DETAILED ACTION
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, see Remarks, filed 2 July 2026, with respect to the rejection(s) of claim(s) 1-5 under 35 USC 102 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 Therefore, the rejection has been withdrawn.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 Lim (US 20050123391 A1; also US 7,217,098 B2) and Ngan (US 20060045742 A1).
Applicant’s arguments, see Remarks, filed 2 July 2026, with respect to the rejection(s) of claim(s) 21-25 under 35 USC 102 have been fully considered and are persuasive. Therefore, the rejection has been withdrawn.
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) 1 and 3-5 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lim (US 20050123391 A1; also US 7,217,098 B2) in view of Ngan (US 20060045742 A1).
Regarding claim 1, Lim teaches a fan (Fig.1-11) comprising:
a base (12/26/58) configured to rest on a support surface (via 20);
a top housing (16) disposed above the base;
a blower (50/150) operable with a motor (66/166) to generate an airflow;
a body (52/152) within which the blower is disposed, where the body is positioned vertically between the base and the top housing, where the body is rotatably coupled to the base and configured to move relative to the base and the top housing (via 58/96, ¶31; via equivalents 158/196, ¶39);
a connecting member (54/154 & 56/156, ¶38) having a first end secured to the base (end secured via 26/42, ¶30; equivalent secured via 126/138, ¶40) and a second end secured to the top housing (end secured via 88, ¶33), where the connecting member remains stationary during movement of the body (¶40, note “grill shells 154 will not oscillate with the blower 150 if the bottom edges of the grill shells 54 are fixedly secured to the flange 138 of the fixed base 126”).
Lim does not teach explicitly teach the body being rotatably coupled to the top housing.
Ngan teaches an air fan, comprising a main propeller and a main motor operably connected to the main propeller (blower), the main motor driving the main propeller (blower) to rotate to generate air stream (¶1). Ngan further teaches (Fig.2) a body (35) within which the blower (19) is disposed, where the body is positioned vertically between a base (where 66 points to) and a top housing (65); where the body is rotatably coupled to the base (via 37/38/39/40/41) and the top housing (via 31/32/33). The disclosed configuration provides a fan with an oscillating body which is stable and steady (¶5/6).
It would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to modify the fan of Lim by having the body being rotatably coupled to the top housing based on the teachings of Ngan because this would provide a fan configuration with an oscillating body which is stable and steady.
Regarding claim 3, Lim and Ngan further teach the connecting member is positioned rearward of the body (Lim Fig.2, note at least one connecting member 54/56 will be positioned rearward of 52).
Regarding claim 4, Lim and Ngan further teach the body is configured to oscillate relative to the base and the top housing (Lim ¶40, note “grill shells 154 will not oscillate with the blower 150 if the bottom edges of the grill shells 54 are fixedly secured to the flange 138 of the fixed base 126”; note top housing is also fixed to grill shells, i.e., connecting member, therefore, top housing will remain static with the base and connecting member while the body oscillates; furthermore, based on the modification in view of Ngan), and where the body is rotatably coupled to the base by a first bearing (Lim 68/80/180; Ngan 40/41) and to the top housing by a second bearing (Ngan 31/32) such that the body is supported by both the base and the top housing during oscillating movement.
Regarding claim 5, Lim and Ngan further teach an oscillation mechanism (Lim Fig.9) comprising of a drive gear (Lim 162), oscillation gear (Lim 170) and motor (Lim 160) is disposed in the base (Lim ¶37, note base in Fig.9 is similar to base portion 12 of Fig.1-5) and configured to cause the body to oscillate (Lim ¶40, note “grill shells 154 will not oscillate with the blower 150 if the bottom edges of the grill shells 54 are fixedly secured to the flange 138 of the fixed base 126”).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 2 is 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.
Claims 21-25 are allowed.
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 JUAN G FLORES whose telephone number is (571)272-3486. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday, 8:30am - 5:30pm Pacific Time.
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, Nathan E 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.
/JUAN G FLORES/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3745
Prosecution Insights