DETAILED ACTION
Claims 1-20 are pending.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to under 37 CFR 1.83(a) because they fail to show an electric motor (120) and a fan (130) that are configured in such a way that the fan is rotated by the motor (applicant par 0005, 0049) as described in the specification. While applicant’s figure 3 does include element numbers motor 120 and fan 130 there is not sufficient detail to distinguish the fan from the motor. Both element numbers point to the same hashmarked body, and no separation is shown between the bodies which would indicate an ability to rotate. Furthermore, the body that fan (130) is pointed at does not have elements which characteristically identify a fan, such as an impeller, hub, fan blades, vanes or channels.
Any structural detail that is essential for a proper understanding of the disclosed invention should be shown in the drawing. MPEP § 608.02(d). Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
The drawings are objected to under 37 CFR 1.83(a). The drawings must show every feature of the invention specified in the claims. Therefore, the “a ratio of a diameter of the electric motor to the diameter of the fan is greater than or equal to 0.8 and less than or equal to 1.2.” of claim 20 (fig 3 is the only drawing with a label for the fan 130, yet it is unclear which element in the drawing is intended to be fan separate from the motor 120 such that they can have a difference in diameter) must be shown or the feature(s) canceled from the claim(s). No new matter should be entered.
Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
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, 6-11, 13 and 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Numata (US 2022/0196034).
PNG
media_image1.png
620
502
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Applicant’s fig 3
PNG
media_image2.png
694
490
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Numata Fig 1
Claim 1, Numata discloses a blowing device (fig 1, abstract) configured to discharge air from an air exhaust vent of a nozzle (opening 80 of nozzle 8, par 0032), comprising:
a main housing (20) formed with a handle (grip handle 27) for a user to hold (par 0032) and a mounting portion for detachable mounting the nozzle (nozzle mounting part 81, par 0047);
an electric motor (33, par 0032) at least partially accommodated in the main housing comprising a motor body (33) and a motor shaft (335), the motor body comprising a stator (331, par 0056) and a rotor (333), and the motor shaft being rotatable synchronously with the rotor and having a maximum rotational speed greater than or equal to 120,000 RPM and less than or equal to 300,000 RPM (120,000 RPM max, abstract, par 0007, 0104);
a fan (35, par 0032) at least partially accommodated in the main housing, located between an air inlet (inlets 250) of the main housing and the motor body (33) in an axial direction of the motor shaft (fig 1 shows fan 35 between motor 33 and inlet 250), and configured to rotate in response to rotation of the motor shaft to discharge air from the air exhaust vent of the nozzle (par 0032);
a power supply device (battery 295, par 0033) configured to supply electrical energy to the electric motor; and
a circuit board (fig 2, circuit board 38, par 0054) electrically connected to the electric motor and located between the air exhaust vent and the motor body in the axial direction of the motor shaft;
wherein, when the electric motor is driven at the maximum rotational speed, a maximum wind pressure of air discharged from the air exhaust vent is greater than or equal to 12 kPa and less than or equal to 230 kPa (30-65kPa, abstract).
Claim 6, Numata discloses the blowing device according to claim 1, wherein a maximum thrust at the air exhaust vent is greater than or equal to 1.9 N and less than or equal to 33 N (2.5 to 5.0 N, abstract).
Claim 7, Numata discloses the blowing device according to claim 1, wherein the fan has a diameter less than or equal to 55 mm (40-45mm, par 0022).
Claim 8, Numata discloses the blowing device according to claim 1, wherein an area of the air exhaust vent is greater than or equal to an area of a circle with a diameter of 7.2 mm and less than or equal to an area of a circle with a diameter of 13.5 mm (outlet diameter 12mm, par 0024; 6mm to 15mm, par 0020).
Claim 9, Numata discloses the blowing device according to claim 1, wherein the electric motor is disposed between the fan and the circuit board (fig 2 shows this arrangement, motor 33 between fan 35 and circuit board 38, par 0054).
Claim 10, Numata discloses the blowing device according to claim 1, further comprising elastic members distributed along a radial direction of the electric motor (motor 3 is connected to tubular housing 21 via elastic covers 373, par 0062).
Claim 11, Numata discloses the blowing device according to claim 10, wherein the main housing comprises an inner housing (tubular housing 21, par 0041) and an outer housing (outer shell 24 comprising right shell and left shell 201, 202, par 0050), the electric motor is disposed inside the inner housing (par 0062), and the elastic members are disposed between the electric motor and the inner housing (par 0062).
Claim 13, Numata discloses the blowing device according to claim 1, wherein the handle comprises a trigger configured to be triggered to control at least a rotational speed of the electric motor (change rotational speed using trigger 281, par 0099).
Claim 15, Numata discloses the blowing device according to claim 1, wherein the electric motor, the fan, and the circuit board are integrated (the motor, circuit board and fan and fixed to the housing via the elastic covers 373, par 0062; this meets application of “integrated” that the elements are “fixedly connected” See applicant’s Spec par 0053).
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 set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 148 USPQ 459 (1966), that are applied 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 2-5, 12, and 16-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Numata.
Claim 2, Numata discloses the blowing device according to claim 1. Numata is silent on wherein the maximum rotational speed of the motor shaft is greater than or equal to 130,000 RPM.
Nevertheless, Numata teaches a range up to 120,000 rpm (par 0007).
The claimed speed of 130,000RPM is obvious as an approaching and similar range to Numata’s range of 120,000 RPM. The rule is that a prima facie case of obviousness exists where the claimed ranges or amounts do not overlap with the prior art but are merely close. Titanium Metals Corp. of America v. Banner, 778 F.2d 775, 783, 227 USPQ 773, 779 (Fed. Cir. 1985) (MPEP 2144.05). And further that where they approach so closely the same range of quantities as is here the case, it seems that there ought to be some noticeable difference in the qualities of the respective alloys."); In re Dreyfus, 73 F.2d 931, 934, 24 USPQ 52, 55 (CCPA 1934)(the prior art, which taught about 0.7:1 of alkali to water, renders unpatentable a claim that increased the proportion to at least 1:1 because there was no showing that the claimed proportions were critical).
In this case, applicant has not disclosed a criticality or unexpected result of operating a fan at 130,000 RPM vs 120,000 RPM. In fact, applicant discloses ranges from 120,000 RPM to 300,000 RPM without any differentiation in function or unexpected result (See applicant’s par 0061, 0063). Therefore, it is reasonable to conclude that the difference between 130,000 RPM and 120,000 RPM does not result in a noticeable difference and is therefore an prima facie obvious approaching and similar range.
Claim 3, Numata discloses the blowing device according to claim 1. Numata is silent on wherein the maximum wind pressure of air discharged from the air exhaust vent is greater than or equal to 66 kPa. Nevertheless, Numata teaches a pressure range to 65 kPa at maximum rotational speed (par 0008).
The claimed pressure of 66kPa is obvious as an approaching and similar range to Numata’s range of 65 kPa. The rule is that a prima facie case of obviousness exists where the claimed ranges or amounts do not overlap with the prior art but are merely close. Titanium Metals Corp. of America v. Banner, 778 F.2d 775, 783, 227 USPQ 773, 779 (Fed. Cir. 1985) (MPEP 2144.05). And further that where they approach so closely the same range of quantities as is here the case, it seems that there ought to be some noticeable difference in the qualities of the respective alloys."); In re Dreyfus, 73 F.2d 931, 934, 24 USPQ 52, 55 (CCPA 1934)(the prior art, which taught about 0.7:1 of alkali to water, renders unpatentable a claim that increased the proportion to at least 1:1 because there was no showing that the claimed proportions were critical).
In this case, applicant has not disclosed a criticality or unexpected result of operating a fan at 66 kPa vs 65 kPa. In fact, applicant discloses ranges from 12 kPa to 230 kPa without any differentiation in function or unexpected result (See applicant’s par 0026, 0063). Therefore, it is reasonable to conclude that the difference between 65 kPa and 66 kPa does not result in a noticeable difference and is therefore an prima facie obvious approaching and similar range.
Claim 4, Numata discloses the blowing device according to claim 1. Numata is silent wherein a maximum air volume at the air exhaust vent is greater than or equal to 0.5 m3/min and less than or equal to 4 m3/min.
Nevertheless, Numata discloses an air outlet diameter between 6mm to 15mm (par 0020, applicant’s claim 8), an impeller diameter 40-45mm (claim 7), an impeller speed of 120,000 rpm (abstract, applicant’s claim 1), a thrust of 2.5 to 5.0 N (abstract, applicant’s claim 6) and a pressure of 30-65kPa (abstract, applicant’s claim 1) and using ambient air as the working fluid (par 0051).
Applicant discloses experimental results relating vent diameter at 120,000 rpm, to pressure, thrust, volume and flow speed (See applicant’s fig 7, par 0061), and using ambient air at room temperature and density (See applicant’s fig 7, par 0061).
A person of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that Numata’s pump matches the experiment results of the top two rows of applicant’s fig 7, for the impeller rotating at 120,000 with a vent of 7.2mm and 13.5mm.
Applicant further discloses that the values in the table are a direct result of the rotational speed of the impeller and the area of the discharge exhaust vent (par 0061); and shows that maximum air volume is the result of a conventional calculation based on air pressure and air density to calculate wind speed (V = SQRT (P x 2000/p), par 0062), then wind speed and area of the exhaust vent used to calculate volume (Q = V x S x 60/1000000, par 0062), thrust is calculated based (F = pSV2/1000000, par 0062).
A person of ordinary skill would recognize that Numata discloses the same range of air pressure, air density (ambient air density) and exhaust vent area as the top row of figure 7. Reasonably, one can conclude that Numata generates the same wind speed (applicant’s fig 7, 202.1—247.6, m/s), and volumetric flow (applicant’s fig 7, 0.49-0.60), as a result of having a pump with the same flow characteristics (impeller diameter, rpm, vent area), which produces the same pressure (applicant’s fig 7, 24-36kPa; Numata 30-65kpa) and thrust range (applicant’s fig 7, 1.92-2.88 N, Numata, 2.5-5 N) for the same ambient air at room temperature.
Therefore as a result of producing a maximum wind pressure in the range of 30-36kpa, with an impeller at 120,000 RPM and a vent range which includes 7.2mm, it is reasonable that Numata can create an air volume above 0.5 m3/m which is the lowest range air volume in fig 7 and below 4 m3/min which is above the expected range of volume in fig 7.
Claim 5, Numata discloses the blowing device according to claim 1. Numata does not disclose wherein a maximum wind speed at the air exhaust vent is greater than or equal to 145 m/s and less than or equal to 620 m/s.
Nevertheless, Numata discloses an air outlet diameter between 6mm to 15mm (par 0020, applicant’s claim 8), an impeller diameter 40-45mm (claim 7), an impeller speed of 120,000 rpm (abstract, applicant’s claim 1), a thrust of 2.5 to 5.0 N (abstract, applicant’s claim 6) and a pressure of 30-65kPa (abstract, applicant’s claim 1) and using ambient air as the working fluid (par 0051).
Applicant discloses experimental results relating vent diameter at 120,000 rpm, to pressure, thrust, volume and flow speed (See applicant’s fig 7, par 0061), and using ambient air at room temperature and density (See applicant’s fig 7, par 0061).
A person of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that Numata’s pump matches the experiment results of the top two rows of applicant’s fig 7, for the impeller rotating at 120,000 with a vent of 7.2mm and 13.5mm.
Applicant further discloses that the values in the table are a direct result of the rotational speed of the impeller and the area of the discharge exhaust vent (par 0061); and shows a conventional calculation based on air pressure and air density to calculate wind speed (V = SQRT (P x 2000/p), par 0062).
A person of ordinary skill would recognize that Numata discloses the same range of air pressure, air density (ambient air density) and exhaust vent area as the top row of figure 7. Reasonably, one can conclude that Numata generates the same wind speed (applicant’s fig 7, 202.1—247.6, m/s), as a result of having a pump with the same flow characteristics (impeller diameter, rpm, vent area), which produces the same pressure (applicant’s fig 7, 24-36kPa; Numata 30-65kpa) and thrust range (applicant’s fig 7, 1.92-2.88 N, Numata, 2.5-5 N) for the same ambient air at room temperature.
Therefore as a result of producing a maximum wind pressure in the range of 30-36kpa, with an impeller at 120,000 RPM and a vent range which includes 7.2mm, it is reasonable that Numata can create an air speed above 145 m/s which is the lowest range air volume in fig 7 and below 620 m3/min which is above the expected range of speed in fig 7.
Claim 12, Numata discloses the blowing device according to claim 1, wherein the power supply device is a battery pack (battery pack 295, par 0041), the blowing device further comprises a coupling portion for coupling the battery pack (rail structure for engagement, par 0041), the battery pack is detachably coupled to the coupling portion (removably coupled, par 0033).
Numata is silent on the battery pack has a capacity greater than or equal to 5 Ah and a rated voltage greater than or equal to 18 V.
Nevertheless, the selection of a battery capacity and voltage is an obvious change in size/proportion of the battery (MPEP 2144.04). The rule is that where the only difference between the prior art and the claims was a recitation of relative dimensions of the claimed device and a device having the claimed relative dimensions would not perform differently than the prior art device, the claimed device was not patentably distinct from the prior art device (Gardner v. TEC Systems, Inc., 725 F.2d 1338, 220 USPQ 777 (Fed. Cir. 1984)). In this case, it is within the general skill of a worker in the art to modify the power circuits and select an appropriate battery of the appropriate voltage and amp hours to produce the desired rotational speed of a motor and pressure of the pump. The selection of an appropriate battery voltage and capacity does not reasonably change the function of the claimed pump or motor, as long as the power circuits are adapted to produce the desired RPM and pressure. Applicant does not disclose any change in the function of the pump based on the battery capacity selection. A person of ordinary skill in the art would not predict any change in the function of the pump based on battery capacity selection. Therefore, the selection of the battery capacity and voltage is an obvious change in size/proportion that is not patently distinct from the prior art device.
Claim 16, Numata discloses a blowing device (fig 1, abstract) configured to discharge air from an air exhaust vent of a nozzle (opening 80 of nozzle 8, par 0032), comprising: a main housing (20) formed with a handle (grip handle 27) for a user to hold (par 0032) and a mounting portion for detachable mounting the nozzle (nozzle mounting part 81, par 0047); an electric motor (33, par 0032) at least partially accommodated in the main housing, the electric motor comprising a motor body (stator 331, rotor 333 par 0056) and a motor shaft (335), the motor body comprising a stator (331) and a rotor(333) and the motor shaft being rotatable synchronously with the rotor and having a maximum rotational speed [of] 120,000 RPM (120,000 RPM, abstract, par 0007, 0104); a circuit board (fig 2, circuit board 38, par 0054) electrically connectable to the electric motor and located between the air exhaust vent and the motor body in the axial direction of the motor shaft (fig 1 and fig 2 shows circuit board 38 between opening 80 with nozzle 8 and motor 33); a fan (35, par 0032) at least partially accommodated in the main housing (fig 1), located between an air inlet (inlets 250) of the main housing and the motor body in an axial direction of the motor shaft (fig 1 shows this arrangement), and configured to rotate in response to rotation of the motor shaft to discharge air from the air exhaust vent (par 0033); and a power supply device comprising a battery pack (battery 295, par 0033) configured to supply electrical energy to the electric motor (par 0033).
Numata is silent on a maximum rotation speed greater than 120,000 RPM. This is because Numata teaches a range up to 120,000RPM.
The claimed speed of greater than 120,000RPM is obvious as an approaching and similar range to Numata’s range of 120,000 RMP. The rule is that a prima facie case of obviousness exists where the claimed ranges or amounts do not overlap with the prior art but are merely close. Titanium Metals Corp. of America v. Banner, 778 F.2d 775, 783, 227 USPQ 773, 779 (Fed. Cir. 1985) (MPEP 2144.05). And further that where they approach so closely the same range of quantities as is here the case, it seems that there ought to be some noticeable difference in the qualities of the respective alloys."); In re Dreyfus, 73 F.2d 931, 934, 24 USPQ 52, 55 (CCPA 1934)(the prior art, which taught about 0.7:1 of alkali to water, renders unpatentable a claim that increased the proportion to at least 1:1 because there was no showing that the claimed proportions were critical).
In this case, applicant has not disclosed a criticality or unexpected result of operating a fan above 120,000 RPM vs 120,000 RPM. In fact, applicant discloses ranges from 120,000 RPM to 300,000 RPM without any differentiation in function or unexpected result (See applicant’s par 0061, 0063). Therefore, it is reasonable to conclude that the difference between above 120,000 RPM and 120,000 RPM does not result in a noticeable difference and is therefore a prima facie obvious approaching and similar range.
Claim 17, Numata discloses a blowing device (abstract) configured to discharge air from an air exhaust vent of a nozzle (opening 80 of nozzle 8, par 0032), comprising:a main housing (20) formed with a handle (grip handle 27, par 0032) for a user to hold (id.) and a mounting portion (nozzle mounting part 81, par 0047) for detachably mounting the nozzle (id.);an electric motor (33, par 0032) at least partially accommodated in the main housing (fig 1), the electric motor comprising a motor body (33, stator 331 and rotor 333, par 0056) and a motor shaft (335),
The motor body comprising a stator (331) and a rotor (333), and the motor shaft being rotatable synchronously with the rotor and having a maximum rotational speed greater than or equal to 120,000 RPM and less than or equal to 300,000 RPM (120,000 rpm abstract; par 0007, 0104);a fan (35) at least partially accommodated in the main housing (fig 1), located between an air inlet (inlets 250) of the main housing and the motor body (33) in an axial direction of the motor shaft (fig 1 depicts this), and configured to rotate in response to rotation of the motor shaft to discharge air from the air exhaust vent of the nozzle (par 0032);a power supply device (battery 295, par 0033) configured to supply electrical energy to the electric motor (id); anda circuit board (fig 2, circuit board 38, par 0054) electrically connected to the electric motor and located between the air exhaust vent and the motor body in the axial direction of the motor shaft (fig 1 depicts circuit board in this position).
Numata is silent onwherein, when the motor shaft is driven at the maximum rotational speed, a maximum value of a product of an area of the air exhaust vent and a wind speed of air discharged from the air exhaust vent is greater than or equal to 0.008 m³/s and less than or equal to 0.064 m³/s.
Nevertheless, Numata discloses diameter of an exhaust vent (6mm to 15mm, par 0020) and a pressure range of (30-65kPa, abstract).
Applicant discloses that maximum wind speed is equal to sqrt (wind pressure x 2000 / air density 1.19kg/m^3) (See applicant’s par 0062).
Therefore the claimed formula is:
(0.003 m * 0.003m * 3.14) X sqrt (30kPa x 2000 / 1.19kg) = 0.00634 m3/s
(0.0075 m * 0.0075m * 3.14) sqrt (30kPa x 2000 / 1.19kg) = 0.0397 m3/s
Therefore, Numata teaches a range of 0.00634 m3/s – 0.0397 m3/s which overlaps and therefore teaches the claimed 0.008 m3/s and less than 0.064 m3/s.
Claim 18, Numata teaches the blowing device according to claim 17. Numata is silent on wherein maximum wind pressure of air discharged from the air exhaust vent is greater than or equal to 66 kPa.
Nevertheless, Numata teaches a pressure range to 65 kPa at maximum rotational speed (par 0008).
The claimed pressure of 66kPa is obvious as an approaching and similar range to Numata’s range of 65 kPa. The rule is that a prima facie case of obviousness exists where the claimed ranges or amounts do not overlap with the prior art but are merely close. Titanium Metals Corp. of America v. Banner, 778 F.2d 775, 783, 227 USPQ 773, 779 (Fed. Cir. 1985) (MPEP 2144.05). And further that where they approach so closely the same range of quantities as is here the case, it seems that there ought to be some noticeable difference in the qualities of the respective alloys."); In re Dreyfus, 73 F.2d 931, 934, 24 USPQ 52, 55 (CCPA 1934)(the prior art, which taught about 0.7:1 of alkali to water, renders unpatentable a claim that increased the proportion to at least 1:1 because there was no showing that the claimed proportions were critical).
In this case, applicant has not disclosed a criticality or unexpected result of operating a fan at 66 kPa vs 65 kPa. In fact, applicant discloses ranges from 12 kPa to 230 kPa without any differentiation in function or unexpected result (See applicant’s par 0026, 0063). Therefore, it is reasonable to conclude that the difference between 65 kPa and 66 kPa does not result in a noticeable difference and is therefore an prima facie obvious approaching and similar range.
Claim 19, Numata teaches the blowing device according to claim 17. Numata is silent on wherein a maximum wind speed at the air exhaust vent is greater than or equal to 145 m/s and less than or equal to 620 m/s.
Nevertheless, Numata discloses an air outlet diameter between 6mm to 15mm (par 0020, applicant’s claim 8), an impeller diameter 40-45mm (claim 7), an impeller speed of 120,000 rpm (abstract, applicant’s claim 1), a thrust of 2.5 to 5.0 N (abstract, applicant’s claim 6) and a pressure of 30-65kPa (abstract, applicant’s claim 1) and using ambient air as the working fluid (par 0051).
Applicant discloses experimental results relating vent diameter at 120,000 rpm, to pressure, thrust, volume and flow speed (See applicant’s fig 7, par 0061), and using ambient air at room temperature and density (See applicant’s fig 7, par 0061).
A person of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that Numata’s pump matches the experiment results of the top two rows of applicant’s fig 7, for the impeller rotating at 120,000 with a vent of 7.2mm and 13.5mm.
Applicant further discloses that the values in the table are a direct result of the rotational speed of the impeller and the area of the discharge exhaust vent (par 0061); and shows a conventional calculation based on air pressure and air density to calculate wind speed (V = SQRT (P x 2000/p), par 0062).
A person of ordinary skill would recognize that Numata discloses the same range of air pressure, air density (ambient air density) and exhaust vent area as the top row of figure 7. Reasonably, one can conclude that Numata generates the same wind speed (applicant’s fig 7, 202.1—247.6, m/s), as a result of having a pump with the same flow characteristics (impeller diameter, rpm, vent area), which produces the same pressure (applicant’s fig 7, 24-36kPa; Numata 30-65kpa) and thrust range (applicant’s fig 7, 1.92-2.88 N, Numata, 2.5-5 N) for the same ambient air at room temperature.
Therefore as a result of producing a maximum wind pressure in the range of 30-36kpa, with an impeller at 120,000 RPM and a vent range which includes 7.2mm, it is reasonable that Numata can create an air speed above 145 m/s which is the lowest range air volume in fig 7 and below 620 m3/min which is above the expected range of speed in fig 7.
Claim 20, Numata teaches the blowing device according to claim 17, wherein the fan has a diameter less than or equal to 55 mm (40-45mm, par 0022). Numata is silent on a ratio of a diameter of the electric motor to the diameter of the fan is greater than or equal to 0.8 and less than or equal to 1.2.
Nevertheless, Numata fig 1 and fig 2 show fan (35) and motor (33) as a part of a motor assembly (3) in one integrated unit (par 0054). Therefore under a BRI the diameter of the fan and the motor can reasonably be interpreted as referring to the outside diameter of the integrated unit (3). Since the both the fan and motor have the same outside diameter, the ratio between their diameters would be equal to 1.
Therefore, Numata implicitly meets the claimed ratio under a BRI.
Claim 14 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Numata in view of Machida (US 2019/01958).
Claim 14, Numata discloses the blowing device according to claim 11. Numata is silent on wherein a length corresponding to the handle along a front and rear direction of the blowing device has a range B, and an overall center of gravity of the blowing device is within the range B.
Nevertheless, Numata discloses a battery pack mounted to the base of the handle (par 0033, 0041) and the blower belongs to the class of portable hand tools manufactured by the tool corporation Makita (See assignee and applicant, abstract).
Machida teaches an analogous hand tool of the same class of portable hand tools manufactured by the tool corporation Makita (See assignee and applicant, abstract) with a battery pack mounted to the base of the handle (par 0118). Wherein the battery has a center of gravity which enables the tool to stably stand on its own when placed upon the battery (par 0118).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to select a battery pack of Numata with sufficient weight and center of gravity as taught by Machida to enable the Numata tool to stably stand when placed on the battery (Machida, par 0118) thereby enabling hand-free operation or storage. Furthermore, since the tools are both manufactured by Makita there is a likelihood of success that the battery packs of sufficient size would be compatible with said tool.
As a result of selecting a battery with a center of gravity sufficient to enable the tool to stand upon its base, it inherently meets the claimed limitation, because as a general scientific principle of static engineering, a center of gravity within the width of the handle base enables an object to stand stably, while a center of gravity outside of the width of a base will create an unstable object, which will tilt until it falls to a surface where it is stable. Furthermore this is applicant’s disclosed function of the limitation (Applicant’s par 0057) showing that this limitation offers no new or unpredictable result.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to GEOFFREY S LEE whose telephone number is (571)272-5354. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri 0900-1800.
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.
/GEOFFREY S LEE/Examiner, Art Unit 3746
/DOMINICK L PLAKKOOTTAM/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3746
Prosecution Insights