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 .
Claim Status
Claim 13 is canceled. Claims 1-12 and 14-21 are now pending claims. Claim 18-20 are withdrawn on 10/14/2026. Claim 21 is a new claim.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, filed 1/22/2026, with respect to 35 USC 112(b) rejections have been fully considered and are persuasive. The 35 USC 112(b) rejections of 10/29/2025 has been withdrawn.
Applicant's arguments with respect to the 35 USC 102 rejections in view of Hoffman et al. US 20210225347 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Hoffman teaches the newly amended language of the isolation rings being in channels in between ribs. See the updated rejection below.
Applicant’s arguments with respect to the 35 USC 102 rejections in view of Bylund et al. US 20210227758 have been fully considered and are persuasive. Therefore, the rejection has been withdrawn. However, upon further consideration, a new ground(s) of rejection is made in view of the Isolation ring and ribs of Hoffman et al US 20210225347.
The amended language created new issues, therefore, the action is updated below and made final necessitated by amendment.
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.
Claims 8-10 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.
Claims 8-12 and 16 changed “the at least one NVH material” to “the dampening material”. Claim 1, on which they depend, still recites “at least one Noise Vibration Harshness (NVH) material”. There is lack of antecedent basis for “the dampening material”. It is unclear if these materials are the same material. It seems that these are the same material and the specification supports that on paragraph 21, therefore, it will be interpreted as such.
Claim 17 recites the term “generally” in line 3 and it is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “generally” is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention.
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.
Claims 1-3, 5-12, 14-17, and 21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Hoffman US 2021/0225347.
Regarding claim 1, Hoffman discloses: a blower (Fig 6) comprising:
a main body (12);
an air duct (30) extending between an air inlet (24) and an air outlet (26) opposite the air inlet,
the air duct including an air duct body (Fig 5: Body of 30);
a motor (58) disposed in the air duct body between the air inlet and the air outlet (58 is between 24 and 26);
a fan (52) disposed in the air duct body between the air inlet and the air outlet (52 is between 24 and 26), the fan configured to rotate about a fan axis (11), the fan including a fan hub (54) and a plurality of fan blades (56) extending radially outwardly from the fan hub to include a fan tip (tip of 56);
a fan assembly housing (76) comprising one or more pairs of ribs (Ribs that are formed on the housing that holds 78) circumferentially extending therefrom to form one or more channels (Channels are formed from the ribs and inner surface of 30), wherein the fan and the motor are disposed in the fan assembly housing (78 contains 58 and 52);
further comprising one or more vibration isolation rings (78) disposed within the one or more channels of the fan assembly housing (78 within the channel of 76 and 30) configured to isolate mechanical vibration of the fan assembly housing from the air duct (78 and/or 80, par 95, 99-100), the one or more vibration isolation rings being formed from at least one Noise Vibration Harshness (NVH) material (Par 95: 78 is made of rubber).
Regarding claim 2, Hoffman discloses: the air duct body (Fig 5: 30) is rigidly coupled with the main body (12 and/or other subcomponents of 12, pars. 51, 54).
Regarding claim 3, Hoffman discloses: the rigid coupling between the air duct body and the main body is upstream of the fan assembly housing (Fig 6: 34).
Regarding claim 5, Hoffman discloses: a blower outlet tube (Fig 6: 32), wherein the blower outlet tube is coupled to a downstream end of the air duct body (Figs. 8A, 8B, par. 51), the air outlet being disposed at a downstream end of the blower outlet tube (Fig 6: 26 is downstream of 32).
Regarding claim 6, Hoffman discloses: the downstream end of the air duct body (Fig 6: 30) is configured to nest inside an upstream end of the blower outlet tube (Fig 6: 30 is within the upstream end of 32).
Regarding claim 7, Hoffman discloses: the one or more vibration isolation rings are (Fig 5: 78) disposed within the air duct body (78 is within 30).
Regarding claim 8, Hoffman discloses: at least a portion of the fan assembly housing is surrounded by the damping material (Fig 5: 78 surrounds 76).
Regarding claim 9, Hoffman discloses: the portion of the fan assembly housing is surrounded by the damping material on multiple sides (Fig 5: 78 surrounds 76 on multiple sides).
Regarding claim 10, Hoffman discloses: the portion of the fan assembly housing is circumferentially surrounded by the damping material (Fig 5: 78 circumferentially surrounds 76).
Regarding claim 11, Hoffman discloses: an inner surface of the air inlet is surrounded by a dampening material (Par 99: Damper liner 80 may extend between and within both the inlet portion 30 and outlet portion 32.).
Regarding claim 12, Hoffman discloses: the damping material extends along the air duct from the air inlet to the fan assembly housing (Par 99: Damper liner 80 may extend between and within both the inlet portion 30 and outlet portion 32.).
Regarding claim 14, Hoffman discloses: each of the one or more vibration isolation rings are spaced apart from both an upstream end and a downstream end of the fan assembly housing (Fig 5: 78 are spaced apart).
Regarding claim 15, Hoffman discloses: the fan assembly housing is isolated from the air duct body by the one or more vibration isolation rings (Fig 5, par 95, 99: 76 is isolated from 30 by 78).
Regarding claim 16, Hoffman discloses: the damping material (Fig 5: 78) comprises at least two sections of NVH material separated by a gap (Fig 5: 78 is in two sections that are separated by a gap).
Regarding claim 17, Hoffman discloses: a motor housing (Fig 5: 66), wherein the motor housing is surrounded by the fan assembly housing (76 surrounds 66), the fan assembly housing comprising a generally cylindrical shroud (Shroud of 70) and further comprising a plurality of stator blades (70) extending between the motor housing and the shroud (70 extends between the shroud and 66), wherein the stator blades are joined to the motor housing and to the shroud (Fig 5).
Note that the claimed phrases “vibration welding” is being treated as a product-by-process limitation; that is, that the stator blades can be joined to the motor housing and to the shroud by vibration welding. As set forth in MPEP 2113, product by process claims are NOT limited to the manipulations of the recited steps, only to the structure implied by the steps. Where a product by process claim is rejected over a prior art product that appears to be identical, although produced by a different process, the burden is upon the applicant to come forward with evidence establishing an unobvious difference between the two. Once a product appearing to be substantially the same or similar is found, a 35 U.S.C. 102/103 rejection may be made and the burden is shifted to applicant to show an unobvious difference. See In re Marosi, 218 USPQ 289 (Fed. Cir. 1983). Thus, even though Hoffman is silent about the process to join the stator vanes with the motor housing and the shroud, it appears that the product of Hoffman would be the same or similar as the stator assembly claimed.
Regarding claim 21, Hoffman discloses: the fan assembly housing is indirectly coupled to the air duct body by the one or more vibration isolation rings (Fig 5: 76 is indirectly coupled to 30 by 78).
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.
Claim 4 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bylund et al. US 20210227758 in view of Hoffman US 20210225347.
Regarding claim 1, Bylund discloses:
a blower (Fig 1) comprising:
a main body (8);
an air duct (3) extending between an air inlet (17) and an air outlet (2) opposite the air inlet, the air duct including air duct body;
a motor (25) disposed in the air duct body between the air inlet and the air outlet (25 is in between 17 and 2);
a fan (13) disposed in the air duct body between the air inlet and the air outlet (13 is in between 17 and 2), the fan configured to rotate about a fan axis (Fan axis runs thought he middle of 13), the fan including a fan hub (Hub of 13 shown in fig 2) and a plurality of fan blades (blades of 13) extending radially outwardly from the fan hub to include a fan tip (Blades of 13 have a tip and extend from hub);
a fan assembly housing (11), wherein the fan and the motor are disposed in the fan assembly housing (11 contains 25 and 13);
further comprising one or more vibration isolation rings (9, 9’, 9”) disposed within the one or more channels of the fan assembly housing (78 within the channel of 76 and 30) configured to isolate mechanical vibration of the fan assembly housing from the air duct (Par 47), the one or more vibration isolation rings being formed from at least one Noise Vibration Harshness (NVH) material (9, 9’, 9” is a isolation material).
However, Bylund is silent as to:
a fan assembly housing comprising one or more pairs of ribs circumferentially extending therefrom to form one or more channels,
further comprising one or more vibration isolation rings disposed within the one or more channels of the fan assembly housing.
From the same filed of endeavor, Hoffman teaches: a blower (Fig 6) comprising:
a main body (12);
an air duct (30) extending between an air inlet (24) and an air outlet (26) opposite the air inlet,
the air duct including an air duct body (Fig 5: Body of 30);
a motor (58) disposed in the air duct body between the air inlet and the air outlet (58 is between 24 and 26);
a fan (52) disposed in the air duct body between the air inlet and the air outlet (52 is between 24 and 26), the fan configured to rotate about a fan axis (11), the fan including a fan hub (54) and a plurality of fan blades (56) extending radially outwardly from the fan hub to include a fan tip (tip of 56);
a fan assembly housing (76) comprising one or more pairs of ribs (Ribs that are formed on the housing that holds 78) circumferentially extending therefrom to form one or more channels (Channels are formed from the ribs and inner surface of 30), wherein the fan and the motor are disposed in the fan assembly housing (78 contains 58 and 52);
further comprising one or more vibration isolation rings (78) disposed within the one or more channels of the fan assembly housing (78 within the channel of 76 and 30) configured to isolate mechanical vibration of the fan assembly housing from the air duct (78 and/or 80, par 95, 99-100), the one or more vibration isolation rings being formed from at least one Noise Vibration Harshness (NVH) material (Par 95: 78 is made of 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 Bylund with the inner blower assembly and noise isolation rings of Hoffman for noise reduction features while not having diminished performance (Par 4).
Regarding claim 4, Bylund as modified Hoffman in the rejection of claim 1 under 35 USC 103, where Bylund discloses: the main body comprises a backpack support configured to be worn on a user’s back (par. 45, Fig. 1).
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 NATHANIEL EDWARD WIEHE whose telephone number is (571)272-8648. The examiner can normally be reached M-F approx. 7-4:30 EST.
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, Alford Kindred can be reached at (571) 272-4037. 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.
/NATHANIEL E WIEHE/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3745