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 Objections
Claim 13 is objected to because of the following informalities: “wherein apparatus” in line 1, should read -- wherein the apparatus.-- Appropriate correction is required.
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 15-19 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. The disclosure, as originally filed, does not disclose that the storage case consists of, a reed… In patent law (MPEP), a transitional phrase "consisting of" defines the scope of a claim, acting as a closed-ended term that limits the invention to only the recited elements or steps, excluding any additional, unlisted components. However, this closed-ended term concept is not disclose in the original disclosure. For the purpose of examination, the phrase "consisting of" will be interpreted as “comprising,” an open-ended term.
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.
Claim 19 is 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.
The limitations in claim 19 repeated the newly added limitations in claim 15 rendering the claim indefinite because it is unclear if the repetition of limitations require duplicate of method steps in the claims 15 and 19 or claim 19 should have been cancelled. Clarification is respectfully requested.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(d):
(d) REFERENCE IN DEPENDENT FORMS.—Subject to subsection (e), a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, fourth paragraph:
Subject to the following paragraph [i.e., the fifth paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112], a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
Claim 12 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(d) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, 4th paragraph, as being of improper dependent form for failing to further limit the subject matter of the claim upon which it depends, or for failing to include all the limitations of the claim upon which it depends. Claim 12 depends on claims 7 and 1. The subject matter of claim 1 is an apparatus. The terms “operatable to,” in line 10 of claim 1 and line 1 of claim 7, clearly indicated that the “alarm,” “value of humidity” and “pre-set value of humidity” are not positively recited elements. However, claim 12 further define the pre-set value of the humidity is received by the processor through a user interface or via a smartphone application. Therefore, claim 12 fails to further limit the subject matter of the claim upon which it depends. Applicant may cancel the claim(s), amend the claim(s) to place the claim(s) in proper dependent form, rewrite the claim(s) in independent form, or present a sufficient showing that the dependent claim(s) complies with the statutory requirements.
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.
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) 1-4, 7-9 and 11-19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Goetz et al. (US10130728. Goetz hereinafter) in view of Chisholm (US10832641).
With respect to claim 1, Goetz discloses an apparatus (Figs 1-6B) comprising: a spray (140); an actuator (155, 106, 116, 138); a water compartment (132); a memory (in 155. Col. 6, lines 27-49); and a processor (in 155. Col. 6, lines 27-49); wherein the processor is communicatively coupled to the memory and wherein the processor is operable to (capable of): actuate the actuator to activate the spray (Col. 7 line 37 to Col. 8, line 11 and Col. 8, lines 25-58); and wherein the apparatus is operable to (capable of) receive a value of humidity (relative humidity (RH) sample valves 126, 128, or “RH sample valves” 126, 128. Col. 5, line 66 to Col. 7, line 5); compare the value of humidity with a pre-set value of humidity (RHsetpoint); automatically actuate the spray based on a user-defined schedule stored in the memory and accessed via an application (humidification stage 20. Figs. 2-3C); and control humidity of a load (105) stored in a storage case (102) and wherein the apparatus maintains a moisture (via humidification stage 20. Figs. 2-4) in the load in the pre-set value of humidity.
Goetz fails to disclose a reed of a musical instrument stored in a storage case, control humidity of the reed of a musical instrument stored in a storage case.
However, Chisholm teaches a reed (162) of a musical instrument (bagpipe) stored in a storage case (150), the device provides control humidity (by having a hygrometer and thermometer) of the reed of a musical instrument stored in a storage case.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the teaching of storing a reed of a musical instrument, as taught by Chisholm, to Goetz’s apparatus, in order to automatically monitor and maintain the desired humidity of the reed (Abstracts of Chisholm and Goetz). Furthermore, it is well known to one skill in the art or musicians, especially woodwind players, that musical reeds need humidity control. Reeds are made of natural cane, which is highly sensitive to changes in moisture and temperature, and managing this is a fundamental aspect of instrument care and consistent performance. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art to store a reed of a musical instrument to Goetz’s apparatus, in order to automatically monitor and maintain the desired humidity of the reed.
With respect to claim 2, Goetz’s apparatus modified by storing Chisholm’s reed, Goetz further discloses wherein the processor is operable to (capable of) receive an instruction (from 10, 20, 150 in Figs. 2-5) to actuate the actuator.
With respect to claim 3, Goetz’s apparatus modified by storing Chisholm’s reed, Goetz further discloses wherein the spray comprises at least one of a jet spray, a mist spray (injection of a gas (e.g., water as steam). Col. 4, lines 20-21), a dripper, and a humidifier.
With respect to claim 4, Goetz’s apparatus modified by storing Chisholm’s reed, Goetz further discloses wherein the apparatus comprises a humidity sensor (124) to (capable of) measure a value of humidity (relative humidity (RH) sample valves 126, 128, or “RH sample valves” 126, 128. Col. 5, line 66 to Col. 7, line 5) of the reed inside the storage case.
With respect to claim 7, Goetz’s apparatus modified by storing Chisholm’s reed, Goetz further discloses wherein the processor is operable to (capable of) generate an alert (RHerror) if a value of humidity is lower than a pre-set value of humidity in the reed (Fig. 4).
With respect to claim 8, Goetz’s apparatus modified by storing Chisholm’s reed, Goetz further discloses wherein the apparatus is controlled remotely (humidity sensor 124 is remote (as shown in FIG. 1). Col. 7, line 21) to turn on the actuator.
With respect to claim 9, Goetz’s apparatus modified by storing Chisholm’s reed, Goetz further discloses wherein the apparatus further comprises a sensor (humidity sensor 124) to detect (by maintain the desired humidity (RHsetpoint) based on the allowable time (tabs)) the at least one of a fungus and moss growth on the reed.
With respect to claim 11, Goetz’s apparatus modified by storing Chisholm’s reed, Goetz further discloses wherein the apparatus further comprises a sensor (humidity sensor 124) to detect (by maintain the desired humidity (RHsetpoint) based on the allowable time (tabs)) at least one of a crack and a physical damage (severely over or under desired humidity) of the reed.
With respect to claim 12, Goetz’s apparatus modified by storing Chisholm’s reed, Goetz further discloses wherein the pre-set value of the humidity is received by the processor through a user interface (in 155. Col. 6, lines 27-49) or via a smartphone application.
With respect to claim 13, Goetz’s apparatus modified by storing Chisholm’s reed, Goetz further discloses wherein the apparatus further comprises a user interface comprising at least one of an interactive display (of programmable logic controller (“PLC”), a microprocessor, a personal computer (“PC”). Col. 6, lines 27-49), a mobile device, and a handheld remote device.
With respect to claim 14, Goetz’s apparatus modified by storing Chisholm’s reed, Goetz further discloses wherein the control of the apparatus is through a smartphone application (the controller 155 can be a suitable electronic device… the controller 155 can be connected to any other component of the humidity control system 101A, 101B (or other components of the sterilizer 100) via any combination of wired or wireless connections). Examiner’s note: A wirelessly connected electronic device is a genus of the species - a smartphone.
With respect to claim 15, Goetz discloses a system (Figs 1-6B) comprising: a storage case (102); wherein the storage case consists of, a spray(140); an actuator (155, 106, 116, 138); a water compartment (132); a memory (in 155. Col. 6, lines 27-49); and a processor (in 155. Col. 6, lines 27-49); an application (10, 20, 150 in Figs. 2-5) stored on a user device (155); wherein the processor is communicatively coupled to the memory and wherein the processor is operable to (capable of) receive a value of humidity (relative humidity (RH) sample valves 126, 128, or “RH sample valves” 126, 128. Col. 5, line 66 to Col. 7, line 5); compare the value of humidity with a pre-set value of humidity (RHsetpoint); automatically activate the spray (Col. 7 line 37 to Col. 8, line 11 and Col. 8, lines 25-58) via the actuator via the application stored on the user device; and wherein the system is operable to (capable of) control humidity of a load (105) stored in the storage case.
Goetz fails to disclose the storage case consists of a reed of a musical instrument; wherein the system is operable to control humidity of the reed of the musical instrument in the pre-set value stored in the storage case.
However, Chisholm teaches a reed (162) of a musical instrument (bagpipe) stored in a storage case (150), the device/ system provides control humidity (by having a hygrometer and thermometer) of the reed of a musical instrument stored in a storage case.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the teaching of storing a reed of a musical instrument, as taught by Chisholm, to Goetz’s apparatus, in order to automatically monitor and maintain the desired humidity of the reed (Abstracts of Chisholm and Goetz). Furthermore, it is well known to one skill in the art or musicians, especially woodwind players, that musical reeds need humidity control. Reeds are made of natural cane, which is highly sensitive to changes in moisture and temperature, and managing this is a fundamental aspect of instrument care and consistent performance. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art to store a reed of a musical instrument to Goetz’s apparatus, in order to automatically monitor and maintain the desired humidity of the reed.
With respect to claim 16, Goetz’s apparatus modified by storing Chisholm’s reed, Goetz further discloses wherein an instruction received by the processor comprises at least one of a time input (tinject), a time interval (tabs), and a quantity of water to be sprayed (flowcharts in Figs. 3A-3C).
With respect to claim 17, Goetz’s apparatus modified by storing Chisholm’s reed, Goetz further discloses wherein the spray comprises at least one of a jet spray, a mist spray (injection of a gas (e.g., water as steam). Col. 4, lines 20-21), a dripper, and a humidifier.
With respect to claim 18, Goetz’s apparatus modified by storing Chisholm’s reed, Goetz further discloses wherein the system comprises a humidity sensor (124) to (capable of) measure a value of humidity (relative humidity (RH) of the reed.
With respect to claim 19, Goetz’s apparatus modified by storing Chisholm’s reed, Goetz further discloses wherein the processor is operable to: receive the value of humidity (relative humidity (RH) sample valves 126, 128, or “RH sample valves” 126, 128. Col. 5, line 66 to Col. 7, line 5); compare the value of humidity with a pre-set value of humidity (RHsetpoint); and wherein the system maintains humidity (via humidification stage 20. Figs. 2-4) in the reed in the pre-set value.
Alternatively, Claim(s) 9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Goetz in view of Eden et al. (US9012209. Eden hereinafter).
With respect to claim 9, Goetz discloses wherein the apparatus further comprises a first sensor (humidity sensor 124). Goetz fails to disclose the sensor capable of detecting at least one of a fungus and moss growth on the reed.
However, Eden teaches a CO2 optical sensor for detection and enumeration of microorganisms (Title and Abstract).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the teaching of a CO2 optical sensor, as taught by Eden, to Goetz’s apparatus, in order to detect unwanted growth of fungus and moss on the load 150 due to over the limit humidity over long period of time (Title and Abstract).
Claim(s) 10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Goetz in view of Chisholm and further in view of Greuel (US9045358).
With respect to claim 10, Goetz and Chisholm discloses the apparatus as in claim 1 except for wherein the apparatus further comprises a UV sterilization unit to sterilize the reed and the storage case.
However, Greuel teaches a UV disinfecting device (Figs. 1-7) comprises a UV sterilization unit (210) to sterilize an object (125) and the storage case (12).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the teaching of adding a UV sterilization unit, as taught by Greuel, to Goetz’s apparatus, in order to sterilize an object in a storage case (Abstract and Figs. 1-7).
Alternatively, Claim(s) 14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Goetz and Chisholm in view of 胡琳 Hu et al. (CN106257150. Hu hereinafter. See the attached English translation by Google Patents).
With respect to claim 14, Goetz and Chisholm discloses the apparatus as in claim 1 except for wherein the control of the apparatus is through a smartphone Application.
However, Hu teaches an intelligent humidification machine controlled with mobile phone and control method thereof (Title and Abstract).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the teaching of the control of the apparatus through a smartphone Application, as taught by Hu, to Goetz’s apparatus, in order to control and monitor the apparatus remotely (Title and Abstract).
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 1-4 and 7-19 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on the combination of references applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
With respect to the 35 U.S.C. 112(d) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, 4th paragraph rejection, the Applicant argues that the “processor” is positively recited, therefore, the rejection should be withdrawn.
The Examiner respectfully disagrees. Claim 12 violates the 35 U.S.C. 112(d) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, 4th paragraph requirements because the “alarm,” “value of humidity” and “pre-set value of humidity” are not positively recited elements. These limitations are not positively recited elements. See detailed rejection elaborated above.
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 CHEE-CHONG LEE whose telephone number is (571)270-1916. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 8am -5pm.
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, Arthur O. Hall can be reached at (571)270-1814. 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.
/CHEE-CHONG LEE/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3752 January 9, 2026