kim, which is in the same field of endeavor of fans, teaches a fan and further teaches a mesh positioned downstream of at least one of the first outlet or the second outlet for preventing introduction and/or discharge of foreign substances ([0035]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the application to combine prior art elements according to known methods, namely adding a mesh positioned downstream of at least one of the first outlet or the second outlet, to yield predictable results of preventing introduction and/or discharge of foreign substances.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Claims 15, 18, and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Macqueen et al. (KR 20210019067), referred to hereafter as Macqueen.
With regard to claim 15:
Macqueen discloses the nozzle of claim 1, as set forth above, and further discloses that the first and second outlets are arranged such that the first airflow is emitted along a first flow axis (Fig. 11, 12, 15a-c, 16, 17a-b, 18), the second airflow is emitted along a second flow axis (Fig. 11, 12, 15a-c, 16, 17a-b, 18), the first flow axis and the second flow axis intersect at an angle (Fig. 11, 12, 15a-c, 16, 17a-b, 18).
Macqueen does not appear to explicitly disclose that the angle is between 120 and 160 degrees.
However, Macqueen teaches that the angle should be sufficient to optimize the resultant air flow generated by the nozzle, and that the angle at which an air flow exits the nozzle will determine the distance of the convergent point along the central axis of the guide surface and the angle at which air flows will collide at the convergent point ([0074]). Hence, Macqueen establishes a result effective variable optimization is which the angle affects the resultant airflow, and that this angle should be sufficient and can be found through optimization.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the application to try the nozzle of Macqueen with different angles through routine experimentation and choose an angle range that best suits their particular application, and arrive at angle between 120 and 160 degrees, since it has been held that discovering an optimum value of a result effective variable involves only routine skill in the art. MPEP 2144.05.
With regard to claim 18:
Macqueen discloses the nozzle of claim 17, as set forth above, and further discloses that the portion is moveable between a max-flow position and a min-flow position (Fig. 11, 12, 15a-c, 16, 17a-b, 18), the combined airflow has a first flow direction when the portion is in the max-flow position and a second flow direction when the portion is in the min-flow position, and the first and second flow directions differ (Fig. 11, 12, 15a-c, 16, 17a-b, 18).
Macqueen does not appear to explicitly disclose that the first and second flow directions differ by at least 45 degrees.
However, Macqueen teaches that the angle should be sufficient to optimize the resultant air flow generated by the nozzle, and that the angle at which an air flow exits the nozzle will determine the distance of the convergent point along the central axis of the guide surface and the angle at which air flows will collide at the convergent point ([0074]). Hence, Macqueen establishes a result effective variable optimization is which the angle affects the resultant airflow, and that this angle should be sufficient and can be found through optimization.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the application to try the nozzle of Macqueen with different angles through routine experimentation and choose an angle range that best suits their particular application, and arrive at the first and second flow directions differing by at least 45 degrees, since it has been held that discovering an optimum value of a result effective variable involves only routine skill in the art. MPEP 2144.05.
With regard to claim 19:
Macqueen discloses the nozzle of claim 17, as set forth above, and further discloses that the portion is moveable to a position in which, when the fan assembly rests on a horizontal surface, the combined airflow has a flow direction having an angle relative to the horizontal surface (Fig. 11, 12, 15a-c, 16, 17a-b, 18. See claim interpretation section).
Macqueen does not appear to explicitly disclose that the angle is between -10 and +10 degrees.
However, Macqueen teaches that the angle should be sufficient to optimize the resultant air flow generated by the nozzle, and that the angle at which an air flow exits the nozzle will determine the distance of the convergent point along the central axis of the guide surface and the angle at which air flows will collide at the convergent point ([0074]). Hence, Macqueen establishes a result effective variable optimization is which the angle affects the resultant airflow, and that this angle should be sufficient and can be found through optimization.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the application to try the nozzle of Macqueen with different angles through routine experimentation and choose an angle range that best suits their particular application, and arrive at an angle being between -10 and +10 degrees, since it has been held that discovering an optimum value of a result effective variable involves only routine skill in the art. MPEP 2144.05.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Claim 16 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Macqueen et al. (KR 20210019067), referred to hereafter as Macqueen.
With regard to claim 16:
Macqueen discloses the nozzle of claim 1, as set forth above, and further discloses that the nozzle comprises an actuator for moving the portion (Fig. 12-14), the actuator comprising a motor (2281, 2291).
Macqueen shows the motor is Fig. 12-14 in what seems to be an electric motor, but does not appear to explicitly disclose in verbatim that the motor is an electric motor.
However, it is well known in the art to use an electric type motor for the motor of an actuator.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the application to use an electric type motor for the motor type of the actuator of Macqueen.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Refer to the attached form PTO-892 for pertinent prior art disclosing similar fan nozzles such as US 5524827.
PNG
media_image1.png
814
530
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to BEHNOUSH HAGHIGHIAN whose telephone number is (571)270-7558. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri, 7:00am-15:00pm.
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 D 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.
/BEHNOUSH HAGHIGHIAN/
Examiner
Art Unit 3745
/COURTNEY D HEINLE/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3745
Prosecution Insights