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 .
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.
Election/Restrictions
Applicant's election with traverse of Group I, claims 1-10, in the reply filed on 11/04/25 is acknowledged. The traversal is on the ground(s) that there would be no serious burden on the Examiner if restriction is not required. This is not found persuasive because the inventions require a different field of search (for example, searching different classes/subclasses or electronic resources, or employing different search queries).
The requirement is still deemed proper and is therefore made FINAL.
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.
Claim(s) 1-7 and 9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by J. W. Lenehan (US 2788087; hereinafter Lenehan).
As regarding claim 1, Lenehan discloses the claimed invention for a passive dehumidifier, comprising: a collector wall (34) disposed within an interior of the passive dehumidifier and configured to collect moisture on at least one surface of the collector wall; an airflow control channel (fig. 1; no number) disposed between an intake and outtake of the passive dehumidifier, wherein the airflow control channel is configured to change a direction of an airflow entering the intake from a first direction to a second direction (fig. 1; no number), the change in the direction of the airflow configured to prevent at least a portion of the moisture present in the airflow from following the airflow into the second direction causing the at least a portion of the moisture to impinge against the at least one surface of the collector wall; and a drain (24) configured to drain the moisture collected by the collector wall from the passive dehumidifier.
As regarding claim 2, Lenehan discloses all of limitations as set forth above. Lenehan discloses the claimed invention for wherein the airflow control channel is configured to provide volumetric expansion of the airflow entering the intake to reduce the inertia of the airflow and reduce the speed of the airflow (fig. 1).
As regarding claim 3, Lenehan discloses all of limitations as set forth above. Lenehan discloses the claimed invention for a screen mesh (12) configured to facilitate routing the moisture collected by the collector wall to the drain.
As regarding claim 4, Lenehan discloses all of limitations as set forth above. Lenehan discloses the claimed invention for wherein the screen mesh (12) is functionally coupled to the at least one surface of the collector wall (34) and the drain (24).
As regarding claim 5, Lenehan discloses all of limitations as set forth above. Lenehan discloses the claimed invention for wherein an angle of the change in the direction of the airflow entering the intake from the first direction to the second direction is at least ninety degrees (at least one airflow direction changes of approximately 90 degrees in a downward direction).
As regarding claim 6, Lenehan discloses all of limitations as set forth above. Lenehan discloses the claimed invention for wherein the airflow control channel is further configured to change the direction of the airflow from the second direction to a third direction (airflow crossing the filter cone 12 of fig. 1), the change in the direction of the airflow from the second direction to the third direction configured to prevent at least a further portion of the moisture remaining the airflow flowing in the second direction from following the airflow into the third direction causing the further portion of the moisture to impinge against the at least one surface of the collector wall (34).
As regarding claim 7, Lenehan discloses all of limitations as set forth above. Lenehan discloses the claimed invention for wherein an angle of the change in the direction of the airflow from the second direction to the third direction is greater than (fig. 1) the angle of the change in the direction of the airflow entering the intake from the first direction to the second direction.
As regarding claim 9, Lenehan discloses all of limitations as set forth above. Lenehan discloses the claimed invention for wherein the collector wall (34) is disposed over at least a portion of the outtake (“gas outlet”) of the passive dehumidifier.
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.
Claim(s) 8 and 10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over J. W. Lenehan (US 2788087; hereinafter Lenehan).
As regarding claim 8, Lenehan discloses all of limitations as set forth above. Lenehan discloses the claimed invention except for wherein the least one surface of the collector wall is a hydrophilic surface. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention was made to provide wherein the least one surface of the collector wall is a hydrophilic (aluminium material) surface in order to provide a lightweight, corrosion-resistant cyclone body with a smooth internal surface that promotes stable airflow, reduces pressure loss, and allows easy fabrication, since it has been held to be within the general skill of a worker in the art to select a known material on the basis of its suitability for the intended use as a matter of obvious design choice. In re Leshin, 125 USPQ 416. Where patentability is said to be based upon particular chosen material or upon another variable recited in the claim, the applicant must show that the chosen material critical and unexpected results.
As regarding claim 10, Lenehan discloses all of limitations as set forth above. Lenehan discloses the claimed invention except for wherein the collector wall is shaped as a half dome covering the at least a portion of the outtake of the passive dehumidifier. However, the shape of a structural feature is considered a matter of choice which a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention was made would find obvious absent persuasive evidence that particular configuration is significant for the intended purpose of suitable shape, see In re Dailey, 149 USPQ 47.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to DUNG H BUI whose telephone number is (571)270-7077. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 8:00 - 4:30 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, Benjamin L. Lebron can be reached at (571) 272-0475. 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.
/DUNG H BUI/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1773
Prosecution Insights