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 .
This action is in response to the application filed on 04/29/25.
Claims 1-20 are pending and have been examined.
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 04/16/26 is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to under 37 CFR 1.83(a) because they fail to show the second friction portion disposed in the first friction portion; and the first friction portion and the second friction portion integrally formed 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). 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 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.
Claim 1-15 and 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.
Regarding claim 1, the limitation of “one end of a position of a working object … and another end of the position of the working object in the electrostatic sequence” renders the claim indefinite in that it is unclear what is the structural relation of the ends with respect to the other components of the tool.
Regarding claim 2, it is unclear what is encompassed by “an interval … greater or equal to 2”? Does the “interval” mean the space between the materials? It is unclear what are the boundaries for the range “grater or equal to 2”? With respect to which other claimed components is it “greater or equal to 2”? For the purposes of examination said “interval” would be interpreted as the space between the materials.
Claims 4-5 are indefinite in that it is unclear how does the second friction portion (described as the fan blades in the current application) is disposed or integrally formed in the first friction portion (described as the inner wall of the blower duct in the current application)?
Regarding claim 17, it is unclear what is encompassed by the limitation of “basically consistent”?
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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.
Claim(s) 1, 3 and 6-7 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Yang et al. (2019/0098844 A1).
The applied reference has a common applicant and inventor with the instant application. Based upon the earlier effectively filed date of the reference, it constitutes prior art under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2). This rejection under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) might be overcome by: (1) a showing under 37 CFR 1.130(a) that the subject matter disclosed in the reference was obtained directly or indirectly from the inventor or a joint inventor of this application and is thus not prior art in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(A); (2) a showing under 37 CFR 1.130(b) of a prior public disclosure under 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(B) if the same invention is not being claimed; or (3) a statement pursuant to 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) establishing that, not later than the effective filing date of the claimed invention, the subject matter disclosed in the reference and the claimed invention were either owned by the same person or subject to an obligation of assignment to the same person or subject to a joint research agreement.
Regarding claim 1, Yang discloses a power tool, comprising: a tool body (31; Fig. 6) comprising a friction portion (first conductive end 601 and fan blades 10), made of at least a first material (metal or fiber, par. 39) and a second material (i.e. plastic, par. 53) capable of rubbing against a working object (airflow; pars. 2 and 37-39) to generate static electricity during operation of the power tool, wherein a position of the first material (601) in an electrostatic sequence is located at one end of a position of the working object in the electrostatic sequence and a position of the second material (10) in the electrostatic sequence is located at another end of the position of the working object in the electrostatic sequence (pars. 44-49).
Regarding claim 3, Yang discloses wherein the friction portion comprises at least a first friction portion (i.e. conductive end 601) and a second friction portion (fan blades 10), the first friction portion is made of the first material (metal or fiber; par. 39) and the second friction portion is made of the second material (plastic, par. 53).
Regarding claims 6-7, Yang discloses wherein the first friction portion loses electrons after rubbing against the working object, and the second friction portion gains electrons after rubbing against the working object; and, wherein the first friction portion (601) gains electrons after rubbing against working object, and the second friction portion (10) loses electrons (pars. 44 and 53).
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.
Claim(s) 2, 4-5, 8-9 and 11-15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yang et al. (2019/0098844 A1).
Regarding claim 2, Yang discloses a power tool comprising a friction portion made of at least a first material (conductive end 601 made of metal or fiber) and a second material (fan blades made of plastic). Yang also discloses wherein the first and second materials are adjacent or close to each other (par. 53), but fails to disclose wherein an interval between the first material and the second material in the electrostatic sequence is greater than or equal to 2.
It is construed that the dimensions as claimed are commercially known and it is old and well known practically sized in the industry. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skills in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have provided Yang’s invention so that the dimensions such as the interval or space between the first material and the second material in the electrostatic sequence is greater than or equal to 2 to conform with the commonly selected size on the market. Furthermore, since it is well known and within the general skill of a worker in the art to select a known design configuration on the basis of its suitability for the intended use as matter of obvious design choice.
Regarding claims 4-5, Yang also teaches the concept of providing a second friction portion (i.e. a conductive coating integrally formed on the first part 62 or air duct) disposed in a first friction portion (first part 62 and/or duct assembly), wherein the working object (i.e. airflow) is located in the first friction portion (62 and/or air duct) and are integrally formed (i.e. coated). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skills in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have provided Yang’s invention with a second friction portion (such as a coating) disposed in a first friction portion (air duct or fan blades) for the purposes of manufacturing the tool in a considerably cost-effective manner and the selection of such construction and it’s functionality is within the engineering purview of the skilled artisan.
Regarding claim 8, Yang discloses wherein the first material comprises metal and the second material comprises plastic, but fails to specifically disclose wherein the metal is steel or aluminum, and the plastic is at least one of polyethylene, polyester, and PFA. However, Examiner takes Official Notice that the use of said claimed specific metal and plastic materials is well known in the power tool art. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skills in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have provided Yang’s invention with the specific claimed metal and plastic materials for the purposes of manufacturing power tool components with light weight and produced in a considerably cost-effective manner, wherein the selection of such known materials for it’s functionality is within the engineering purview of the skilled artisan.
Regarding claim 9, Yang does not specifically disclose wherein the second material comprises at least one of nylon, glass fiber, steel, and aluminum; and the first material comprises at least one of polyethylene, polyester, and PFA. However, Examiner takes Official Notice that the use of said claimed specific materials is well known in the power tool art. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skills in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have provided Yang’s invention with the specific claimed materials for the purposes of manufacturing power tool components with light weight and produced in a considerably cost-effective manner, wherein the selection of such known materials for it’s functionality is within the engineering purview of the skilled artisan.
Regarding claims 11-15, Yang disclose a coating, but does not specifically discloses wherein the coating is made of at least two different materials, wherein the thickness of the coating is less than or equal to 1 mm, and the specific materials of nylon, glass fiber, steel, and aluminum; and the second material comprises at least one of polyethylene, polyester, and PFA, as claimed. However, Examiner takes Official Notice that the selection of two different materials to make a coating with a thickness as claimed is well known in the art since the selection of such known materials for it’s functionality is within the engineering purview of the skilled artisan.
Claim(s) 16-18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yang et al. (2019/0098844 A1) in view of Chen et al. (20180135645).
Regarding claim 16, Yang discloses an airflow device, comprising: a tool body (31) comprising a duct assembly (Fig. 6) and fan blades (10) disposed in the duct assembly, wherein the duct assembly comprises at least a duct having an accommodation section (not shown numerically) for accommodating the fan blades, but fails to disclose wherein the fan blades are made of materials with different electrostatic properties. Chen teaches the concept of a fan comprising blades made from different materials for the purposes of reducing deformation of the blades, lowering vibration, and enhancing performance of the fan. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art to have provided Yang’ blades made from different materials as taught by Chen in order to enhance the performance of the fan.
Regarding claim 17, it is noted that Yang shows an accommodation section (in front of the fan’s motor 20) with a length in an extension direction of the duct that houses the fan blades.
Regarding claim 18, Yang discloses wherein the duct assembly, and thereby the accommodation section is made from a first material, but doesn’t disclose a second material with different electrostatic properties. However, Examiner takes Official Notice that the use of said claimed specific materials is well known in the power tool art. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skills in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have provided Yang’s invention with a second material having different electrostatic properties for the purposes of manufacturing power tool components with light weight and produced in a considerably cost-effective manner, wherein the selection of such known materials for it’s functionality is within the engineering purview of the skilled artisan.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 10 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.
Claims 19-20 are allowed.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter: The prior art does not disclose or make obvious the claimed combination including the following features:
Regarding claim 10, wherein a voltage at a location of a smallest electrostatic charge on the friction portion is less than or equal to 7 kV. 11.
Regarding claim 19, a friction coating, made of at least two materials with different electrostatic properties, disposed at a position of the friction portion capable of rubbing against the working object to generate the static electricity.
The combinations of the claimed limitations are novel and found to be allowable over prior art. The cited references taken singly or in combination do not anticipate or make obvious the Applicant’s claimed invention.
Any comments considered necessary by applicant must be submitted no later than the payment of the issue fee and, to avoid processing delays, should preferably accompany the issue fee. Such submissions should be clearly labeled “Comments on Statement of Reasons for Allowance.”
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MICHELLE LOPEZ whose telephone number is (571)272-4464. The examiner can normally be reached Monday thru Friday 8:30 am to 4:30 pm.
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, Anna Kinsaul can be reached at (571) 270 - 1926. 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.
/MICHELLE LOPEZ/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3731
Prosecution Insights