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 4 is objected because it depends on cancelled claim 2.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
The factual inquiries 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 1 and 12 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being obvious over O’Shea et al., US 2020/0188845 A1 (“O’Shea”) in view of Conrardy et al., US 2018/0327169 A1 (“Conrardy”).
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 (O’Shea discloses reagents such as a lactate salt, glycerol, an acetate salt, those reagents read on the claimed “additive”, O’Shea [0009]);
wherein all components of the saturated solution, including thickening agent and the additive are food grade (O’Shea disclose its aqueous salt and selective other reagents are food grade, O’Shea [0009]; O’Shea also discloses that its gum is food grade, O’Shea [0011]); and
further comprising a flexible pouch (O’Shea’s polymeric film pouch, O’Shea [0027]) encasing the aqueous saturated solution, including the thickening agent and the additive,
the flexible 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]).
O’Shea does not disclose that an outer edge of the flexible pouch is folded over.
In the analogous art of pouch containers, Conrardy discloses an outer edge (Conrardy’s seal 58, Conrardy Fig. 4, [0036]) that is folded over with excess film 68 folded over. Conrardy discloses such fold over tail leaves less chance for liquid contamination in the area of seal 58, Conrardy Fig. 4, [0036]. Additionally, Conrardy discloses its pouch is resistant to bursting when subject to drop testing, Conrardy [0010]. It would therefore have been obvious for one ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to modify O’Shea to have a fold over outer edge as disclosed by Conrardy for the benefits of more reliable seal and enhanced drop test survivability.
Regarding claim 12:
Modified 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]).
Claims 4, 6–7 and 13–14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being obvious over O’Shea in view of Conrardy as applied to claim 1 above, and in further view of Egberg et al., US 2015/0328584 A1 (“Egberg”).
Regarding claim 4:
Modified 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 13:
Modified 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, 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:
Modified 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 discloses that a self-indicating property of hardening when used in relative humidity condition lower than the target relative humidity. O’Shea [0061].
Modified 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 Conrardy as applied to claim 1 above, and in further view of Pellingra et al., US 2013/0301957 A1 (“Pellingra”).
Regarding claim 9:
Modified 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 the 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 the 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”).
Response to Arguments
Claim Objections
The examiner withdraws the current claim objection because the applicant has tendered an amendment to overcome the current objection. However, new objections are made, please see details above.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC §§ 112(a) and 112(b)
The examiner withdraws the current 35 USC §§ 112(a) and 112(b) rejections because the applicant has tendered an amendment to overcome the current rejections.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC §§ 102(a)(1) and 103
The applicant included a further limitation of “folded over” and argues that the none of the prior art cited teaches such limitation.
In view of the amendment, the examiner relies on Conrardy to teach the limitation. See details above.
Double Patenting
The examiner withdraws the ODP rejection because the co-pending application 16/717,319 has been abandoned.
Conclusion
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
Prosecution Insights