DETAILED ACTION
Response to Amendment
The Amendment filed April 24, 2026 has been entered. Claims 1 – 8 and 10 – 15 are pending in the application.
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, 8 and 13 – 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Vives-Martinez; Walter J (US 7,465,359 – herein after Vives).
In reference to claim 1, Vives discloses a blower (10; see figs. 1-4: device 10 has air movement assembly 38 that includes a propeller 40 for drawing air into the tubular member 12 at first end 14) [note: first section 26 and second section 28 are threadably couplable to each other (see col. 2, lines 27-28); if the apparatus 10 is operated with second section 28 removed, then it acts as a blower that blows air in → direction] to be used by mounting a battery (36; see col. 2, lines 37-53), comprising a body portion (body portion = first portion 20 + first section 26) including:
a jet port (right port of section 26) provided at a front side (right side in view of fig. 4) of the body portion [note: first section 26 and second section 28 are threadably couplable to each other (see col. 2, lines 27-28); when second section 28 is removed (see col. 3, lines 8-11), the right port of section 26 is visible; if the apparatus 10 is operated with second section 28 removed, then this port acts as a jet port that blows air in → direction];
a fan assembly (38; see col. 2, lines 46-54) 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 side in view of fig. 4) of the body portion toward the jet port (airflow is in → direction in view of fig. 4);
a partition wall (see fig. A below) disposed to divide the interior space into a first space (space within the partition wall) and a second space (labeled “S2”); and
a battery mount base (see fig. A below) disposed in the first space, the battery (36) being configured to be mounted on and to be removed from the battery mount base (see col. 2, lines 42-44), wherein
the first space is configured to receive the battery (as evident from fig. A below or fig. 4),
the second space is positioned outside of the first space, and the second space is configured to allow the airflow to pass therethrough (as evident from flow direction indicated in fig. 4), and
the second space surrounds an entire circumference of the partition wall covering the first space (as evident from fig. 4).
PNG
media_image1.png
670
1152
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Fig. A: Edited fig. 4 of Vives to show claim interpretation.
In reference to claim 2, Vives discloses the blower, wherein the partition wall includes a communication hole, the communication hole is configured to connect the first space to the second space [there is inherently a hole for passing a wire in the partition wall of Vives to provide power to the fan assembly; this hole is considered to be “a communication hole” which is configured to connect the first space to the second space].
In reference to claim 8, Vives discloses the blower, wherein
the body portion (20+26) further includes an air intake port (in view of fig. 2 and fig. 4: left port at end 14), and the air intake port is configured to (as evident from fig. 4):
open in a rear wall portion (left wall portion) of the body portion (20+26), and
direct external air into the second space (“S2”; see fig. A above) of the body portion.
In reference to claim 13, Vives discloses the blower, wherein the fan assembly (38) is disposed forward (→) of the partition wall (see fig. A above).
In reference to claim 14, Vives discloses the blower, wherein the fan assembly (38) is configured with an axial flow fan (40) and a motor (drive source; not labeled but inherently present in view of fig. 4), and a rotary shaft (not labeled but inherently present in view of fig. 4) of the motor is connected to the axial flow fan (40).
In reference to claim 15, Vives discloses the blower, wherein the first space (space within the partition wall, see fig. A above) is configured such that a front side (right side) thereof is covered by a part of the axial flow fan (40).
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.
Claims 3 and 5 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Vives.
Regarding claim 3,
Vives 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 blower of Vives 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,
Vives 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 1, 8 and 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kai, Nobuto (US 6,092,260 – herein after Kai) in view of Vives-Martinez; Walter J (US 7,465,359 – herein after Vives).
In reference to claim 1, Kai discloses a blower (74, see fig. 6) to be used by mounting a battery (see col. 3, lines 37-41), comprising a body portion (76) including:
a jet port (top port of nozzle 88) provided at a front side (top side in view of fig. 6) of the body portion (76);
a fan assembly (84+86) 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 side in view of fig. 6) of the body portion toward the jet port (airflow is in ↑ direction in view of fig. 6);
a partition wall (78) disposed to divide the interior space into a first space (space within the partition wall) and a second space (space surrounding the partition wall on its outer side); and
a battery mount base (base corresponding to battery storage area 82) disposed in the first space, wherein
the first space is configured to receive the battery (as evident from fig. 6),
the second space is positioned outside of the first space, and the second space is configured to allow the airflow to pass therethrough (as evident from fig. 6), and
the second space surrounds an entire circumference of the partition wall covering the first space (as evident from fig. 6).
Kai remains silent on the blower, wherein the battery being configured to be mounted on and to be removed from the battery mount base.
However, Vives teaches a similar apparatus, wherein the battery (36) being configured to be mounted on and to be removed from the battery mount base (see fig. A above and col. 2, lines 42-44).
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 Kai for configuring its battery to be mounted on and to be removed from the battery mount base as taught by Vives for one of the well-known purposes of allowing a user to replace the failing battery.
In reference to claim 8, Kai discloses the blower, wherein
the body portion (76) further includes an air intake port (in view of fig. 6-7: port/opening 92 at end portion 90), and the air intake port is configured to (as evident from figs. 6-7):
open in a rear wall portion (bottom wall portion, in view of fig. 6) of the body portion (76), and
direct external air into the second space (see fig. B below: air flow direction is shown by dotted arrows) of the body portion.
PNG
media_image2.png
442
1252
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Fig. B: Edited fig. 6 of Kai to show claim interpretation.
In reference to claim 14, Kai discloses the blower, wherein the fan assembly (86+84) is configured with an axial flow fan (86) and a motor (84), and a rotary shaft (not labeled but inherently present in view of fig. 6) of the motor is connected to the axial flow fan (86).
Claims 2, 3, 5 and 11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kai in view of Vives and Wang et al. (US 2021/0259167 – herein after Wang).
Regarding claim 2,
Kai teaches the blower having the partition wall (78).
Kai remains silent on the blower, wherein the partition wall 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 (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 in the blower of Kai for the purpose of leading a portion of an incoming airflow directly into the interior of the partition wall, as recognized by Wang (see ¶43), in order to cool the battery.
Regarding claim 3,
Kai, 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 Kai 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,
Kai, 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).
Regarding claim 11,
Kai teaches the blower, wherein the airflow includes a second airflow passing through the second space (see fig. B above: this airflow is shown by dotted arrow).
Kai remains silent on the blower, wherein the airflow includes: a first airflow passing through the first space.
However, Wang teaches the blower, wherein the airflow includes: a first airflow passing through the first space (see figs. 8 and 10: first space = space within component 600; first airflow = flow, via opening(s) 630, within component 600); and a second airflow passing through the second space (see figs. 8 and 10: second space = space surrounding component 600; second airflow = flow surrounding 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 in the blower of Kai so that the airflow includes a first airflow passing through the first space for the purpose of leading a portion of an incoming airflow directly into the interior of the partition wall, as recognized by Wang (see ¶43), in order to cool the battery.
Claim 4 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kai in view of Vives and Wang and further in view of Iritani et al. (US 2011/0300421 – herein after Iritani).
Kai, as modified, remains silent on the blower, wherein: the battery includes a case, and the case includes: 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 on the battery mount base in the body portion of 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 modified blower of Kai has battery cells (as evident from Kai’s fig. 6). 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 modified blower of Kai 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 on the battery mount base in the body portion of 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 on the battery mount base in the body portion of the (modified) blower of Kai 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 6 and 7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kai in view of Vives and Wang and further in view of Conrad et al. (US 2016/0108924 – herein after Conrad).
Regarding claim 6,
Kai teaches the blower (see fig. 6), wherein the battery (see col. 3, lines 37-41) includes a connection terminal [inherent feature: as shown in the circuit schematic of fig. 5, the battery 24 has terminal poles/connections to supply power to the circuit (motor 22, charging connection 28, etc.); any convention battery or cell structurally includes connection terminals (positive/negative contact ends/terminals) to allow electric current to flow].
Kai remains silent on the blower, wherein the battery mount base is positioned opposite to the communication hole with respect to the battery while the battery is mounted on the battery mount base, and the battery mount base is electrically connected between the battery and the fan assembly via the connection terminal while the battery is mounted on the battery mount base.
However, Conrad teaches a blower comprising (see figs. 8-9 and ¶25) the battery mount base (70) is electrically connected between the battery (64) and the fan assembly (22) via the connection terminal (terminal of the battery that connects to component 70) while the battery is mounted on the battery mount base (70).
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 battery mounting portion as taught by Conrad in the modified blower of Kai 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 base opposite the communication hole: Since applicant in the instant application has not disclosed any criticality associated with the limitation “the battery mount base is positioned opposite to the communication hole with respect to the battery while the battery is mounted on the battery mount base”, 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 “the battery mounting base positioned opposite to the communication hole with respect to the battery while the battery is mounted on the battery mount base” in the modified blower of Kai as a matter of design choice since such a modification would have involve rearrangement or relocation of the battery mounting base and/or the communication hole in the modified blower of Kai. 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,
Kai teaches the blower (see fig. 6), wherein the battery (see col. 3, lines 37-41) includes a connection terminal [inherent feature: as shown in the circuit schematic of fig. 5, the battery 24 has terminal poles/connections to supply power to the circuit (motor 22, charging connection 28, etc.); any convention battery or cell structurally includes connection terminals (positive/negative contact ends/terminals) to allow electric current to flow].
Kai remains silent on the blower, wherein the battery mount base is positioned at a same side as the communication hole with respect to the battery while the battery is mounted on the battery mount base, and the battery mount base is electrically connected between the battery and the fan assembly via the connection terminal while the battery is mounted on the battery mount base.
However, Conrad teaches a blower comprising (see figs. 8-9 and ¶25) the battery mount base (70) is electrically connected between the battery (64) and the fan assembly (22) via the connection terminal (terminal of the battery that connects to component 70) while the battery is mounted on the battery mount base (70).
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 battery mounting portion as taught by Conrad in the modified blower of Kai 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 base at a same side as the communication hole: Since applicant in the instant application has not disclosed any criticality associated with the limitation “the battery mount base is positioned at a same side as the communication hole with respect to the battery while the battery is mounted on the battery mount base”, 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 “the battery mounting base positioned at a same side as the communication hole with respect to the battery while the battery is mounted on the battery mount base” in the modified blower of Kai as a matter of design choice since such a modification would have involve rearrangement or relocation of the battery mounting base and/or the communication hole in the modified blower of Kai. 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 Kai in view of Vives and Gao, Jie (CN 105840531A – herein after Gao).
Kai teaches the blower, wherein
the body portion (76) further includes an air intake port (in view of fig. 6-7: port/opening 92 at end portion 90), and the air intake port is configured to (as evident from figs. 6-7):
open in a rear wall portion (bottom wall portion, in view of fig. 6) of the body portion (76), and
direct external air into the second space (see fig. B above: air flow direction is shown by dotted arrows) of the body portion.
Kai remains silent on the blower, wherein the air intake port is also configured to open in a circumferential wall portion of the body portion.
However, Gao teaches a 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 right 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 of Kai for the purpose of increasing heat dissipation efficiency, as recognized by Gao (see ¶43 of translation).
Claim 12 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kai in view of Vives and Wang and further in view of Prior et al. (US 9,303,652 – herein after Prior).
Kai, as modified, remains silent on the blower, wherein the body portion: further includes a filter; and is configured to direct the first airflow through the filter to the first space, and the filter is configured to collect objects contained in the first airflow.
However, Prior teaches the blower, wherein the body portion (102, see figs. 1,2,4) includes a filter (inlet grill 122, see fig. 4) and is configured to direct the airflow; and wherein the filter is configured to collect objects contained in the airflow (see col. 5, lines 18-23).
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 filter as taught by Prior at the inlet of the body portion in the modified blower of Kai so that the body portion is configured to direct the first airflow through the filter to the first space for the well-known purpose of preventing debris from entering the body portion and limiting access to the bore within the body portion, as recognized by Prior (see col. 5, lines 18-23).
Conclusion
The prior arts made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Gao et al. (US 2017/0260985), Waldera et al. (US 2024/0401613) and Fu et al. (CN 118073752A) teach a similar blower to be used by mounting a battery.
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 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
Prosecution Insights