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 .
Priority
Acknowledgment is made of applicant’s claim for foreign priority under 35 U.S.C. 119 (a)-(d). The certified copy has been filed in parent Application No. CN 202220203673, filed on January 20, 2022 and Application No. 202222077353 filed on August 9, 2022.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to under 37 CFR 1.83(a) because they fail to show the fan facing the guide pipe as described in the specification. Figure 6 refers to number 400 as the fan, however, in the figure, number 400 appears to be pointing to the fixing member. Furthermore, Figure 4 is a cross section of the apparatus and fails to show the fan structure, which should appear above the pipe since the figure shows the pipe as split open in half to show the contents of the apparatus. Further, while Figure 3 does utilize reference numeral 400 the line does not point to any structure that would be considered to face the guide pipe as the circular member is pointed downwards adjacent to the pipe (the pipe is in cross-section which would mean that anything above the pipe would also need to be shown in cross-section and as such anything considered to be 400 in the picture cannot be considered to be the fan as claimed) It is unclear how the fan is meant to be placed to face the guide pipe. Any structural detail that is essential for a proper understanding of the disclosed invention should be shown in the drawing. MPEP § 608.02(d). Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
The drawings are objected to as failing to comply with 37 CFR 1.84(p)(5) because they do not include the following reference sign mentioned in the description: 111, atomization piece (Pg. 6, par. 55). Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
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.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitation is:
“An opening-closing member” configured to “opening an opening of the fixing member” and “sealing the opening of the fixing member”. The specification discloses “the opening-closing member 520 includes a main body and a conductor, the main body being on a disc, and the conductor being integrally connected to the main body” on page 8, paragraph 60 and “the opening-closing member 520 may define the through hole or not, and the opening-closing member 520 may seal either opening without defining the through hole” on page 8, paragraph 59.
Because this claim limitation is being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it is being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant does not intend to have this limitation interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation to avoid it being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation recites sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
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 4, 7-9 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.
Regarding claim 4, the claim recites a water level of the heating tank is higher than a water level of the cold gas tank. It is unclear what is meant by water level, it seems as though the applicant is intending to claim the water itself. For the purposes of examination, the examiner is interpreting water level to be the volume of the water in the tanks, such that the volume of the heating tank is greater than the volume of the cold gas tank based on page 6, paragraph 52 of the applicant’s specification.
Regarding claim 7, the claim recites the water tank is pressed against the switch to open the heating cup, however, it is unclear what is opening since a cup is understood as having an open top. While claim 8 explains the opening by claiming the opening-closing member, there is nothing explicitly relating the opening-closing member to the cup, therefore, it is unclear what the switch from claim 7 is opening. For the purposes of examination, the examiner is considering claim 7 to require the structure of claim 8, such that steam can exit the cup when the opening of an opening-closing member is in the opening position with respect to a fixing member.
Regarding claim 9, the claim recites the opening comprises a plurality of openings each in a fan-shaped hole, and the plurality of openings are distributed in a circular array. Claim 9 is dependent on claim 7, which refers to the opening of the cup, however, the opening in claim 9 seems to be referring to the openings of the fixing member as stated in the specification, “a plurality of the openings 511 on the fixing member 510” (Pg. 8, par. 60). Therefore, the claim makes it unclear where the opening is located or if the applicant is trying to claim that the cup itself has portions that move, which is unsupported by the specification. For the purposes of examination, the examiner is interpreting the opening to be the plurality of openings of the fixing member as stated in the specification.
Claim 8 is rejected as being dependent upon a rejected claim.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1-2 and 4-6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102 (a)(1) as being anticipated by Lai et al (CN Document No. 113324301).
Regarding claim 1, Lai teaches a mixed-type humidifier, comprising a water tank (Fig. 1, 3) and a base (shell 1); wherein the water tank (3) is arranged within the base (Fig. 1), and the water tank (3) comprises a gas guide pipe (fog way pipe 22), a gas outlet (fog outlet 41), and a water filling port (detachable top cover, 4); the gas outlet (41) is communicated with (Fig 1) the gas guide pipe (22); the base (1) defines a cold gas tank (water storage atomization groove 12) and a heating tank (water storage heating groove 11) that are communicated with (Fig. 1) the gas guide pipe (22), and the cold gas tank (12) is communicated with the water tank (5) through a water supply switch (lever type floater 52); the cold gas tank (12) is communicated (Fig. 1) with the heating tank (11) through a guide pipe (pipeline 15). The guide pipe as taught by Lai is considered to inherently be a heat dissipation pipe because as the water flows through, the pipe will naturally have an effect on the water temperature.
Regarding claim 2, Lai teaches a mixed-typed humidifier with a fan (Fig. 1, 16) in front of a pipeline (Fig. 1, 15) to help blow the air from the tanks to a fog outlet. The fan will inherently affect the temperature of the guide pipe due to the principles of thermodynamics and consequently affect the temperature of the water.
Regarding claim 4, Lai teaches a mixed-typed humidifier, wherein a water level of a heating tank (Fig. 1, 11) is higher than a water level of a cold gas tank (12). The art demonstrates the heating tank (11) having a longer dimension than the cold gas tank (12), therefore, allowing for the heating tank (11) to have a higher volume of water.
Regarding claim 5, Lai teaches a mixed-type humidifier, wherein a heating tank (Fig. 1, 11) is a recess (11) arranged with an electric assembly (heating device 13) and is connected to a gas guide pipe (15).
Regarding claim 6, Lai teaches a mixed-typed humidifier, wherein a heating tank (11) is a heating cup (Fig. 1), and the gas guide pipe (15) is communicated (Fig. 1) with the heating cup (11).
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.
Claim 10 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lai as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Ren et al (WO Document No. 2017114356).
Lai teaches a mixed-type humidifier, wherein an atomization assembly (Fig. 4, atomizing device 14) is disposed on an end (Fig. 4) of a cold gas tank (12), and a water supply switch (52) is disposed on another end (Fig. 4) of the cold gas tank (12); a bottom surface of the cold gas tank (12) defines a connection port (water inlet 111) communicated with the guide pipe (15); the connection port (111) is defined near the heating tank (11). However, Lai fails to teach a humidifier, wherein the cold gas tank is L-shaped.
Ren teaches a humidifying device, wherein the humidifying tank (considered to be a cold gas tank) can be of any shape, such as a cylinder or polygonal prisms (Pg. 6, lines 13-14) for the purpose of providing a tank shape best suited for a humidifying device.
Based on the teachings of Ren, it appears the shape of the cold gas tank is nothing more than a design choice dependent on the available space withing the humidifier itself and its ability function properly as a reservoir for the hot gas tank. As such, it would have been an obvious matter of design choice to one of ordinary skill in the art to try any shape, including the claimed L-shape, for the cold gas tank as doing so would lead to the predictable result of creating enough volume for the cold gas tank with the space available. It has been held that changing the form or shape of a structure does not constitute a patentable advance if the shape does not allow the device to perform differently than the prior art devices.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 7-9 would be allowable if rewritten to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 2nd paragraph, set forth in this Office action and to include 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:
Regarding, claim 7 the switch pressed by the water tank to open the fixing member via the opening-closing member as set forth in claim 7, as discussed in the 112(b) rejection above, most closely resembles the spring-loaded valve members (Fig. 3, 8a, 8b) of Seo’s humidifier (US Document No. 4663091), however, the valve members are placed on a bottom surface of a water tank (Fig. 1, 6) to open the water tank (Col. 3, lines 4-7) instead of being placed at an opening of a heating cup to open a fixing member via an opening-closing member. No additional prior art can be found to modify what is found in Seo to read on claim 7.
Regarding, claim 8, the fixing member and opening-closing member comprised in the switch most closely resemble the main blocking member (Fig. 7, 611) and the actuating member (Fig. 6, 612) of the water blocking assembly (Fig. 6, 61) of Yang’s humidifier (Yang et al, US Document No. 20200284451), however, the fixing member (considered to be 611) is placed in the base over the inlet of the vapor discharge outlet (Fig. 6, 13) rather than in a heating cup with the opening-closing member (considered to be 612) below the fixing member. The opening-closing member (612) of Yang’s humidifier does not have a drive post to be pushed down by a water tank. While Yang’s apparatus does contain a spring (Fig. 6, resilient member 64), it is not arranged between a fixing member (611) and a drive post for sealing the opening of the fixing member (611). No additional prior art can be found to modify was is found in Yang to read on claim 8.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to CHANCIE I VELASQUEZ SANCHEZ whose telephone number is (571)272-9477. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 7:30AM-4:30PM.
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, Edward Landrum can be reached at (571)272-5567. 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.
/C.V.S./Examiner, Art Unit 3761 /EDWARD F LANDRUM/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3761