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 Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claims 21-24 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, because the specification, while possibly being enabling for e.g. a distance H of 15cm, does not reasonably provide enablement for all distances claimed in the open ended range above 15cm. The specification does not enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to provide the claimed open ended lux level at e.g. large or at extreme distances H commensurate in scope with open ended nature of the distance H and the open ended level of the lux in these claims. Therefore, applicant has not enabled the entire scope of the claimed invention.
Additionally, claims 21-24 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, because the specification, while possibly being enabling for e.g. a lux e.g. of 50, does not reasonably provide enablement for all levels of lux claimed in the open ended range above 50. The specification does not enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to provide the claimed open ended lux level at relatively large or at extreme levels commensurate in scope with open ended nature of the lux in these claims. Therefore, applicant has not enabled the entire scope of the claimed invention.
Additionally, claim 22 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, because the specification, while possibly being enabling for e.g. 280 lm, does not reasonably provide enablement for all levels of lumens claimed in the open ended range above 280. Therefore, applicant has not enabled the entire scope of the claimed invention.
Additionally, claim 22 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, because the specification, while possibly being enabling for e.g. 15cm for distance H, and 50 lux, and 280 lm, the specification does not reasonably provide enablement for all levels of lux and/or all distances H while only using e.g. the claimed 280 lumens in claim 22. Therefore, applicant has not enabled the entire scope of the claimed invention.
Additionally, regarding claims 22-24, the specification, while possibly being enabling for e.g. a level a lux of 50, does not reasonably provide enablement for all lux levels in the open ended range claimed in relation to the levels of 4680 lumens and 27W as in claim 23-24. In other words, open ended levels of lux are not enabled by a power of 27W or lumens of 4680. Therefore, applicant has not enabled the entire scope of the claimed invention.
Additionally, regarding claims 23, the specification, while possibly being enabling for e.g. a level of 4680 lumens, does not reasonably provide enablement for all lux levels in the open ended range claimed in relation to the levels of the range including ZERO lumens. Therefore, applicant has not enabled the entire scope of the claimed invention.
Additionally, claim 24 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, because the specification, while possibly being enabling for e.g. 15cm for distance H, and 50 lux, and 27W, the specification does not reasonably provide enablement for all levels of lux and/or all distances H while only using e.g. 1.8W. Therefore, applicant has not enabled the entire scope of the claimed invention.
Dependent claims are rejected based on their dependency to the claims rejected in detail above.
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.
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(s) 1, 3-7, 13, 16-17, 19-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Cholst US 20220201946 in view of Waters US 10069318 as evidenced by lamps-on-line.com published 10/2022.
Cholst discloses:
1. (Original) A blower, comprising: a blower tube (102, 1112, 2112, or 3112) for an airflow to pass through; a fan assembly 130 comprising fan blades 134 rotatable about a fan axis of the fan assembly; a motor 142 configured to drive the fan assembly to rotate; a battery pack coupling portion 118 configured to connect a battery pack for powering the blower; and an illumination device 3050 comprising a light-emitting portion 3512.
Cholst does not provide any details of the parameters of the light- emitting portion of the illumination device and thus does not disclose a total lumen of the light- emitting portion of the illumination device is greater than or equal to 280 lm and less than or equal to 4680 lm, and a total rated power of the illumination device is greater than or equal to 1.8 W and less than or equal to 27 W.
Waters discloses an LED light- emitting portion of the illumination device wherein a total lumen of the light- emitting portion of the illumination device is greater than or equal to 280 lm and less than or equal to 4680 lm, and a total rated power of the illumination device is greater than or equal to 1.8 W and less than or equal to 27 W (see e.g. “The flashlight embodiments can also utilize relatively high-powered 7 watt LEDs configured to emit 1000 lumens each, so that the 2 LED embodiment emits 2000 lumens and the 3 LED embodiment emits 3000 lumens.” in col 18 lines 13-16).
A simple substitution of one know light- emitting portion of an illumination device (the LED light- emitting portion of the illumination device of Waters) for another (the light- emitting portion of the illumination device of Cholst) to obtain the predictable result of producing a desired amount of light with a required amount of power to produce that light would be obvious as per MPEP 2143 I B.
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, one of ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to utilize the LED light- emitting portion of the illumination device of Waters with a total lumen of the light- emitting portion of the illumination device is greater than or equal to 280 lm and less than or equal to 4680 lm, and a total rated power of the illumination device is greater than or equal to 1.8 W and less than or equal to 27 W as a simple substitution for the light- emitting portion of the illumination device of Cholst to gain the benefit of providing “high intensity light while using a low amount of power” as taught by Waters in col 4 lines 1-3.
Additionally, lumens are a required design parameter of a light- emitting portion of an illumination device that is a result effective variable that determines the amount of visible light emitted, and wattage is a required design parameter of a light- emitting portion of an illumination device that is a result effective variable that determines the power required by the light- emitting portion of an illumination device to produce the visible light emitted. It would be “common sense” to a person of ordinary skill in the art that one cannot produce light from a light emitting source without power and the amount of light produced by the light source is commonly stamped on the light emitting source or provided with the light emitting source. It is noted that skill, not the converse, is presumed on the part of those practicing in the art (In re Sovish, 226 USPQ 771) and a conclusion of obviousness can be made from "common sense" of the person of ordinary skill in the art without any specific hint or suggestion in a particular reference. (In re Bozek, 163 USPQ 545, 549 (CCPA 1969). As evidenced by lamps-on-line.com, for a given the light- emitting portion of an illumination device such as an LED, ranges are known such as 8W-10W of power being used to produce 700-900 lm which establishes the general conditions of the claimed range. It has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art [In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456,105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955) see MPEP 2144.05 II - Optimization of Ranges]. It is noted that applicant has not provided unexpected results for the entire claimed range.
Thus, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to construct the of a light- emitting portion of the illumination device of Cholst such that a total lumen of the light- emitting portion of the illumination device is greater than or equal to 280 lm and less than or equal to 4680 lm, and a total rated power of the illumination device is greater than or equal to 1.8 W and less than or equal to 27 W to produce a desired amount of light using a required amount of power to produce that light.
Cholst as modified above discloses (all references to Cholst unless noted otherwise):
3. (Original) The blower according to claim 1, wherein the illumination device is configured to be detachable from the blower (see e.g. releasably mounted in 0061).
4. (Original) The blower according to claim 1, wherein the light-emitting portion is one or a combination of at least two of a point light source, a surface light source, and a light- emitting diode (LED) light source (see e.g. one or more light emitting elements 3512 in 0063 and Fig 16A).
5. (Original) The blower according to claim 1, wherein the light-emitting portion is configured as a complete ring (see e.g. Fig 15A and ring light in 0057).
Regarding claim 6, Cholst as modified above discloses when viewed downward from directly above the blower, a light-emitting region of the light-emitting portion is substantially in a shape of a cone, and an included angle between a generatrix of the cone and a rotation axis of the cone is B, where B is greater than or equal to 0 deg and less than or equal to 60 deg (see e.g. Fig 14 and 0054 wherein the angle is greater than zero and less than 60 deg and see “ In some embodiments, the light beam 1508 includes a diverting projection defining a light beam axis A1003 where the light beam axis A1003 is co-axial with the axis A1001” in 0054 which is zero degrees). Additionally, the beam angle is a required design parameter of a light source that is a result effective variable that determines the angle of the beam of visible light emitted. Thus, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to construct the light source of Cholst to have a beam angle of 0-60 deg since the claimed values are merely an optimum or workable range. It has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art [In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456,105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955) see MPEP 2144.05 II - Optimization of Ranges]. It is noted that applicant has not provided unexpected results for the entire claimed range.
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, one of ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to utilize a beam angle of 0-60 deg in the flashlight light of Cholst to gain the benefit of directing the light in a desired bean angle.
7. (Original) The blower according to claim 1, wherein the illumination device comprises a plurality of light sources, and the plurality of light sources are arranged at intervals in a ring (see e.g. Figs 15-15A and 0057).
13. (Original) The blower according to claim 1, wherein the light-emitting portion comprises at least two light sources (see e.g. “and one or more light emitting elements 3512” in 0063 and see 2050 in Figs 15-15A).
16. (Original) The blower according to claim 1, further comprising an illumination power source 3508 for powering the illumination device.
17. (Original) The blower according to claim 1, wherein the light-emitting portion is capable of being off after a preset time following stoppage of the motor (see e.g. 0056).
19. (Original) The blower according to claim 1, wherein the illumination device is configured to be capable of transmitting a control signal with a user terminal to adjust light emission parameters of the light-emitting portion (see e.g. “Furthermore, the inputs of the handheld blower 3100 may be used to supplement those contained on the light source 3050 so that the handheld blower 3100 may be able to remotely turn on and off the light source 3050 during use.” in 0064). Additionally, making adjustable has been help obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art (see MPEP 2144.04 V. D.)
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, one of ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to make the parameters of the light of Cholst as modified above adjustable to gain the benefit of adjusting the parameters as desired.
20. (Original) The blower according to claim 1, wherein the blower is a handheld blower (see e.g. the abstract).
Claim(s) 2 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Cholst US 20220201946 in view of Waters US 10069318 as evidenced by lamps-on-line.com published 10/2022 in further view of Parsons US 20190017694.
Regarding claim 2, Cholst does not disclose wherein the illumination device further comprises a light-transmissive portion, and the light-transmissive portion covers at least a part of the light-emitting portion.
It appears the light source of Waters has a lens 84 with a front portion 82 which would meet the limitations of the claim. In any event, Parsons discloses a light transmissive portion (lens 20).
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, one of ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to utilize a lens to cover the light source of Cholst as taught by Parsons to gain the benefit of protecting the light source from damage as is common for flashlights.
Claim(s) 10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Cholst US 20220201946 in view of Waters US 10069318 as evidenced by lamps-on-line.com published 10/2022 in further view of Uchida US 20060170379.
Cholst as modified above does not disclose the limitations of claim 10.
Uchida discloses wherein a color temperature of the illumination device is greater than or equal to 3500 K and less than or equal to 6500 K (see e.g. 4,000 to 6,500 K in 0063).
Additionally, Kelvin is a required design parameter of a light source that is a result effective variable that determines the color temperature of the light source. Thus, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to construct the light source of Cholst to have a color temperature of greater than or equal to 3500 K and less than or equal to 6500 K since the claimed values are merely an optimum or workable range. It has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art [In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456,105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955) see MPEP 2144.05 II - Optimization of Ranges]. It is noted that applicant has not provided unexpected results for the entire claimed range.
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, one of ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to utilize 4,000 to 6,500 K in the light source of Cholst as modified above to gain the benefit of using a known color temperature for light sources to achieve a desired color temperature of the light emitted.
Claim(s) 11 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Cholst US 20220201946 in view of Waters US 10069318 as evidenced by lamps-on-line.com published 10/2022 in further view of Gostelow US 20180299104.
Regarding claim 11, Cholst does not disclose the limitations of claim 11.
Gostelow discloses wherein the illumination device is capable of emitting light of at least two colors (see e.g. 0042).
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, one of ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to utilize multiple colors of light as taught by Gostelow in the system of Cholst as modified above to gain the benefit of enabling changing light color as desired.
Claim(s) 12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Cholst US 20220201946 in view of Waters US 10069318 as evidenced by lamps-on-line.com published 10/2022 in further view of DIY FLASHLIGHT PROJECTOR WITH CRICUT | 4TH OF JULY HOLIDAY, youtube.com, published 2018, (URL: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Kq29XirAXPQ).
Regarding claim 12, Cholst does not disclose the limitations of claim 12.
Youtube discloses: the illumination device is capable of providing a safety indication, a fault indication, and a battery pack power reminder, or the light-emitting portions are capable of projecting images (see image projection in screenshot below).
PNG
media_image1.png
921
1431
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, one of ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to utilize an image projection as taught by youtube in the system of Cholst as modified above to gain the benefit of shining the light in a desired shape.
Claim(s) 18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Cholst US 20220201946 in view of Waters US 10069318 as evidenced by lamps-on-line.com published 10/2022 in further view of Yang CN 202252884 U.
Cholst as modified above does not disclose the limitation of claim 18.
Yang discloses wherein the illumination device is configured to be capable of adjusting brightness of the light-emitting portion according to ambient brightness (see e.g. the abstract translation).
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, one of ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to utilize automatic brightness adjustment as taught by Yang in the system of Cholst as modified above to gain the benefit of using the appropriate amount of light given the ambient conditions.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to the pending claim(s) have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
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 THOMAS ANDREW FINK whose telephone number is (571)270-3373. The examiner can normally be reached on M-W 9-7.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Devon Kramer can be reached on (571) 272-7118. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-270-4373.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/Thomas Fink/Examiner, Art Unit 3746
Prosecution Insights