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 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: a temperature and humidity control portion, a fluid transfer portion, and a fluid suction portion.
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.
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 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, 3, and 5-15 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 1, the limitation “fluid suction portion configured to suck the fluid inside the chamber” invokes 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. However, the written description fails to disclose the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the entire claimed function and to clearly link the structure, material, or acts to the function. Specifically, there appears to be no particular structure recited in regards to the fluid suction portion (for example see paragraph 46 of the published application). Therefore, the claim is indefinite and is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, second paragraph.
Applicant may:
(a) Amend the claim so that the claim limitation will no longer be interpreted as a limitation under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph;
(b) Amend the written description of the specification such that it expressly recites what structure, material, or acts perform the entire claimed function, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)); or
(c) Amend the written description of the specification such that it clearly links the structure, material, or acts disclosed therein to the function recited in the claim, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)).
If applicant is of the opinion that the written description of the specification already implicitly or inherently discloses the corresponding structure, material, or acts and clearly links them to the function so that one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize what structure, material, or acts perform the claimed function, applicant should clarify the record by either:
(a) Amending the written description of the specification such that it expressly recites the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function and clearly links or associates the structure, material, or acts to the claimed function, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)); or
(b) Stating on the record what the corresponding structure, material, or acts, which are implicitly or inherently set forth in the written description of the specification, perform the claimed function. For more information, see 37 CFR 1.75(d) and MPEP §§ 608.01(o) and 2181.
Regarding claims 3 and 5-15, the claims are rejected due to dependence from claim 1.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
Claims 1, 3, 5-11, and 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Phillips (US H000229) in view of Chen (US 2018/0056755), Michlovic (US 5,344,364), and Roderick (US 8,100,341).
As to claim 1, Phillips teaches a thermos-hygrostat device (Figs. 1-2) comprising:
a chamber 5 in which a sample 35 is accommodated, in which internal temperature and humidity are controlled, and which comprises an inlet from duct 11 provided on a surface thereof;
a first duct 9 provided on a first side of the chamber 5 and sending a fluid inside the chamber 5 to an outside of the chamber 5;
a temperature and humidity control portion 7 provided on the first duct 9;
a fluid transfer portion 62/64 provided on the control portion 7 and sending the fluid received from the portion 7; and
a second duct 11 comprising a first portion on the fluid transfer portion 62/64 (Fig. 1, see vertical section of duct 11) and a second portion provided on the surface of the chamber and communicating with the first portion (Fig. 1, see horizontal section of duct 11); and
a fluid suction portion provided on the first side of the chamber 5 and configured to send the fluid inside the chamber 5 to the first duct 9 (Fig. 1, see inlet to duct 9)
wherein the first portion of the second duct (Fig. 1, vertical section of 11) sends fluid from the fluid transfer portion to the second portion of the second duct, and the second portion of the second duct sends the fluid into the chamber through the inlet (Fig. 1, see horizontal section of duct 11);
wherein the fluid transfer portion 62/64 sends the fluid toward the first portion of the second duct (Fig. 1);
wherein the second portion of the second duct 11 covers the inlet at the surface of the chamber 5 (Fig. 1, horizontal portion of duct 11);
wherein the fluid suction portion is configured to suck the fluid inside the chamber 5, and the first duct 9 is provided to cover the fluid suction portion to receive the fluid discharged from the fluid suction portion and deliver the received fluid to the temperature and humidity control portion 7 provided on the first duct 9 (Figs. 1 and 3; note that the chamber 5 has an outlet which serves as the inlet to duct 9, and is therefore a portion which is configured to suck air from the chamber 5 to the duct 9); and
wherein the first duct 9, the temperature and humidity control portion 7, and the fluid transfer portion 62/64 are sequentially arranged on the first side of the chamber 5 (Figs. 1 and 3).
Phillips is silent regarding any specifics of the inlet from duct 11 to the chamber 5, and thus does not explicitly teach a plurality of holes covered by the second portion of the duct 11. However, Chen (Fig. 1) and Michlovic (Fig. 12) teach that it is known to use a plurality of holes of increasing/decreasing width, while Roderick teaches that a variation in aperture size allows for uniform air flow (col. 5, lines 44-46). In light of these teachings it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art, at the time of the invention, to modify Phillips to utilize a plurality of holes of increasing/decreasing hole widths as taught by Chen, Michlovic, and Roderick at the inlet to the chamber 5 from the duct 11 in order to provide uniform air flow to the sample 35.
As to claim 3, the fluid transfer portion includes a blower 64 and a communication hole (Fig. 3, at arrow 55) communicating fluid blown by the blower 64 to the first portion of the second duct.
As to claim 5, Chen teaches utilizing protrusions 7/8 on an opposite side of each hole (Figs. 5-6; paragraphs 32-36).
As to claim 6, each of the plurality of holes of the modified apparatus has a predetermined length and width and is spaced apart from each other in a width direction (Chen, Fig. 1; Michlovic, Fig. 12).
As to claim 7, Chen teaches utilizing protrusions 7/8 on an opposite side of each hole (Figs. 5-6; paragraphs 32-36).
As to claims 8-9, as noted in the rejection of claim 1 above, the modified apparatus utilizes increasing or decreasing hole widths as claimed in order to provide uniform air flow to the sample 35 (also see Chen, Fig. 1; Michlovic, Fig. 12).
As to claims 10-11, the modified apparatus is silent regarding protrusion heights. However, as noted in the rejections above, varying hole sizes causes uniform distribution over a flow. As varying the protrusion heights would effectively vary the aperture area of each hole, it follows that it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art, at the time of the invention, to further modify Phillips to have increasing or decreasing protrusion heights as claimed in order to uniformly distribute the air.
As to claim 15, the modified apparatus of Phillips is capable of accommodating a battery as the sample 35 in the chamber 5.
Claims 12-14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over the Phillips, Chen, Michlovic, and Roderick as applied above, and further in view of Vanderschaaf (US 4,572,283) and Shimada (US 8,763,480).
As to claims 12-14, Phillips does not explicitly teach increasing/decreasing duct heights as claimed. However, Vanderschaaf teaches a duct 52 with increasing proportions (Fig. 1) and Shimada teaches a duct 38b with decreasing proportions (Fig. 1). In light of these teachings it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art, at the time of the invention, to modify the ducts of Phillips to be increasing/decreasing in height as necessary to provide desired supply flow conditions and distribution.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments, see pages 5-10, filed with respect to the claim rejections under 35 U.S.C. 103 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
The applicant argues that the prior art does not teach or suggest a fluid suction portion covered by the first duct. The examiner respectfully disagrees. The chamber 5 of Phillips has an outlet which is covered by the inlet of duct 9 (Fig. 1). Said outlet of chamber 5 is configured to suck fluid from the chamber into the duct 9 due to the operation of fan 64 (Fig. 3). As such it is maintained that Phillips teaches a fluid suction portion covered by the first duct in the manner as required by the claims.
The applicant argues that the prior art does not teach or suggest the first duct, the control portion, and fluid transfer portion arranged sequentially on the first side of the chamber. The examiner respectfully disagrees. As can be seen in Figs. 1 and 3 of Phillips, first duct 9, temperature humidity and control portion 7, and fluid transfer portion 62/64 are clearly arranged in sequence and located on the side of chamber 5. Therefore it is maintained that Phillips meets this limitation of the claim.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JONATHAN BRADFORD whose telephone number is (571)270-5199. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 8:00 - 4:00 ET.
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, Jerry-Daryl Fletcher can be reached at (571)270-5054. 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.
/JONATHAN BRADFORD/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3763