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.
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) 1-7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over J. W. Lenehan (US 2788087; hereinafter Lenehan) in view of Yamasaki et al (US 20140116256; hereinafter Yamasaki) or Sukkar (US 20130220893).
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 disposed over at least a portion of an outtake of the passive dehumidifier, the collector wall 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.
Lenehan does not disclose the collector wall shaped with a spherical shape covering the at least a portion of the outtake of the passive dehumidifier and configured to cause the airflow to change direction around the collector wall. 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. Where patentability is said to be based upon particular chosen shape or upon another variable recited in the claim, the applicant must show that the chosen shape is critical and unexpected results.
Lenehan as modified does not disclose wherein the at least one surface of the collector wall is a hydrophilic surface configured to cause moisture impinging against the at least one surface of the collector wall to form a liquid film on the at least one surface of the collector wall, and wherein the liquid film is configured to slide down the at least one surface of the collector wall toward a drain when the liquid film exceeds a threshold size.
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 at least one surface of the collector wall is a hydrophilic surface configured to cause moisture impinging against the at least one surface of the collector wall to form a liquid film on the at least one surface of the collector wall, and wherein the liquid film is configured to slide down the at least one surface of the collector wall toward a drain when the liquid film exceeds a threshold size in order to enhance cyclonic separator performance, since it was known in the art as shown in Yamasaki ([0037] – cyclones made out of aluminum) or Sukkar ([0048] – pipe 8e of cyclone 13 is made of ‘aluminum’). Both Lenehan and Yamasaki (or Sukkar) are directed to cyclonic separator for separating light fraction and heavy fraction.
Examiner notes that the phrase of ‘configured to cause moisture impinging against the at least one surface of the collector wall to form a liquid film on the at least one surface of the collector wall, and wherein the liquid film is configured to slide down the at least one surface of the collector wall toward a drain when the liquid film exceeds a threshold size’ which is directed to a manner of operating disclosed collector wall, it is noted that neither the manner of operating a disclosed device nor material or article worked upon further limit an apparatus claim. Said limitations do not differentiate apparatus claims from prior art. See MPEP § 2114 and 2115. Further, it has been held that process limitations do not have patentable weight in an apparatus claim. See Ex parte Thibault, 164 USPQ 666, 667 (Bd. App. 1969) that states “Expressions relating the apparatus to contents thereof and to an intended operation are of no significance in determining patentability of the apparatus claim.”
As regarding claim 2, Lenehan as modified discloses all of limitations as set forth above. Lenehan as modified 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 as modified discloses all of limitations as set forth above. Lenehan as modified 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 as modified discloses all of limitations as set forth above. Lenehan as modified 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 as modified discloses all of limitations as set forth above. Lenehan as modified 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 as modified discloses all of limitations as set forth above. Lenehan as modified 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 as modified discloses all of limitations as set forth above. Lenehan as modified 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.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 1-7 have been considered but are moot because of the new ground of rejection.
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 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