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 .
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election without traverse of Invention I of claim 1-9 in the reply filed on 5/19/2026 is acknowledged.
Applicant amended claims 11-14, 16, 18, and 20 to depend from Invention I. Applicant then cancelled claims 10, 15, 17, and 19.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 5/2/2025 is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
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 and 3-5 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Guo et al. US 20240209864 in view of Ran et al. US 20240200561.
Regarding claim 1, Guo discloses: A fan (Fig 1: 10) comprising:
a base (30) including a base housing (Housing of 30),
a battery receptacle (Fig 2: 34) disposed on the base housing (Par 19), the battery receptacle configured to receive a battery (Par 39),
a user interface (Fig 1: 35) disposed on the base housing (35 is on 30), and
a blower unit (20) supported by the base (40 connects 20 to 30), the blower unit including a blower unit housing,
a motor (Fig 3: 24) positioned within the blower unit housing (21/23) and having a motor output shaft (241), and
a blade (22) coupled to the motor output shaft (Par 21).
However, Guo is silent as to:
a plurality of cleats extending from a bottom surface of the base housing, the plurality of cleats configured to cooperate with corresponding recesses on a support structure.
From the same field of endeavor, Ran teaches:
a plurality of cleats (Fig 3: 12a and 12b) extending from a bottom surface of the base housing (12a and 12b extend from the bottom of the fan), the plurality of cleats configured to cooperate with corresponding recesses on a support structure (Fig 8; Par 26: Fan attaches to 70).
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 Guo’s fan base with the cleats of Ran to allow for the fan to be stackable on different containers and wheel storages (abstract) to allow for storage and easier movement of the device.
Regarding claim 3, Guo as modified by Ran in the rejection of claim 1, where Gao teaches:
wherein the user interface is disposed on a front portion of the base housing (Fig 1: 35 in the front of 30), and
wherein the battery receptacle is disposed at a rear portion of the base housing (Fig 2: 34 is on the rear of 30).
Regarding claim 4, Guo as modified by Ran in the rejection of claim 1, where Gao teaches:
wherein the user interface includes a dial providing continuous variable speed control (Fig 1; Par 16: 351 adjust the wind speed of fan 10).
Regarding claim 5, Guo as modified by Ran in the rejection of claim 1, where Gao teaches:
an arm (Fig 1: 40) extending upwardly from the base (40 extends from 30), wherein the blower unit is pivotably coupled to the arm (20 is coupled to 40).
Claim 2 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Guo et al. US 20240209864 and Ran et al. US 20240200561 as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Squiers et al. US 20200165036
Regarding claim 2, Guo as modified by Ran in the rejection of claim 1, where they are silent as to:
wherein the base also includes an actuator having a projection extending downwardly from the bottom surface of the base housing, and
wherein the projection is configured to selectively engage the support structure to releasably secure the fan to the support structure.
From the same field of endeavor, Squiers teaches:
wherein the base (Fig 3: 22) also includes an actuator (82) having a projection (94) extending downwardly from the bottom surface of the base housing, and
wherein the projection is configured to selectively engage the support structure to releasably secure the fan to the support structure (Par 122).
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 Guo’s fan base with the locking feature and cleats of Squiers to inhibit relative movement of the object attached to a storage case (Par 127).
Claims 6 and 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Guo et al. US 20240209864 and Ran et al. US 20240200561 as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Morishita et al. US 20070170790.
Regarding claim 6, Guo as modified by Ran in the rejection of claim 1, where Guo discloses:
wherein the blower unit housing has a motor housing (Fig 3: Housing of 24) and a plurality of vanes extending radially outward from the motor housing ( Rare vanes extending from the motor to 23).
However, they are silent as to teach
wherein the motor is positioned within the motor housing, and
wherein the blower unit also includes a boot located between the motor housing and the motor to at least partially isolate the motor housing from vibrations from the motor.
From the same field of endeavor, Morishita teaches:
wherein the motor (Fig 7: 42) is positioned within the motor housing (42 is within 44), and
wherein the blower unit also includes a boot (45) located between the motor housing and the motor to at least partially isolate the motor housing from vibrations from the motor (Par 66: Vibration proof rubber).
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 the motor of Guo to have the rubber attachment of the motor to the housing as taught by Morishita to dampen the vibrations to a frequency that is not less than 1 kHz, to be not more than 50% so that resonance noise is not generated (abstract).
Regarding claim 16, Guo and Ran as modified by Morishita in the rejection of claim 6, where Morishita discloses:
wherein the blower unit also includes a screw (Fig 7: 47) that extends through an aperture of the motor housing and the boot (47 extends through 44 and 45), and wherein the screw engages the motor to secure the motor to the motor housing (Par 66).
Claims 8 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Guo et al. US 20240209864 and Ran et al. US 20240200561 as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Seiders et al. US 11203465
Regarding claim 8, Guo as modified by Ran in the rejection of claim 1, where they are silent as to:
wherein the base also includes a plurality of rubber feet disposed on the plurality of cleats.
From the same field of endeavor, Seiders teaches:
wherein the base also includes a plurality of rubber feet (Fig 18D: 322 are rubber feet).
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 the modification of Guo and Ran to have the cleats that are taught by Ran to be formed with rubber or attached to the bottom as taught by Seiders to allow for the object to not slid on the ground (Col 24, line 48-59).
The combination would result in: wherein the base also includes a plurality of rubber feet disposed on the plurality of cleats
Regarding claim 20, Guo as modified by Ran in the rejection of claim 1, where they are silent as to:
wherein the base includes a rubber foot disposed on a cleat of the plurality of cleats.
From the same field of endeavor, Seiders teaches:
wherein the base includes a rubber foot (Fig 18D: 322 are rubber feet).
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 the modification of Guo and Ran to have the cleats that are taught by Ran to be formed with rubber or attached to the bottom as taught by Seiders to allow for the object to not slid on the ground (Col 24, line 48-59).
The combination would result in: wherein the base includes a rubber foot disposed on a cleat of the plurality of cleats.
Claims 9-14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Guo et al. US 20240209864 and Ran et al. US 20240200561 as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Deng et al. US 20230417251.
Regarding claim 9, Guo as modified by Ran in the rejection of claim 1, where they are silent as to:
wherein the blower unit housing has a plurality of vanes forming hexagonal shapes sized to prevent a probe having a diameter of 12 millimeters from being inserted through the blower unit housing.
From the same field of endeavor, Deng teaches:
wherein the blower unit housing has a plurality of vanes forming hexagonal shapes sized (Fig 1: 130 has a hexagonal shaped grille).
Since the applicant has not disclosed that having the hexagonal shaped grille at this specific shape and dimensions solves any stated problem or is for any particular purpose above the fact that to prevent a probe having a diameter of 12 millimeters from being inserted through the blower unit housing, and since it appears that the Grille of Guo would perform equally well with a shape and having the dimensions as claimed by the applicant and taught by Deng, it would have been an obvious matter of design choice to modify the Grille of Guo by utilizing the specific shape and dimensions as claimed for the purpose of preventing a probe having a diameter of 12 millimeters from being inserted through the blower unit housing. MPEP 2144.04(IV)(B)
Regarding claim 11, Guo and Ran as modified by Deng in the rejection of claim 9, where Deng teaches:
wherein the blower unit housing has a plurality of vanes forming hexagonal shapes sized (Fig 1: 130 has a hexagonal shaped grille).
Since the applicant has not disclosed that having the hexagonal shaped grille with the length less than or equal to 12 millimeters at this specific shape and dimensions solves any stated problem or is for any particular purpose above the fact that to prevent a probe having a diameter of 12 millimeters from being inserted through the blower unit housing, and since it appears that the Grille of Guo would perform equally well with a shape and having the dimensions as claimed by the applicant and taught by Deng, it would have been an obvious matter of design choice to modify the Grille of Guo by utilizing the specific shape and dimensions as claimed for the purpose of preventing a probe having a diameter of 12 millimeters from being inserted through the blower unit housing. MPEP 2144.04(IV)(B)
Therefore, the teachings of “wherein the hexagonal shapes have lengths measured between opposite, parallel walls, and wherein each length is less than or equal to 12 millimeters.” Is a matter of design choice.
Regarding claim 12, Guo and Ran as modified by Deng in the rejection of claim 9, where Deng teaches:
wherein the plurality of vanes includes a first group of vanes and a second group of vanes extending between a central portion of the grille and an outer portion of the grille, and wherein the first group of vanes and the second group of vanes alternate circumferentially around the grille (Fig 1: 130 has a hexagonal shaped grille with two groups of shape of vanes what alternate around the grille).
Regarding claim 13, Guo and Ran as modified by Deng in the rejection of claim 9, where Deng teaches:
wherein at least some of the plurality of vanes are parallel zigzag lines (Fig 1: 130 has a hexagonal shaped grille with some of the vanes being parallel zigzags).
Regarding claim 14, Guo and Ran as modified by Deng in the rejection of claim 9, where Guo discloses:
wherein the blower unit housing includes a grille having the plurality of vanes, wherein the grille is an inlet grille (Fig 3: 21 has vanes that is an inlet grille).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 7 and 18 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.
Regarding claim 7, the claim recites “wherein the blower unit also includes a sleeve coupled to the motor output shaft, the sleeve received in an aperture of the blade and having a shoulder, and a seal disposed between the shoulder of the sleeve and the blade” and is considered allowable subject matter. There was not prior art found in the search to teach a sleeve that holds a seal in the aperture of the blades.
Claim 18 depends off of claim 7 which is considered allowable, therefore is also considered allowable.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Li US 12535079, Kamiya et al. US 20120269663 and Xiao US 12467480 discloses a similar fan and interface structure as applicants. Gambhir US 20240337268, Metealf et al. US 20220290680, Zhong US 20220080437 and Strommen et al. US 20240072707 discloses rubber feet for a fan similar to applicants. Son et al. US 20230138791 and Kho et al. US 20190093674 discloses a hexagon grille similar to applicants. Zhong et al. US 20230118363 discloses a similar battery operated fan to applicants.
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