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 .
Response to Amendment
This office action is in response to the amendment filed on 12/02/2025. As directed by the amendment, claim 1 has been amended. As such, claims 1, 3, 5, 8-9 and 11 are being examined in the instant application.
Applicant has amended claims 1 to address a minor informality; the objection to claim 1 has been withdrawn.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments, see pages 5-6 of Remarks, filed 12/02/2025, recites “The Office action cites to the upstream chamber 20 of McAuley as the claimed trap space, but as shown in FIG. 2, the upstream chamber 20 is not interposed between the water and the outside of the chamber 5a. Instead, the upstream chamber 20 is disposed at an opposite side of the fins 24. Therefore, McAuley does not teach every feature of claim 1.” Although during the interview of 12/01/2024, the examiner states the proposed amendment appears to overcome the prior art, however after further consideration, the examiner respectfully disagrees. McAuley teaches inlet port 11a as the tank hole that communicates an inside of the tank body with an outside of the tank body and upstream sub-chamber 20 (taken as trap space) to communicate with an outside of the humidifier chamber 5 via the inlet port 11a. As such, McAuley teaches the trap space is interposed between the water storage space and the outside (McAuley teaches upstream sub-chamber 20 to be interposed between downstream sub-chamber 21 and inlet port 11a which communicates with an outside of the tank body as seen in Fig. 2a).
Claim Objections
Claim 1 is objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 1, line 16, recites “…the trap space is interposed between the water storage space and the outside” but should recite “…the trap space is interposed between the water storage space and the outside of the water storage tank” for antecedent basis.
Appropriate correction is required.
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.
The term “humidification promoting mechanism” of claims 1, 3, 5, 8-9 and 11 invoke 112(f). The specification cites “…the humidification promoting mechanism is not limited to the heater 71 that heats the tank 72. For example, an ultrasonic generator may be provided as the humidification promoting mechanism (see [0110]).” For examination purposes, as best understood, the term “humidification promoting mechanism” refers to a heater, ultrasonic generator or a device that promotes humidification.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 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.
Claim(s) 1, 3 and 8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by McAuley (US 8636002 B2).
Regarding claim 1, McAuley teaches a humidifier (McAuley teaches a housing 10 connected to a humidification chamber 5/5a as seen in Fig. 1 and 2a), comprising:
a water storage tank (humidifier chamber 5a, see Fig. 2a);
a humidifier body (housing 10, see Fig. 1) to which the water storage tank is detachably mounted (McAuley teaches humidification chamber 5/5a to be removable and replaceable from housing 10 in seen in Col. 2, lines 9-11); and
a humidification promoting mechanism (base 13a, see Fig. 2a) configured to vaporize water stored in the water storage tank (base 13a can be configured as a resistance heater when it is connected to a circuit as seen in Col. 6, lines 54-57 and therefore can vaporize water stored within the humidifier chamber 5a), in which a gas humidified by the humidification promoting mechanism is discharged from the water storage tank (gas humidified within the humidification chamber using base 13a configured as a resistance heater (see Col. 6, lines 54-57) exits through outlet port 8a as seen in Fig. 2a and Col. 6, line 64 to Col. 7, line 1),
wherein the water storage tank includes a tank body having a space therein (humidifier chamber 5a includes a tank body with a space therein as seen in Fig. 2a), and a partition wall (vertical separating partition or wall 22, see Fig. 2a) rising from an inner surface of the tank body (partition wall 22 rises from an inner surface of humidifier chamber 5a as seen in Fig. 2a),
the tank body comprises a tank hole (inlet port 11a, see Fig. 2a) that communicates an inside of the tank body with an outside of the tank body (inlet port 11a communicates an inside of the humidifier chamber 5a with an outside of humidifier chamber 5a as seen in Fig. 2a),
the partition wall partitions a space inside the tank body into a water storage space configured to store water and a trap space (partition wall 22 separates the humidifier chamber 5a into upstream sub-chamber 20 (taken as trap space) and downstream sub-chamber 21 (taking as water storage space) as seen in Fig. 2a and Col. 7, lines 4-10),
the trap space communicates with an outside of the water storage tank via the tank hole (upstream sub-chamber 20 communicates with an outside of the humidifier chamber 5 via the inlet port 11a as seen in Fig. 2a), and the water storage space communicates with the trap space (upstream sub-chamber 20 communicates with downstream sub-chamber 21 through aperture 15 as seen in Fig. 2a and Col. 7, lines 4-10), and
the trap space is interposed between the water storage space and the outside (McAuley teaches upstream sub-chamber 20 to be interposed between downstream sub-chamber 21 and inlet port 11a which communicates with an outside of the tank body as seen in Fig. 2a).
Regarding claim 3, McAuley teaches the humidifier of claim 1, and further teaches wherein the partition wall comprises a partition wall hole (aperture 15, see Fig. 2a) that communicates the water storage space with the trap space (upstream sub-chamber 20 communicates with downstream sub-chamber 21 through aperture 15 as seen in Fig. 2a and Col. 7, lines 4-10), and
the tank hole and the partition wall hole are open in different directions, when the water storage tank is viewed from above (the inlet port 11a is opened from the up to down direction and the aperture 15 is opened from left to right and therefore are opened in different directions as seen in Fig. 2a).
Regarding claim 8, McAuley teaches the humidifier of claim 1, and further teaches wherein the humidification promoting mechanism is a heater configured to heat the water storage tank (base 13a can be configured as a resistance heater when it is connected to a circuit as seen in Col. 6, lines 54-57 and therefore can heat the water within the humidifier chamber 5a), and the heater is mounted to a bottom portion of the humidifier body (base 13a is mounted to a bottom portion of humidifier chamber 5a as seen in Fig. 2a).
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) A patent may not be obtained though the invention is not identically disclosed or described as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the subject matter sought to be patented and the prior art are such that the subject matter as a whole would have been obvious at the time the invention was made to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which said subject matter pertains. Patentability shall not be negatived 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) 5 and 9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over McAuley (US 8636002 B2) in view of Smith (US 5588423 A).
Regarding claim 5, McAuley teaches the humidifier of claim 1, but does not explicitly disclose wherein the partition wall is attachable to and detachable from the tank body.
However, Smith teaches wherein the partition wall is attachable to and detachable from the tank body (Smith teaches the humidification chamber 1 to be capable of disassembly, including having the partition 6 to be removable as seen in the drawing and Col. 3, lines 19-23).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the humidifier taught by McAuley to have the partition wall be removable as taught by Smith for cleaning purposes (see Col. 3, lines 19-23).
Regarding claim 9, McAuley teaches the humidifier of claim 1, and further teaches wherein the humidification promoting mechanism is a heater configured to heat the water storage tank (base 13a can be configured as a resistance heater when it is connected to a circuit as seen in Col. 6, lines 54-57 and therefore can heat the water within the humidifier chamber 5a)
but does not teach the partition wall comprises a material having lower thermal conductivity than a thermal conductivity of a bottom wall of the tank body.
However, Smith teaches the partition wall to be thermal insulating to reduce the transfer of heat from reservoir 7 to reservoir 8 as seen in Col. 2, lines 30-42.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the humidifier taught by McAuley to have the partition wall to be thermal insulating as taught by Smith to reduce the transfer of heat from the reservoir to another (see Col. 2, lines 30-42). McAuley in view of Smith teaches the partition wall comprises a material having lower thermal conductivity than a thermal conductivity of a bottom wall of the tank body (McAuley teaches partition wall 22 which is thermal insulating (taught by Smith) and therefore, has a lower thermal conductivity than a thermal conductivity of a bottom wall of humidifier chamber 5 (especially as base 13a is to be connected to an electrical circuit to be heated as seen in Col. 6, lines 54-57)).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 11 is objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter: Claim 11 requires the humidifier of claim 1 and further has the limitations of “wherein the partition wall comprises a partition wall hole that communicates the water storage space with the trap space, the trap space is on an opposite side to the tank hole, with the water storage space interposed therebetween, the partition wall comprises a communication hole different from the partition wall hole, and the water storage tank further comprises a pipe in a cylindrical shape extends from the tank hole to the communication hole.”
McAuley teaches the humidifier of claim 1 and further teaches wherein the partition wall comprises a partition wall hole (aperture 15, see Fig. 2a) that communicates the water storage space with the trap space (upstream sub-chamber 20 communicates with downstream sub-chamber 21 through aperture 15 as seen in Fig. 2a and Col. 7, lines 4-10) but does not teach the trap space is on an opposite side to the tank hole, with the water storage space interposed therebetween, the partition wall comprises a communication hole different from the partition wall hole, and the water storage tank further comprises a pipe in a cylindrical shape extends from the tank hole to the communication hole.
Lin (US 20150258300 A1) teaches a humidifier 200 and further teaches wherein the partition wall (dividing plate 220, see Fig. 2) comprises a partition wall hole (hole H3, see Fig. 2) that communicates the water storage space with the trap space (Hole H3 communicates the water storage space S1 with the trap space S2 as seen in Fig. 2), the partition wall comprises a communication hole (hole H1, see Fig. 2) different from the partition wall hole (hole H1 is different from hole H3 as seen in Fig. 2), and the water storage tank further comprises a pipe (airway structure 230, see Fig. 2) in a cylindrical shape extends from the tank hole to the communication hole (airway structure 230 is a cylindrical shape that extends from hole H2 to hole H1 as seen in Fig. 2) but does not teach the trap space is on an opposite side to the tank hole, with the water storage space interposed therebetween. Although McAuely can be modified by Lin to include the communication hole and pipe, it would not be obvious to have the trap space on an opposite side to the tank hole with the water storage space interposed therebetween. As a result, because no references of record or reasonable conclusion thereof, could be found which disclose or suggest all features of claim 11, claim 11 is allowable subject matter over prior arts.
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 Tina Zhang whose telephone number is (571)272-6956. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 9:00AM-5:00PM.
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, Brandy Lee can be reached at (571) 270-7410. 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.
/TINA ZHANG/Examiner, Art Unit 3785
/BRANDY S LEE/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3785