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 Objections
Claim 1 is objected to because of the following informalities:
The term “aqueous saturated solution” and “saturated solution” is not consistently used. Please use the term consistently to avoid unnecessary confusion.
Similar issue with “the pouch” and “the flexible pouch” in claim 2.
Claim 9 is objected because the second recited “activation by a user” should be “the activation by a user.”
Claim 11 is objected for the term “the salt and/or sugar”. Claim 1 recites “a salt and/or a sugar.” Therefore, the term in claim 11 should be “the salt and/or the sugar.”
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112(a)
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 1, 2, 4, 6–14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
Claim 1 is rejected because applicant has not pointed out where the amended claim is supported, nor does there appear to be a written description of the claim limitation ‘an additive that is not optically or UV active’ in the application as filed.
Claims 2, 4, 6–14 are rejected because they depend on claim 1.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112(b)
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 1–2, 4 and 6–14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claim 1 is indefinite because it is unclear if the limitation of “all components of the saturated solution” includes the thickening agent and the additive. The recited “an aqueous saturated solution of a salt and/or a sugar” could have three or more components, and therefore, “all components of the saturated solution” could refer to components in “aqueous saturated solution of a salt and/or a sugar” alone. However, applicant’s arguments in the Applicant Rem. dated Nov. 10, 2025, seems to include the” thickening agent” and “additive” in the claimed “saturated solution.” Clarification is needed.
Claims 2, 4, 6–14 are indefinite because they depend on claim 1.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102(a)(1)
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.
The claims are rejected as follows:
Claims 1–2 and 12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by O’Shea et al., US 2020/0188845 A1 (“O’Shea”).
Regarding claim 1:
O’Shea discloses that a humidity control device (O’Shea’slurry, O’Shea [0027]),
comprising an aqueous saturated solution of a salt and/or a sugar (O’Shea discloses as aqueous saturated salt slurry/solution comprising a saturated salt, O’Shea, [0035]) in combination with a thickening agent (O’Shea discloses its slurry may include a thickening agent, such as gum, O’Shea, [0009]),
and an additive that is not optically or UV active (O’Shea discloses reagents such as a lactate salt, glycerol, an acetate salt, those reagents read on the claimed “additive that is not optically or UV active, O’Shea [0009]);
wherein all components of the saturated solution are food grade (O’Shea disclose its aqueous salt and selective other reagents are food grade, O’Shea [0009]).
Regarding claim 2:
O’Shea discloses that the humidity control device of claim 1 further comprising a flexible pouch (O’Shea’s polymeric film pouch) encasing the aqueous saturated solution, the pouch comprising a material which is moisture permeable and liquid impermeable (O’Shea discloses its polymeric film pouch permits migration of water vapor and impervious enough to prevent escape of liquid). O’Shea [0027].
Regarding claim 12:
O’Shea discloses that the humidity control device of claim 1 wherein the aqueous saturated solution further comprises gelatin, pectin or a gum (O‘Shea discloses as food grade gum). O’Shea [0012].
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claims are rejected as follows:
Claims 4, 6–8 and 13–14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being obvious over O’Shea in view of Egberg et al., US 2015/0328584 A1 (“Egberg”).
Regarding claim 4:
O’Shea does not disclose that the humidity control device of claim 2 further comprising an absorbent pad within the pouch.
Similar to O’Shea, Egberg discloses a humidity control device 20. Egberg Fig. 2, [0022]. Similar to O’Shea, Egberg discloses its humidity control device 20 comprising a flexible pouch 16 encasing a humidity control liquid. Egberg Fig. 1, [0020]. Additionally, Egberg discloses an absorbent pad (Egberg’s absorbent blotter material 10) within the pouch 16. Egberg Fig. 1, [0020]. Egberg discloses that the usage of a blotter to carry the humidity control product allows the expelling of any excess headspace and enables the permeable packets to be extremely thin compared to alternative liquid-in-a-pouch concepts. Egberg [0014]. It would have been obvious to include Egberg’s blotter material 10 in O’Shea for the purpose of obtaining extremely thin humidity control packets.
Regarding claim 6:
Modified O’Shea discloses that the humidity control device of claim 4 wherein the absorbent pad comprises blotter paper (Egberg’s blotting material is a woven or non-woven material such as cellulose, rayon, cotton in thin sheets form, which is blotter paper). Egberg Fig. 1, [0012].
Regarding claim 7:
Modified O’Shea discloses that the humidity control device of claim 4 wherein the absorbent pad comprises a rayon material (Egberg’s blotting material is a woven or non-woven material such as cellulose, rayon). Egberg Fig. 1, [0012].
Regarding claim 8:
O’Shea does not disclose that the humidity control device of claim 1 further comprising an absorbent pad (as discussed in claim 4, it would have been obvious to include Egberg’s blotter material 10—the absorbent pard, in O’Shea for the purpose of obtaining extremely thin humidity control packets).
Egberg discloses its core of absorbent blotter material is subjected to a quantity of humidity control liquid using a liquid application system, and after application of humidity control liquid, an upper or top laminate film layer 16 is applied and heat sealed to the lower laminate layer around the cores at 18. Egberg Fig. 1, [0020]. Egberg’s absorbent pad therefore exists in a state after application of humidity control liquid and before applying top and lower laminate layer, such state reads on the limitation of “wherein the aqueous saturated solution is contained by pores of the absorbent pad without an encasing package.”
Regarding claim 13:
O’Shea does not disclose that the humidity control device of claim 12 wherein there is no container enclosing the aqueous saturated solution.
However, as discussed in claim 4 and claim 8, it would have been obvious to include Egberg’s blotter material 10 in O’Shea for the purpose of obtaining extremely thin humidity control packets. And Egberg discloses its core of absorbent blotter material is subjected to a quantity of humidity control liquid using a liquid application system, and after application of humidity control liquid, an upper or top laminate film layer 16 is applied and heat sealed to the lower laminate layer around the cores at 18. Egberg Fig. 1, [0020]. Egberg’s absorbent pad therefore exists in a state after application of humidity control liquid and before applying top and lower laminate layer, such state read on the limitation “wherein there is no container enclosing the aqueous saturated solution” because in the above discussed state, the humidity control liquid is absorbed on Egberg’s blotter material 10 without a container.
Regarding claim 14:
O’Shea discloses that the humidity control device of claim 1 wherein the humidity control device hardens in response to decreasing water in the aqueous saturated solution because O’Shea disclsoes that a self-indicating property of hardening when used in relative humidity condition lower than the target relative humidity. O’Shea [0061].
O’Shea does not disclose that the aqueous saturated solution further comprising sorbitol.
However, Egberg discloses the humidity controlling aqueous solution that controls water activity comprises water and certain non-ionic molecules selected from the group consisting of propylene glycol, glycerin, ethanol amine, xylose, glucose, sucrose lactose, fructose, sugar alcohols such as xylitol, mannitol, and sorbitol. Egberg claim 7. It would have been obvious for modified O’Shea to include sorbitol because sorbitol is known in the humidity control device as being suitable to be add as an additive.
Claims 9–11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being obvious over O’Shea in view of Pellingra et al., US 2013/0301957 A1 (“Pellingra”).
Regarding claim 9:
O’Shea does not disclose that the humidity control device of claim 1 further comprising: a package comprising a first compartment and a separate second compartment, wherein the first and second compartments are not in communication with each other, wherein prior to activation by a user, a first portion of the aqueous saturated salt solution including one or more first components of the aqueous saturated salt solution is contained within the first compartment, and wherein a second portion of the aqueous saturated salt solution including one or more second components of the aqueous saturated salt solution is contained within the second compartment, and wherein the first portion and the second portion are combined by activation by a user to form the aqueous saturated solution.
Pellingra discloses a multi-compartment pouch 102 with breakable inner compartment. Pellingra Fig. 2, [0035]. While Pellingra’s Fig. 2 shows as a two-compartment pouch, Pellingra discloses its multi-compartment pouch need not be limited to pouches including two compartments, instead, it may include three, four, five or six different compartments. Pellingra discloses its invention allows for the mixing of items just prior to use without having to open the pouch to do so. [0043]. Pellingra also discloses that its pouch may package any two solid, liquid or combinations thereof that need to be separated prior to use and comingled or mixed at the time of use. And the compartment may contain non-food items, such as cleaning products or other type of household, garden or industrial products. Pellingra [0043]. It would therefore have been obvious for one ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing for O’Shea to use Pellingra’s multi-compart pouch to accommodate components of O’shea’s aqueous saturated solution so that O’shea’s humidity control device could be activated only at the time of application to ensure maximum shelf life and best results. With such modification, modified O’Shea’s package would comprise a package (similar to Pellingra’s pouch 102) comprising a first compartment 108 and a separate second compartment 104. Pellingra Fig. 2, [0041]. Modified O’Shea’s first and second compartments 104, 108 are not in communication with each other (due to Pellingra’s folded inner gusset 112), wherein prior to activation by a user (Pellingra discloses a pulling action by user on 114), a first portion of the aqueous saturated salt solution including one or more first components of the aqueous saturated salt solution (for example, solvent portion of O’shea’s aqueous saturated solution) is contained within the first compartment 108, and wherein a second portion of the aqueous saturated salt solution including one or more second components of the aqueous saturated salt solution (for example, all the solute components of O’shea’s aqueous saturated solution) is contained within the second compartment 104, and wherein the first portion and the second portion are combined by activation by a user to form the aqueous saturated solution (when needed, a user could pull on Pellingra’s fin 114 to open up the score line in the inner gusset area 112 and causing the component in top compartment 104 to pass to bottom compartment to mix). Pellingra Fig. 2, [0034].
Regarding claim 10:
Modified O’Shea discloses that the humidity control device of claim 9 wherein the first compartment 108 contains water (as discussed in claim 9, modified O’Shea has the solvent/liquid portion of the aqueous saturated solution in the first compartment) and wherein the second compartment 104 contains no water (as discussed in claim 9, modified O’Shea has all the other components of the aqueous saturated solution that is non-liquid/solute in the second compartment). O’Shea [0039] and [0040].
Regarding claim 11:
Modified O’Shea discloses that the humidity control device of claim 10 wherein the second compartment 104 contains the salt and/or sugar (as discussed in claim 9, all non-liquid components of modified O’Shea’s non-liquid components are in the second compartment, the non-liquid components include “the salt and/or sugar”).
Double Patenting
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a nonstatutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13.
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer.
Claim 1 is provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1–2, 17 of copending Application No. 16/717,319. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because Claim 1 of both application recites a humidity control device comprising an aqueous saturated solution of a salt and an additive. Claim 1 of the current invention recites an additional limitation of food grade, which is recited in claim 2 of the copending application, making them essentially the same invention. Claim 17 of the copending application is very similar to its claim 1,and therefore substantially overlap with claim 1of the current invention.
This is a provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejection because the patentably indistinct claims have not in fact been patented.
Response to Arguments
Claim Rejections - 35 USC §§ 102(a)(1) and 103
The applicant argues that the amended claim requires the inclusion of a thickening agent and a non-optically or UV active additive, O’Shea fails to teach that “the components of saturated solution are food grade and therefore, O’Shea fails to anticipate claim 1 and therefore claim is allowable. Applicant Rem. dated Nov. 10, 2025 (“Applicant Rem.”) p. 5.
The examiner respectfully disagrees. O’Shea specifically pointed out that “The aqueous salt and the select other reagents may be food grade components per Foods Chemicals Codex (FCC).” O’Shea [0009]. O’Shea specifically points out that its thickening agent “gum” is food grade. O’Shea [0011]. O’Shea also points out that its reagents are food grade. Lactate salt, glycerol, an acetate salt are given as example of Reagents, and mapped to the claimed “additives.” O’Shea [0009]. O’Shea therefore anticipates claim 1 and the claim is not allowable.
Allowable Subject Matter
Upon further review, the subject matter previously indicated as allowable is no long considered allowable. Please see the claim rejection section above for details.
Double Patenting
The examiner maintains the current double patenting rejection over co-pending application 16/717,319. The examiner drops the current double patenting rejection over application 18/320,031 in view of the amendments.
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 QIANPING HE whose telephone number is (571)272-8385. The examiner can normally be reached on 7:30-5:00 M-F.
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, Jennifer Dieterle can be reached on (571) 270-7872. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
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 https://ppair-my.uspto.gov/pair/PrivatePair. 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.
/Qianping He/Examiner, Art Unit 1776