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 Arguments
The amendments overcome the 35 USC 112 rejections.
Regarding applicants’ remarks concerning Allen (GB2177016), Applicant remarks that the sensor is against the top wall and not a side wall or vertical. This is not found persuasive. It is well settled that orientation in space is not patentable. Turning the device on its side would make the top wall now a side wall and make it vertical. Please note a cover is also a structural wall that limits the boundaries of the housing. Limitations specifying a device’s orientation in space is the intended use of the device and a recitation of the intended use of the claimed invention must result in a structural difference between the claimed invention and the prior art in order to patentably distinguish the claimed invention from the prior art. See In re Casey, 152 USPQ 235 (CCPA 1967) and In re Otto, 136 USPQ 458,459 (CCPA 1963).
Applicant remarks that it would be redundant to use an internal strip in Allen (it is believed the applicant meant Gasper) and that Graham is in a different field. Both devices utilize color changing sensors to monitor moisture regardless of their field. One can look at all fields that utilize moisture/humidity color changing indicators. Graham is utilized to show that paper indicators are known and a way to monitor moisture that could also be utilized in Gasper. Both utilize viewable indicators. Utilizing the paper sensor in Graham in Gasper, a different device that also seeks to detect moisture/humidity, i.e. solve same issue, would be obvious. The test is not whether it would work perfectly, but whether the technology is known in the art and could be utilized to provide a known benefit. Substituting one known moisture/humidity sensor/detect item for another would not be novel as they would benefit the user and indicate whether there is too much moisture or humidity in a area needing detection.
Additionally, during further search and consideration prior art Mager (US4999034) was found and is presented below. It is noted that Mager teaches that in the moisture indicator art for desiccants, the desiccant can change color or a separate color changing indicator can be utilized (see Mager col. 3, lines 10-20). Thus, applicants remarks that one skilled in the art would not be motivated to use a separate paper indicator instead of using the color changing desiccant is not persuasive as both are known and interchangeable in the art.
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) 22-24, 29-32, 35-40 and 42 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Mager (US4999034).
Regarding claim 22-24, 29-32, 35, 36, 39 and 40, Mager teaches a breather and method of using the breather which has a desiccant #11 (see fig.1 and col. 4, note that col. 4 recites that the desiccant can also have a transparent cover and a moisture indicating card inside the cover and between the cover and the desiccant), a transparent breather housing #1 which sides read on a breather wall, a moisture color change indicator on a sheet (separate from the desiccant and extending from a top to bottom) and located between the inside of the housing #1 and the desiccant #11, wherein the sensor can be seen through the breather housing #1.
Regarding claims 37-38 and 42, Mager teaches aluminum gel and molecular sieves, any of the well-known desiccants, such as a granulate of silica gel, blue gel, calcium sulfate, calcium chloride and the like, also can be used as desiccants (col. 3, lines 15-25). Absent unclaimed structural limitations, given the same materials as recited in claim 37, claim 38 would have the ability to absorb 40% of its weight.
Claims 22-24, 28-32, 34-36, 39, 40, and 42 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Allen (GB 2177016).
With regard to claim 22, GB ‘016 discloses a breather (breather desiccator) comprising a breather housing (cartridge 10 and body 12, 14) configured to receive at least an air flow containing moisture, a desiccant material contained within the breather housing and enclosed by a breather wall (formed by tube 60 of cartridge 10 and end wall 24 of body part 12), and a moisture indicator (disc 92) located within the breather housing, extending between a top of the breather and a bottom of the breather (as shown in Fig. 1), and positioned between the desiccant material and an internal side of the breather wall (see Fig. 1, page 1, lines 76-86 and page 3, lines 25-36), the moisture indicator providing a visible representation of an amount of moisture adsorbed by the desiccant material at Figs. 1 and 2, the abstract, and page 1, line 76 to page 3, line 82. Note that claim terms “top and bottom” are relative to the orientation in space of the device. It is well settled that orientation in space is not patentable. Turning the device on its side would make the top wall now a side wall and make it vertical. Please note a cover is also a structural wall that limits the boundaries of the housing. Limitations specifying a device’s orientation in space is the intended use of the device and a recitation of the intended use of the claimed invention must result in a structural difference between the claimed invention and the prior art in order to patentably distinguish the claimed invention from the prior art. See In re Casey, 152 USPQ 235 (CCPA 1967) and In re Otto, 136 USPQ 458,459 (CCPA 1963).
Regarding claims 23-24, GB ‘016 discloses the visible representation of the moisture indicator being visually observable through the breather wall (through end wall window 24, see page 3, lines 25-36), the visible representation of the moisture indicator comprising a change in color of the moisture indicator, the change in color correlated to the amount of moisture adsorbed by the desiccant material at Fig. 1, page 1, line 76-86 and page 3, lines 25-36.
Regarding claims 28-30, GB ‘016 discloses the moisture indicator being on a film or blotting sheet (paper) and positioned against at least a portion of the internal side of the breather wall (against end wall window 24) at Fig. 1, page 1, line 76-86 and page 3, lines 25-36.
Regarding claim 31, GB ‘016 discloses a breather (breather desiccator) comprising a breather housing (cartridge 10 and body 12, 14) configured to receive at least an air flow containing moisture, a desiccant material contained within the breather housing and enclosed by a transparent breather wall (formed by end wall window 24, see page 3, lines 25-36), the desiccant material substantially without a color-indicating formulation, and a moisture indicator (disc 92) located within the breather housing and positioned between the desiccant material and an internal side of the breather wall (see Fig. 1, page 1, lines 76-86 and page 3, lines 25-36) and between a top and bottom of the breather (as shown in Fig. 1), the moisture indicator providing a visible representation of an amount of moisture adsorbed by the desiccant material at Figs. 1 and 2, the abstract, and page 1, line 76 to page 3, line 82.
Regarding claim 32, GB ‘016 discloses the visible representation of the moisture indicator comprising a color differential correlated to the amount of moisture adsorbed by the desiccant material at Fig. 1, page 1, line 76-86 and page 3, lines 25-36.
Regarding claims 34-36, GB ‘016 discloses the moisture indicator being on a film or blotting sheet (paper) and positioned against at least a portion of the internal side of the breather wall (against end wall window 24) at Fig. 1, page 1, line 76-86 and page 3, lines 25-36.
Regarding claim 39, GB ‘016 discloses a method of visually conveying a saturation of moisture of a desiccant material contained within a breather (breather desiccator) comprising receiving at least an air flow containing moisture into a breather housing (cartridge 10 and body 12, 14) of the breather, the breather housing having the desiccant material contained therein and the desiccant material enclosed by a breather wall (formed by tube 60 of cartridge 10 and end wall 24 of body part 12), capturing moisture from the air flow containing moisture into the desiccant material, providing a visible indication of the saturation of moisture within the desiccant material by a moisture indicator (disc 92) adjacent to the desiccant material, the visible indication observable through the breather wall (through end wall window 24, see page 3, lines 25-36) at Figs. 1 and 2, the abstract, and page 1, line 76 to page 3, line 82.
Regarding claim 40, GB ‘016 discloses the visible indication (color change) being correlated to the amount of moisture adsorbed by the desiccant material at Fig. 1, page 1, line 76-86 and page 3, lines 25-36.
Regarding claim 42, the desiccant material of GB ‘016 will inherently exhibit the recited slower maximum adsorption of moisture since the desiccant material does not contain a color-indicating formulation.
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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claim(s) 25-27 and 33 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mager (US4999034) in view of Yamakawa (US20090311140).
Regarding claims 25-26, Mager does not go into specifics of its moisture indicator.
Yamakawa also teaches a moisture sensor that has four different color areas M1-M4 located on paper [0052-54], see fig. 1. Each area relates to a different level of moisture detection.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one skilled in the art before the effective file date of the present invention to utilize a moisture sensor on paper with four different colors in Mager as taught by Yamakawa to allow a user to easily distinguish the level of moisture in the device.
Regarding claims 27 and 33, Mager in view of Yamakawa teaches the use of a color changing moisture sensor that can be circles in a line or row or square, etc. In re Dailey, 357 F.2d 669, 149 USPQ 47 (CCPA 1966) (The court held that the configuration of the claimed disposable plastic nursing container was a matter of choice which a person of ordinary skill in the art would have found obvious absent persuasive evidence that the particular configuration of the claimed container was significant.)
Claim 37 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Allen
(GB 2177016) in view of Graham (US 3,505,783).
Regarding claim 37, GB ‘016 does not mention the specific desiccant material.
Graham discloses a desiccant dryer wherein the desiccant material is silica gel, molecular sieve, or activated alumina, and wherein the desiccant material does not include a color-indicating formulation at col. 5, lines 38-59.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to incorporate the desiccant material of Graham into the system of GB ‘016 since such desiccant materials are well known in the art as being capable of adsorbing moisture from air flows, as suggested by Graham at col. 5, lines 38-44.
Claim 38 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Allen GB 2177016) in view of Graham (US 3,505,783), as evidenced by Bevier (US 5,806,323).
Regarding claim 38, Bevier provided extrinsic evidence that activated alumina and silica gel adsorb up to about 25 percent and up to about 40 percent, respectively, of its material weight in moisture at col. 1, lines 19-37.
The prior art ranges are seen as overlapping the instantly claimed range. Therefore, a prima facie case of obviousness exists absent a showing of unexpected or unobvious results. See MPEP 2144.05.
Claims 22-24, 27-37, and 39-42 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Gasper (US 4,689,057) in view of Graham (US 3,505,783) and Mager (US4999034).
Regarding claims 22 and 27, Gasper discloses a breather (10) comprising a breather housing (canister) configured to receive at least an air flow containing moisture, a desiccant material (18) contained within the breather housing and enclosed by a breather wall (side wall 14 and top and bottom walls 12 and 16), and a moisture indicator (color change dye, see col. 2, lines 23-26) located within the breather housing, extending between a top of the breather and a bottom of the breather, the moisture indicator providing a visible representation of an amount of moisture adsorbed by the desiccant material at Fig. 1, the abstract, and page 2, lines 12-44.
Gasper does not disclose the moisture indicator being positioned between the desiccant material and an internal side of the breather wall.
Graham discloses a desiccant dryer comprising a moisture indicator (paper strip 30, see col. 5, lines 45-58) positioned between a desiccant material and an internal side of the breather wall (cylindrical wall 6a or 7a), the moisture indicator providing a visible representation of an amount of moisture adsorbed by the desiccant material, wherein the visible representation of the moisture indicator comprises a gradient line (line of color demarcation, see col. 2, lines 10-47, col. 4, lines 45-49, and col. 5, lines 45- 58) correlated to an amount of moisture adsorbed by the desiccant material at Fig. 1, col. 2, lines 10-47, and col. 4, line 45 to col. 5, line 72.
It is also noted that Mager also teaches a breather with a desiccant and that it is known in the art that color changing desiccants or color changing separate indicators can be utilized to detect moisture and are readily interchangeable (col. 3, lines 10-20).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective file date to incorporate the separate moisture indicator of Graham into the system of Gasper to avoid having to impregnate the desiccant material with the moisture indicator, and to provide a graduated scale indicating the degree of saturation, as suggested by Graham at col. 5, lines 45-58. As shown by Mager, it is known in the art that the substitution of one material, i.e. color changing desiccant, for another, i.e. separate moisture indicator, can both provide moisture detection for a desiccant.
Regarding claims 23 and 24, Gasper as modified by Graham discloses the visible representation of the moisture indicator being visually observable through the breather wall (transparent wall, see Gasper at col. 2, lines 32-37 and Graham at col. 5, lines 54-58), the visible representation of the moisture indicator comprising a change in color of the moisture indicator, the change in color correlated to the amount of moisture adsorbed by the desiccant material (see Graham at col. 2, lines 10-47, col. 4, lines 45- 49, and col. 5, lines 45-58).
Regarding claims 28-30, Gasper as modified by Graham discloses the moisture indicator being on a film or blotting sheet (paper) and positioned against at least a portion of the internal side of the breather wall. See Graham at col. 5, lines 45-58.
Regarding claims 31 and 33, Gasper discloses a breather (10) comprising a breather housing (canister) configured to receive at least an air flow containing moisture, a desiccant material (18) contained within the breather housing and enclosed by a transparent breather wall (side wall 14 and top and bottom walls 12 and 16, see col. 2, lines 32-37), and a moisture indicator (color change dye, see col. 2, lines 23-26) located within the breather housing, between a top and bottom of the breather, the moisture indicator providing a visible representation of an amount of moisture adsorbed by the desiccant material at Fig. 1, the abstract, and page 2, lines 12-44.
Gasper does not disclose the desiccant material being substantially without a color-indicating formulation, or the moisture indicator being positioned between the desiccant material and an internal side of the breather wall.
Graham discloses a desiccant dryer comprising a moisture indicator (paper strip 30, see col. 5, lines 45-58) positioned between a desiccant material and an internal side of the breather wall (cylindrical wall 6a or 7a), the desiccant material being substantially without a color-indicating formulation, and the moisture indicator providing a visible representation of an amount of moisture adsorbed by the desiccant material, wherein
the visible representation of the moisture indicator comprises a gradient line (line of color demarcation, see col. 2, lines 10-47, col. 4, lines 45-49, and col. 5, lines 45-58) correlated to an amount of moisture adsorbed by the desiccant material at Fig. 1, col. 2, lines 10-47, and col. 4, line 45 to col. 5, line 72.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective file date to incorporate the separate moisture indicator of Graham into the system of Gasper to avoid having to impregnate the desiccant material with the color-changing moisture indicator, and to provide a graduated scale indicating the degree of saturation, as suggested by Graham at col. 5, lines 45-58.
Regarding claim 32, Gasper as modified by Graham discloses the visible representation of the moisture indicator comprising a color differential correlated to the amount of moisture adsorbed by the desiccant material (see Graham at col. 2, lines 10- 47, col. 4, lines 45-49, and col. 5, lines 45-58).
Regarding claims 34-36, Gasper as modified by Graham discloses the moisture indicator being on a film or blotting sheet (paper) and positioned against at least a portion of the internal side of the breather wall. See Graham at col. 5, lines 45-58.
Regarding claim 37, Gasper discloses the desiccant material comprising calcium sulfate at col. 2, line 18. Graham discloses a desiccant dryer wherein the desiccant material is silica gel, molecular sieve, or activated alumina, and wherein the desiccant material does not include a color-indicating formulation at col. 5, lines 38-59.
Regarding claims 39 and 41, Gasper discloses a method of visually conveying a saturation of moisture of a desiccant material contained within a breather (10) comprising receiving at least an air flow containing moisture into a breather housing (canister) of the breather, the breather housing having the desiccant material (18) contained therein and the desiccant material enclosed by a breather wall (side wall 14 and top and bottom walls 12 and 16), capturing moisture from the air flow containing moisture into the desiccant material, providing a visible indication of the saturation of moisture within the desiccant material by a moisture indicator (color change dye, see col. 2, lines 23-26), the visible indication observable through the breather wall (through transparent walls, see col. 2, lines 32-37) at Fig. 1, the abstract, and page 2, lines 12- 44.
Gasper does not disclose the moisture indicator being positioned adjacent the desiccant material.
Graham discloses a desiccant dryer comprising a moisture indicator (paper strip 30, see col. 5, lines 45-58) positioned between a desiccant material and an internal side of the breather wall (cylindrical wall 6a or 7a), the moisture indicator providing a visible representation of an amount of moisture adsorbed by the desiccant material, wherein the visible representation of the moisture indicator comprises a gradient line (line of color demarcation, see col. 2, lines 10-47, col. 4, lines 45-49, and col. 5, lines 45- 58) correlated to an amount of moisture adsorbed by the desiccant material at Fig. 1, col. 2, lines 10-47, and col. 4, line 45 to col. 5, line 72.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective file date to incorporate the separate moisture indicator of Graham into the system of Gasper to avoid having to impregnate the desiccant material with the moisture indicator, and to provide a graduated scale indicating the degree of saturation, as suggested by Graham at col. 5, lines 45-58.
Regarding claim 40, Gasper as modified by Graham discloses the visible representation being correlated to the amount of moisture adsorbed by the desiccant material (see Graham at col. 2, lines 10- 47, col. 4, lines 45-49, and col. 5, lines 45-58).
Regarding claim 42, the desiccant material of Gasper as modified by Graham will inherently exhibit the recited slower maximum adsorption of moisture since the desiccant material does not contain a color-indicating formulation.
Claim 38 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Gasper (US 4,689,057) in view of Graham (US 3,505,783) and Mager, as evidenced by Bevier (US 5,806,323).
Regarding claim 38, Bevier provided extrinsic evidence that activated alumina and silica gel adsorb up to about 25 percent and up to about 40 percent, respectively, of its material weight in moisture at col. 1, lines 19-37.
The prior art ranges are seen as overlapping the instantly claimed range. Therefore, a prima facie case of obviousness exists absent a showing of unexpected or unobvious results. See MPEP 2144.05.
Claims 25 and 26 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over either Allen (GB 2177016) or Gasper (US4,689,057) in view of Graham (US 3,505,783), further in view of WO 2011/154907.
Regarding claims 25 and 26, GB ‘016, Gasper and Graham do not disclose moisture indicator undergoing two color changes including first, second, and third colors.
WO ‘907 discloses a desiccant system comprising a moisture indicator that undergoes at least two color changes including first, second, and third colors depending on the amount of moisture adsorbed at page 12, 37 to page, 15, line 6.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective file date to incorporate the three color moisture indication system of WO ‘907 into the systems of GB ‘016 or Gasper in view of Graham to provide a graduated color indication system that indicates various stages of saturation, as suggested by WO ‘907 at page 12, 37 to page, 15, line 6.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Gaikwad (US20140165827) teaches a breather with a desiccant #118, a housing #112 and an electronic humidity (moisture) sensor #102 located between the desiccant and the inner surface of the housing (see fig. 1; [0022]). It is noted that [0022] recites the various locations that the moisture sensor can be located, i.e. on the desiccant, on the housing, lid, etc. Thus showing that the rearrangement of the moisture indicator and placement of it on the inner housing of a breather is known.
Fornof (US20070169627)
Stover (US5318181) – show designs of moisture indicators for desiccants.
Song (US20050106735) – humidity sensor on blotting paper.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JENNIFER M DIETERLE whose telephone number is (571)270-7872. The examiner can normally be reached M-Th 9:30-5:30 EST.
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, Patricia Mallari can be reached at 571-272-4729. 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.
/Jennifer Dieterle/ Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1776
Prosecution Insights