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
Applicant’s arguments, filed with respect to the previously set forth claim objections have been fully considered and are persuasive in view of the amendment. Accordingly, the previously set forth claim objections have been withdrawn. Please see below for new claim objections, pertaining to the amendment.
Applicant’s arguments, filed with respect to the previously set forth rejections under 35 U.S.C. 112 have been fully considered and are persuasive in view of the amendment, with the exception of “said temperature conduction device”, which was not addressed and is maintained below. Accordingly, the previously set forth rejections under 35 U.S.C. 112 have been withdrawn. Please see also below for new grounds of rejection under 35 U.S.C. 112, necessitated by Amendment.
Applicant's arguments filed with respect to the prior art rejections have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Applicant’s arguments concerning the function of the thermoelectric chip of Nam are considered moot and have been discussed previously. Regarding the arrangement of the components of Nam compared with those of Applicant, Examiner notes that some of the features are newly recited and have been mapped as necessitated by Amendment. Further, in the context of a “comprising” claim, it is not found persuasive that item #2 surrounds thermoelectric chip #4, as there is a surface of #2 that is on the claimed surface of #4. Regarding the mesh member and the capillary structure, Examiner notes that the condenser #3 has multiple porous layers, one of which can be considered the mesh member and the other the capillary structure. Regarding the “tube”, examiner notes that the pores/through holes/columns of Nam are all synonyms of “tube” as claimed, and notes that Applicant’s disclosure appears to share this understanding when discussing background information (see, for example, paragraph [0072] of the Application as published). Examiner notes that Applicant’s claims remain broad, and encourages Applicant to refer to the disclosure (i.e. paragraph [0050] of the Application as filed) to incorporate material distinct from Nam.
Claim Objections
Claim 1 is objected to because of the following informalities: “generating” appears to be in error for “to generate”; and “cover on” appears to be in error for “cover”. 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.
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(s) is/are:
device for temperature conduction (i.e device [generic placeholder] for temperature conduction [functional language]) in claims 1-7,9-11;
member for water collection (i.e. member [generic placeholder] for water collection [functional language]) in claim 10.
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof. In the case of “device for temperature conduction”, the corresponding structure is found to metal or nonmetal sheet. In the case of “member for water collection”, container or basin #30 is found to be the corresponding structure.
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) 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(s) to avoid it/them 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(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them 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 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 1-7, and 9-11 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 recites the limitations “said first temperature being higher than a dew temperature” and “to said first temperature and lower than said dew temperature”. It does not appear that Applicant’s disclosure includes support for the first temperature being higher than a dew temperature and lower than a dew temperature. Claim 1 also recites the limitation “a capillary structure layer, including a tube inside” and refers through the remainder of claim 1 and dependent claim(s) to the single tube. It does not appear that Applicant has support for the capillary structure layer including a single tube as claimed.
Accordingly, claim 1 is considered to add new matter to the disclosure. Claims 2-7 and 9-11 are rejected insofar as they are dependent on claim 1 and therefore include the same error(s).
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 1-7, and 9-11 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 recites the limitation “said chip side”. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim, as Applicant cancelled the antecedent basis for “said chip side”. It is believed Applicant meant either first side, or cold side. Claim 1 recites the limitation “said temperature conduction device”. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim, as it appears Applicant amended to “device for temperature conduction”. Claim 1 also recites the limitations “said first temperature being higher than a dew temperature” and “to said first temperature and lower than said dew temperature”. It is not understood how the first temperature is both higher and lower than the dew temperature. Please see also, above. Claims 2-7, and 9-11 are rejected insofar as they are dependent on claim 1 and therefore include the same error(s).
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) 1-7, and 11, is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Nam et al. (US 2022/0010983: previously cited).
Regarding claim 1, Nam et al. shows a structure for dehumidification and water collection, said structure for dehumidification and water collection comprising:
a cooling chip (see at least temperature control member #4), said cooling chip including a hot end and a cold end (see at least paragraph [0063]: inherent to temperature control member), said cooling chip converting a temperature of said hot end to enable said cold end generating a first temperature (see at least paragraph [0063]), said temperature of said hot end being greater than said first temperature (see at least paragraph [0063]: inherent to temperature control member #4 as cooler/thermoelectric conversion module in cooling mode), said cold end defined at said chip side of said cooling chip (see at least paragraph [0063]: in the cooling mode, the chip side and the cold end will be at the same side), said first temperature being higher than a dew temperature (see at least paragraph [0066]: #4 may operate above, at, and/or below the dewpoint temperature),
a device for temperature conduction, including a first device side (see at least surface of top half of water-absorber drainer #2 adjacent #4) and a second device side (see at least surface of top half of water-absorber drainer #2 opposite the side adjacent #4), said first device side covering on said cold end of said cooling chip, said device for temperature conduction receiving said first temperature from said cold end (see at least surface of top half of water-absorber drainer #2 adjacent #4);
a mesh member (see at least condenser #3; see at least paragraph [0037]: condenser #3 has a hydrophilic structure and includes a multi-layer porous/capillary structure that includes mesh), including a first side (see at least bottom side of #3; i.e. of #37A) and a second side (see at least top side of #3, i.e. of #37A), said first side of said mesh member disposed at the second device side of said device for temperature conduction (see at least bottom surface of condenser #3 on the surface of top half of water-absorber drainer #2 opposite the side adjacent #4), said device for temperature conduction conducting said first temperature from said first device side of said device for temperature conduction to said mesh member through said second device side of said device for temperature conduction (see at least paragraphs [0064]-[0065]; Examiner also reminds Applicant “"[A]pparatus claims cover what a device is, not what a device does." Hewlett-Packard Co. v. Bausch & Lomb Inc., 909 F.2d 1464, 1469, 15 USPQ2d 1525, 1528 (Fed. Cir. 1990) (emphasis in original). A claim containing a "recitation with respect to the manner in which a claimed apparatus is intended to be employed does not differentiate the claimed apparatus from a prior art apparatus" if the prior art apparatus teaches all the structural limitations of the claim. Ex parte Masham, 2 USPQ2d 1647 (Bd. Pat. App. & Inter. 1987) (The preamble of claim 1 recited that the apparatus was "for mixing flowing developer material" and the body of the claim recited "means for mixing ..., said mixing means being stationary and completely submerged in the developer material." The claim was rejected over a reference which taught all the structural limitations of the claim for the intended use of mixing flowing developer. However, the mixer was only partially submerged in the developer material. The Board held that the amount of submersion is immaterial to the structure of the mixer and thus the claim was properly rejected.).”), said second device side of said device for temperature conduction opposite to said first device side of said temperature conduction device (see above), said second side of said mesh member contacting air (see at least top surface of condenser #3 is exposed to air), a hydrophilic structure formed on said second side of said mesh member to condense vapor in said air to condensed water while a temperature of said mesh member is changed from an original temperature to said first temperature and lower than said dew temperature (see at least paragraph [0037]: condenser #3 has a hydrophilic structure and includes a multi-layer porous/capillary structure that includes mesh, thus the hydrophilic structure is on first/second sides of the mesh member; Examiner also reminds Applicant “"[A]pparatus claims cover what a device is, not what a device does." Hewlett-Packard Co. v. Bausch & Lomb Inc., 909 F.2d 1464, 1469, 15 USPQ2d 1525, 1528 (Fed. Cir. 1990) (emphasis in original). A claim containing a "recitation with respect to the manner in which a claimed apparatus is intended to be employed does not differentiate the claimed apparatus from a prior art apparatus" if the prior art apparatus teaches all the structural limitations of the claim. Ex parte Masham, 2 USPQ2d 1647 (Bd. Pat. App. & Inter. 1987) (The preamble of claim 1 recited that the apparatus was "for mixing flowing developer material" and the body of the claim recited "means for mixing ..., said mixing means being stationary and completely submerged in the developer material." The claim was rejected over a reference which taught all the structural limitations of the claim for the intended use of mixing flowing developer. However, the mixer was only partially submerged in the developer material. The Board held that the amount of submersion is immaterial to the structure of the mixer and thus the claim was properly rejected.).”: to the extent the claim is understood, the temperature of the condenser #3 will be lower than the dewpoint temperature in the immediate area of the condenser to allow for condensation); and
a capillary structure layer including a tube inside, said capillary structure layer formed between said first side of said mesh member and said second side of said device for temperature conduction (see at least paragraph [0037]: “The condenser 3 may be a porous layer having a pore that connects the first main surface 31 and the second main surface 32 to each other.”: pore and tube are synonymous; see also for example #37B), said capillary structure layer guiding said condensed water into said tube to flow in a downward direction, in which said downward direction is different from a disposition direction of said device for temperature conduction and said mesh member (see at least paragraphs [0037]; [0063]-[0065]: the condensed water will flow in the direction of gravity regardless of the disposition of the device/member; Examiner also reminds Applicant “"[A]pparatus claims cover what a device is, not what a device does." Hewlett-Packard Co. v. Bausch & Lomb Inc., 909 F.2d 1464, 1469, 15 USPQ2d 1525, 1528 (Fed. Cir. 1990) (emphasis in original). A claim containing a "recitation with respect to the manner in which a claimed apparatus is intended to be employed does not differentiate the claimed apparatus from a prior art apparatus" if the prior art apparatus teaches all the structural limitations of the claim. Ex parte Masham, 2 USPQ2d 1647 (Bd. Pat. App. & Inter. 1987) (The preamble of claim 1 recited that the apparatus was "for mixing flowing developer material" and the body of the claim recited "means for mixing ..., said mixing means being stationary and completely submerged in the developer material." The claim was rejected over a reference which taught all the structural limitations of the claim for the intended use of mixing flowing developer. However, the mixer was only partially submerged in the developer material. The Board held that the amount of submersion is immaterial to the structure of the mixer and thus the claim was properly rejected.).”).
Regarding claim 2, Nam et al. further shows wherein
wherein said temperature of said hot end is between 30℃ and 100℃ (see at least paragraph [0053]).
Regarding claim 3, Nam et al. further shows wherein the cooling chip further comprises a semiconductor layer disposed between said hot end and said cold end, said semiconductor layer receives said temperature of said hot end and converts said temperature of said hot end to said first temperature (see at least paragraphs [0037]; [0063]-[0064]: inherent to temperature control member #4 as thermoelectric conversion module).
Regarding claim 4, Nam et al. further shows wherein when said vapor is condensed on said second mesh side of said mesh member: said hydrophilic structure absorbs said vapor on said second mesh side and transfers said vapor to said capillary structure layer to form condensed water in said capillary structure layer; and said capillary structure layer enables said condensed water guided into said tube to flow in said downward direction through at least one of capillary action or gravity (see at least paragraphs [0064]-[0065]; [0037]).
Regarding claim 5, Nam et al. further shows wherein, when said vapor is condensed in said capillary structure layer to form condensed water in said capillary structure layer; said capillary structure layer enables said condensed water guided into said tube to flow in said downward direction through capillary action (see at least paragraphs [0064]-[0065]).
Regarding claim 6, Nam et al. further shows wherein said first temperature is between 4℃ and 25℃ (see at least paragraph [0053]).
Regarding claim 7, Nam et al. further shows wherein a material of said device for temperature conduction is one of metals or nonmetals (see at least paragraph [0055]).
Regarding claim 11, Nam et al. further shows wherein said air temperature of said air is greater than a mesh temperature of said mesh member (see at least paragraphs [0064]-[0065]: thus condensation is created).
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.
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) 9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over, Nam et al. as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Mizobe (US 6,309,448: previously cited).
Regarding claim 9, Nam et al. is silent regarding wherein a thermal conduction coefficient of said mesh member is above 200W/mK.
Mizobe teaches another dehumidifier having a mesh member having a thermal conduction coefficient, wherein said thermal conduction coefficient is above 200W/mK (see at least column 11, lines 44-49: one or more of the materials listed include such a thermal conduction coefficient).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to provide the mesh member of Nam et al. with wherein a thermal conduction coefficient of said mesh member is above 200W/mK, as taught by Mizobe, to improve the mesh member of Nam et al. by making use of a material having good electrical and heat conductivity (see at least Mizobe column 11, lines 44-49).
Claim(s) 10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nam et al. as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Sakikawa et al. (US 2017/0266610: previously cited).
Regarding claim 10, Nam et al. does not disclose further comprising a member for water collection, said member for water collection being disposed below said device for temperature conduction and said mesh member, said member for water collection being configured to collect said condensed water guided from said capillary structure layer.
However, it was old and well-known in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to provide a dehumidifier with a member for water collection, said member for water collection being disposed below said device for temperature conduction and said mesh member, said member for water collection being configured to collect said condensed water guided from said capillary structure layer, as evidenced by Sakikawa et al. (see at least drain tank #6 disposed below substrate #21 and mesh/capillary #22).
It would, therefore, have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the of the invention to provide the dehumidification and water collection structure of Nam et al. with further comprising a member for water collection, said member for water collection being disposed below said device for temperature conduction and said mesh member, said member for water collection being configured to collect said condensed water guided from said capillary structure layer, since, as evidenced by Sakikawa et al. such provision was old and well-known in the art, and would provide the predictable benefit of allowing for convenient disposal of excess condensate water from the dehumidifier.
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 TAVIA SULLENS whose telephone number is (571)272-3749. The examiner can normally be reached M-R 6:30-4:30 Eastern.
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, Jianying Atkisson can be reached at 571-270-7740. 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.
/TAVIA SULLENS/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3763