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 .
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election without traverse of group I comprising claims 1 – 12 in the reply filed on 6/15/2026 is acknowledged.
Claims 13 – 17 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected invention, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Election was made without traverse in the reply filed on 6/15/2026.
Note Regarding Prior Art
Examiner cites particular sections, columns, line numbers, paragraphs and figures, in the references as applied to the claims below for the convenience of the Applicant. Although the specified citations are representative of the teachings in the art and are applied to the specific limitations within the individual claim, other passages and figures may apply as well. It is respectfully requested that, in preparing responses, the Applicant fully consider the references in their entirety as potentially teaching all or part of the claimed invention, as well as the context of the passage as taught by the prior art or disclosed by the Examiner.
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, 2 and 5 – 12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Cho et al. (WO 2021/206239; hereinafter “Cho”) in view of Gattiglia (WO 2006/094610 A1; hereinafter “Gattiglia”).
Regarding claim 1, Cho teaches a humidity indicator card with an added antistatic function (paragraph 14; figure 1; claims 1 – 4) comprising:
blotting paper (e.g., pressing paper; paragraph 15; figure 2);
antistatic layers (paragraphs 17 – 19) disposed on upper and lower portions of the blotting paper; and
humidity indication units (humidity indicator material; paragraphs 19 and 36; figure 6) disposed on one surface of the antistatic layer.
Cho does not specifically teach:
wherein the antistatic layer includes an antistatic composition including conductive carbon black, and
the conductive carbon black is included at 1 to 30 parts by weight based on 100 parts by weight of the antistatic composition.
Gattiglia teaches antistatic humidity indicators comprising carbon black and graphite (page 4, lines 5 – 14; page 5, lines 1 – 20; page 6, lines 11 – 25; claims 3 and 6) with varying concentrations that can range between 5% and 50% in weight (paragraph 19 – 26; page 12, lines 15 – 28). The selection of a known material, which is based upon its suitability for the intended use, is within the ambit of one of ordinary skill in the art (see MPEP § 2144.07). The combination of familiar elements is likely to be obvious when it does no more than yield predictable results (see MPEP § 2143, A.). Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide wherein the antistatic layer includes an antistatic composition including conductive carbon black, and the conductive carbon black is included at 1 to 30 parts by weight based on 100 parts by weight of the antistatic composition.
Regarding claim 2, Cho teaches the humidity indicator card of claim 1, wherein the antistatic composition further includes a binder and a solvent (paragraph 33).
Regarding claim 5, Gattiglia teaches the use of a conductive carbon black composition in an antistatic humidity indicator, wherein the conductive carbon black composition implicitly has a specific surface area of 50 to 100 m²/g (page 4, lines 5 – 14; page 5, lines 1 – 20; page 6, lines 11 – 25; claims 3 and 6). Regarding composition claims, if the composition is the same, it must have the same properties (see MPEP § 2112.01, II.). Furthermore, when the structure recited in the reference is substantially identical to that of the claims, claimed properties or functions are presumed to be inherent. The Courts have held that it is well settled that where there is a reason to believe that a functional characteristic would be inherent in the prior art, the burden of proof then shifts to the applicant to provide objective evidence to the contrary. See In re Schreiber, 128 F.3d at 1478, 44 USPQ2d at 1478, 44 USPQ2d at 1432 (Fed. Cir. 1997) (see MPEP § 2112.01, I.). The Courts have held that with regard to chemical homologs that the greater the physical and chemical similarities between the claimed species disclosed in the prior art, the greater the expectation that the claimed subject matter will function in an equivalent manner (see Dillon, 99 F.2d at 696, 16 USPQ2d at 1904).
Regarding claim 6, Gattiglia teaches the use of a conductive carbon black composition in an antistatic humidity indicator, wherein the conductive carbon black composition implicitly has an oil absorption number (OAN) of 100 to 300 ml/100 g (page 4, lines 5 – 14; page 5, lines 1 – 20; page 6, lines 11 – 25; claims 3 and 6). Regarding composition claims, if the composition is the same, it must have the same properties (see MPEP § 2112.01, II.). Furthermore, when the structure recited in the reference is substantially identical to that of the claims, claimed properties or functions are presumed to be inherent. The Courts have held that it is well settled that where there is a reason to believe that a functional characteristic would be inherent in the prior art, the burden of proof then shifts to the applicant to provide objective evidence to the contrary. See In re Schreiber, 128 F.3d at 1478, 44 USPQ2d at 1478, 44 USPQ2d at 1432 (Fed. Cir. 1997) (see MPEP § 2112.01, I.). The Courts have held that with regard to chemical homologs that the greater the physical and chemical similarities between the claimed species disclosed in the prior art, the greater the expectation that the claimed subject matter will function in an equivalent manner (see Dillon, 99 F.2d at 696, 16 USPQ2d at 1904).
Regarding claim 7, Gattiglia teaches the use of a conductive carbon black composition in an antistatic humidity indicator, wherein the conductive carbon black composition implicitly contains less than 300 ppm of sulfur (page 4, lines 5 – 14; page 5, lines 1 – 20; page 6, lines 11 – 25; claims 3 and 6). Regarding composition claims, if the composition is the same, it must have the same properties (see MPEP § 2112.01, II.). Furthermore, when the structure recited in the reference is substantially identical to that of the claims, claimed properties or functions are presumed to be inherent. The Courts have held that it is well settled that where there is a reason to believe that a functional characteristic would be inherent in the prior art, the burden of proof then shifts to the applicant to provide objective evidence to the contrary. See In re Schreiber, 128 F.3d at 1478, 44 USPQ2d at 1478, 44 USPQ2d at 1432 (Fed. Cir. 1997) (see MPEP § 2112.01, I.). The Courts have held that with regard to chemical homologs that the greater the physical and chemical similarities between the claimed species disclosed in the prior art, the greater the expectation that the claimed subject matter will function in an equivalent manner (see Dillon, 99 F.2d at 696, 16 USPQ2d at 1904).
Regarding claims 8 and 9, Cho teaches the use of conventional blotting paper in the fabrication of the disclosed humidity indicator card (e.g., pressing paper; paragraph 15), wherein it is considered implicit that the blotting paper exhibits the same moisture absorption degree and thickness characteristics as recited. Regarding composition claims, if the composition is the same, it must have the same properties (see MPEP § 2112.01, II.). Furthermore, when the structure recited in the reference is substantially identical to that of the claims, claimed properties or functions are presumed to be inherent. The Courts have held that it is well settled that where there is a reason to believe that a functional characteristic would be inherent in the prior art, the burden of proof then shifts to the applicant to provide objective evidence to the contrary. See In re Schreiber, 128 F.3d at 1478, 44 USPQ2d at 1478, 44 USPQ2d at 1432 (Fed. Cir. 1997) (see MPEP § 2112.01, I.).
Regarding claim 10, Cho teaches the humidity indicator card of claim 1, wherein the humidity indicator card has a surface resistance of 10³ to 10⁷ Ω/sq (paragraphs 7 and 30).
Regarding claim 11, Cho teaches the humidity indicator card of claim 1, wherein the antistatic composition further includes a polypyrrole-based polymer (paragraph 33).
Regarding claim 12, Cho teaches the humidity indicator card of claim 1, wherein the humidity indication unit does not include the antistatic composition (paragraph 11).
Claim(s) 3 and 4 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Cho et al. (WO 2021/206239; hereinafter “Cho”) and Gattiglia (WO 2006/094610 A1; hereinafter “Gattiglia”), and further in view of Tomita (JP 2007-007917 A; hereinafter “Tomita”).
Regarding claim 3, modified Cho does not specifically teach the humidity indicator card of claim 2, wherein the binder includes a rosin-based resin.
Tomita teach a binder resin comprising a rosin resin (paragraph 19). The selection of a known material, which is based upon its suitability for the intended use, is within the ambit of one of ordinary skill in the art (see MPEP § 2144.07). The combination of familiar elements is likely to be obvious when it does no more than yield predictable results (see MPEP § 2143, A.). Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide wherein the binder includes a rosin-based resin.
Regarding claim 4, modified Cho does not specifically teach the humidity indicator card of claim 2, wherein the solvent includes a vegetable oil.
Tomita teach a layered sheet structure configuration utilizing linseed oil (paragraph 17). The selection of a known material, which is based upon its suitability for the intended use, is within the ambit of one of ordinary skill in the art (see MPEP § 2144.07). The combination of familiar elements is likely to be obvious when it does no more than yield predictable results (see MPEP § 2143, A.). Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide wherein the solvent includes a vegetable oil such as linseed oil.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to BRIAN J. SINES whose telephone number is (571)272-1263. The examiner can normally be reached 9 AM-5 PM EST M-F.
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, Lyle Alexander can be reached at (571) 272-1254. 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.
BRIAN J. SINES
Primary Patent Examiner
Art Unit 1796
/BRIAN J. SINES/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1796
Prosecution Insights