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 Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitation(s) is/are: “airflow generation unit” in claim 1.
airflow generation unit ---> read as unit (generic placeholder) for airflow generation (functional language)
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof: axial flow fan (see ¶28 of the filed specification).
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
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, 2, 5, 8 and 11 – 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Gao, Jie (CN 105840531A – herein after Gao).
In reference to claim 1, Gao discloses a blower (see figs. 1-2 and ¶31 of translation) to be used by mounting a battery (105/305; see ¶33 and ¶39 of translation), comprising a body portion (1; see ¶39 of translation) including:
a jet port (right port; see fig. A below) provided at a front side (right side) of the body portion;
an airflow generation unit (103; see ¶31 of translation) configured, by being supplied with electric power from the battery, to generate an airflow in an interior space of the body portion from a rear (left) of the body portion toward the jet port (airflow is in → direction in view of figs. 1/2); and
a partition wall (see fig. A below) disposed to divide the interior space into a first space (labeled “S1”) and a second space (labeled “S2”), wherein:
the first space is configured to receive the battery (as evident from fig. A), and
the second space is positioned outside of the first space, and is configured to allow the airflow to pass therethrough (as evident from disclosure in ¶33 of translation).
PNG
media_image1.png
1254
1640
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Fig. A: Edited fig. 1 of Gao to show claim interpretation.
In reference to claim 2, Gao discloses the blower, wherein:
the partition wall portion (see fig. A above) includes a communication hole (108; see ¶31 of translation), and
the communication hole is configured to connect the first space to the second space (as evident from fig. A above).
In reference to claim 5, Gao discloses the blower, wherein the communication hole (108) is configured to be positioned above the battery when the blower is in use (the communication hole is capable of being positioned in claimed manner; note the following: communication hole 108 is considered to be positioned “above the battery” when the blower is operated in vertical orientation).
In reference to claim 8, Gao discloses the blower, wherein:
the body portion (1) further includes an air intake port (107) configured to (as evident from disclosure in ¶33 of translation):
open in a rear wall portion (left wall portion) of the body portion, and
direct external air into the second space (“S2”) of the body portion.
In reference to claim 11, Gao discloses the blower, wherein:
the airflow includes:
a first airflow (through duct 106) passing through the first space (“S1”), and
a second airflow (through duct 102) passing through the second space (“S2”).
In reference to claim 12, Gao discloses the blower, wherein the body portion: further includes a filter (104; cover 104 is a grated structure as evident from fig. 1 and is therefore considered as a filter), and is configured to direct the first airflow through the filter to the first space (“S1”), the filter being configured to collect objects to be collected contained in the first airflow (asserted filter 104 is capable of performing the claimed function).
In reference to claim 13, Gao discloses the blower, wherein the airflow generation unit (103) is disposed forward (→) of the partition wall (see fig. A above).
In reference to claim 14, Gao discloses the blower, wherein the airflow generation unit (103) is configured to generate the airflow by an axial flow fan (see ¶33 of translation).
In reference to claim 15, Gao discloses the blower, wherein the first space (“S1”) is configured such that a front side (right side) thereof is covered by a part of the axial flow fan (bottom of the right side is partly covered by axial flow fan 103).
Claims 1 and 9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Miner et al. (US 4,945,604 – herein after Miner).
In reference to claim 1, Miner discloses a blower (see fig. 16) to be used by mounting a battery (363-1 to 363-6), comprising a body portion (102) including:
a jet port (top port) provided at a front side (top side) of the body portion;
an airflow generation unit (305+307) configured, by being supplied with electric power from the battery, to generate an airflow in an interior space of the body portion from a rear (bottom) of the body portion toward the jet port (airflow is in ↑ direction in view of fig. 16); and
a partition wall (formed by component 320) disposed to divide the interior space into a first space (labeled “S1”; see fig. B below) and a second space (labeled “S2”; see fig. B below), wherein:
the first space is configured to receive the battery (as evident from fig. B), and
the second space is positioned outside of the first space, and is configured to allow the airflow to pass therethrough.
PNG
media_image2.png
328
1009
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Fig. B: Edited fig. 16 of Miner to show claim interpretation.
In reference to claim 9, Miner discloses the blower, wherein:
the second space (“S2”; see fig. B above) forms a space surrounding an entire circumference of the first space (“S1”; see fig. B above), and
the body portion (102) further includes an air intake port (see fig. B above; port corresponding to component 106) configured to:
open in a rear wall portion of the body portion (102), and
direct external air into the second space (“S2”) of the body portion.
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 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.
Claim 4 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Gao in view of Iritani et al. (US 2011/0300421 – herein after Iritani).
Gao remains silent on the blower, wherein: the battery includes a case, including: a first opening configured to allow air to flow into the interior of the case, and a second opening connected to the first opening and configured to discharge air from an inside of the case, and the communication hole and the second opening are disposed so as to face each other when the battery is mounted in the blower.
However, Iritani teaches a battery (1) including a case (4), wherein the case includes: a first opening (45) configured to allow air to flow into the interior of the case, and a second opening (46) connected to the first opening and configured to discharge air from an inside of the case (see figs. 1-2 or ¶36).
The battery in the blower of Gao has battery cells (as evident from fig. 1). It would have been obvious to the person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to provide the battery in the blower of Gao with a case having openings as taught by Iritani for enhanced cooling of the battery (cooling is enhanced in view of extra cooling fluid available to cool battery cells of the battery).
With respect to the limitation “the communication hole and the second opening are disposed so as to face each other when the battery is mounted in the blower”: Since applicant in the instant application has not disclosed any criticality associated with claimed arrangement of the communication hole and the second opening (for instance, see ¶53 of filed specification), it would have been obvious to the person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to have the communication hole and the second opening disposed so as to face each other when the battery is mounted in the blower in the modified blower of Miner as a matter of design choice since such a modification would have involve rearrangement or relocation of one of or both of the second opening and the communication hole. Furthermore, it has been held that rearranging parts of an invention involves only routine skill in the art. In re Japikse, 86 USPQ 70.
Claims 2, 3 and 5 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Miner in view of Wang et al. (US 2021/0259167 – herein after Wang).
Regarding claim 2,
Miner teaches the blower having the partition wall (formed by component 320).
Miner remains silent on the blower: wherein the partition wall portion includes a communication hole, the communication hole is configured to connect the first space to the second space.
However, Wang teaches the blower wherein the partition wall portion (formed by component 600, see figs. 8 and 10) includes a communication hole (630), the communication hole is configured to connect the first space (space within the component 600) to the second space (space surrounding the component 600).
It would have been obvious to the person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to provide a communication hole as taught by Wang to the partition wall portion in the blower of Miner for the purpose of leading a portion of an incoming airflow directly into the interior of the tapered member, as recognized by Wang (see ¶43), in order to cool the battery.
Regarding claim 3,
Miner, as modified, remains silent on the blower wherein the battery is disposed to cover the communication hole.
Since applicant in the instant application has not disclosed any criticality associated with claimed arrangement of the battery such that it covers the communication hole, it would have been obvious to the person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to have the battery disposed such that it covers the communication hole in the modified blower of Miner as a matter of design choice since such a modification would have involve rearrangement or relocation of the communication hole. Furthermore, it has been held that rearranging parts of an invention involves only routine skill in the art. In re Japikse, 86 USPQ 70.
Regarding claim 5,
Miner, as modified, teaches the blower wherein the communication hole is configured to be positioned above the battery when the blower is in use (the communication hole is capable of being positioned in claimed manner).
Claims 6 and 7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Gao in view of Conrad et al. (US 2016/0108924 – herein after Conrad).
Regarding claim 6,
Gao teaches the blower, wherein the battery (of Miner) includes a connection terminal (inherent feature).
Gao remains silent on the blower, wherein the body portion further includes a battery mounting portion.
However, Conrad teaches a blower comprising a body portion (seen in fig. 8) and a battery (64) that includes a connection terminal (terminal that connects to component 70), wherein the body portion further includes a battery mounting portion (70) configured to (see ¶25): be electrically connected to the airflow generation unit (22) and allow the battery (64) to be removable, and be positioned to be connected to the connection terminal, when the battery (64) is attached to the battery mounting portion (70).
It would have been obvious to the person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the blower of Gao to provide a battery mounting portion as taught by Conrad for the purpose of facilitating the use of removable and replaceable battery packs, thereby allowing for continuous operation through battery swapping and improving the serviceability of the device.
With respect to the limitation of positional relationship of the battery mounting portion opposite the communication hole: Since applicant in the instant application has not disclosed any criticality associated with the battery mounting portion configured to be positioned opposite the communication hole with respect to the battery, it would have been obvious to the person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention have the “the battery mounting portion configured to be positioned opposite the communication hole with respect to the battery” in the modified blower of Gao as a matter of design choice since such a modification would have involve rearrangement or relocation of the battery mounting portion in the modified blower of Gao. Furthermore, it has been held that rearranging parts of an invention involves only routine skill in the art. In re Japikse, 86 USPQ 70.
Regarding claim 7,
Gao teaches the blower, wherein the battery (of Miner) includes a connection terminal (inherent feature).
Gao remains silent on the blower, wherein the body portion further includes a battery mounting portion.
However, Conrad teaches a blower comprising a body portion (seen in fig. 8) and a battery (64) that includes a connection terminal (terminal that connects to component 70), wherein the body portion further includes a battery mounting portion (70) configured to (see ¶25): be electrically connected to the airflow generation unit (22) and allow the battery (64) to be removable from, and be positioned to be connected to the connection terminal, when the battery (64) is attached to the battery mounting portion (70).
It would have been obvious to the person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the blower of Gao to provide a battery mounting portion as taught by Conrad for the purpose of facilitating the use of removable and replaceable battery packs, thereby allowing for continuous operation through battery swapping and improving the serviceability of the device.
With respect to the limitation of positional relationship of the battery mounting portion at the same side as the communication hole: Since applicant in the instant application has not disclosed any criticality associated with the battery mounting portion configured to be positioned at the same side as the communication hole with respect to the battery, it would have been obvious to the person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention have the “the battery mounting portion configured to be positioned at the same side as the communication hole with respect to the battery” in the modified blower of Gao as a matter of design choice since such a modification would have involve rearrangement or relocation of the battery mounting portion in the modified blower of Gao. Furthermore, it has been held that rearranging parts of an invention involves only routine skill in the art. In re Japikse, 86 USPQ 70.
Claim 10 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Gao.
Gao teaches the blower (in an embodiment shown in figs. 1-2), wherein:
the body portion (1) further includes an air intake port (107) configured to:
open in a rear wall portion (left wall portion) and a circumferential wall portion of the body portion (1), and
direct external air into the second space (“S2”) of the body portion.
Gao remains silent on the blower (in an embodiment shown in figs. 1-2), wherein the air intake port is further configured to open in a circumferential wall portion of the body portion.
However, Gao teaches another embodiment of the blower (see figs. 4 or 5) wherein the air intake port is further configured to open in a circumferential wall portion of the body portion (air inlet 111 or 107’ on left side of duct 106 is configured to be open in a circumferential wall portion of the body portion 1).
It would have been obvious to the person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to have the air intake configured such that it is open in a rear wall portion and a circumferential wall portion of the body portion in the blower (shown in figs. 1-2) of Gao for the purpose of increasing heat dissipation efficiency, as recognized by Gao (see ¶43 of translation).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to CHIRAG JARIWALA whose telephone number is (571)272-0467. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8 AM-5 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, ESSAMA OMGBA can be reached at 469-295-9278. 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.
/CHIRAG JARIWALA/Examiner, Art Unit 3746
/BRYAN M LETTMAN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3746