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 Rejections - 35 USC § 112(b)
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 5, 7, 10, and 11 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 5, “the outlet” lacks sufficient antecedent basis in light of “an outlet through which mist produced in the humidification assembly is discharged. Examiner suggests using consistent language for the sake of clarity.
Regarding claim 7, “the inlet” and “the outlet” lack sufficient antecedent basis in light of “an inlet through which air is admitted into the humidification chamber” and “an outlet through which mist produced in the humidification [assembly] is discharged”, respectively. Examiner suggests using consistent language for the sake of clarity.
Regarding claim 10, “the outlet” lacks sufficient antecedent basis in light of “an outlet through which mist produced in the humidification assembly is discharged. Examiner suggests using consistent language for the sake of clarity.
Regarding claim 11, “the outlet” lacks sufficient antecedent basis in light of “an outlet through which mist produced in the humidification assembly is discharged. Examiner suggests using consistent language for the sake of clarity.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112(d)
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.
Claims 7, and 9 are 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. 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.
Regarding claims 7 and 9, “an outlet through which mist produced in the humidification chamber is discharged” fails to include all the limitations of the claim which it depends upon as claim 1 states ”a humidification assembly disposed inside the case, that produces mist.” Claims 7 and 9 contradict claim 1 as claims 7 and 9 state the humidification chamber produces mist rather than the humidification assembly. For the purpose of compact prosecution, claims 7 and 9 are interpreted to read: “…an outlet through which mist produced in the humidification assembly is discharged.”
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.
Claims 1, 2, 3, 6, 7, 9, 13 and 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Silverman et al. US 20220364749 A1 in view of Akiyama et al. US 20210341173 A1.
Regarding claim 1, Silverman et al. teaches a humidifier represented by humidifying system 500 (Fig. 9, [0070]). The humidifying system 500 teaches the following elements of the current invention:
A case represented by housing 502 (Fig. 9, [0070]).
A humidification assembly disposed inside the case, that produces mist, represented by the combination of the following elements: “at least one water filter 538, a water purifier 540, a water storage tank 504, a dispensing line 518, a dry mist generator 544, an ozone generator 526, and a system controller 534 as illustratively shown in FIGS. 9 and 10” where in the dry mist generator 544 produces mist (Fig. 9, [0070]).
A humidification chamber with a space for holding water represented by water storage tank 504 (Fig. 9, [0070]).
A sterilizer that irradiates the inside of the humidification chamber with light represented by sterilizer 522 where in “the system 500 may include a plurality of sterilizers 522 carried by the water storage tank 504 or attached to the upper inside surface of the water storage tank 504” (Fig. 9, [0088]). The reference is silent as to the sterilizer irradiating the humidification with light , however, it does state “the sterilizer 522 may comprise an ionizing radiation sterilizer, dry-heat sterilizer, liquid chemical sterilizer, filtration sterilizer, microwave sterilizer, ozone sterilizer, infrared sterilizer, ultraviolet radiation sterilizer, and/or any other sterilization component that may be used as the sterilizer as understood by those skilled in the art” [0088]. It is well known in the art that an ultraviolet radiation sterilizer uses ultraviolet light to sterilize objects. Therefore, the sterilizer 522 as taught could inherently irradiate the inside of the humidification chamber with light.
Silverman et al. fails to teach a reflector disposed along a peripheral wall of the humidification chamber.
Akiyama et al. teaches a reflector disposed along a peripheral wall of the humidification chamber represented by reflector 50 (Fig. 2, [0032]). The reflector 50 is beneficial as it is well known in the art that a reflector helps redirect light, enhancing illumination and controlling light distribution.
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of claimed invention to have modified Silverman et al. to incorporate the teachings of Akiyama et al. to include a reflector disposed along a peripheral wall of the humidification chamber to help distribute light inside of the chamber.
Regarding claim 2, Akiyama et al. teaches the reflector being spaced from the sterilizer and disposed to face the sterilizer represented by “the reflector 50 overlaps with a surface 61a of the light guide member 60 opposite to a light emitting surface 61” where in the light emitting surface 61 emits ultraviolet light (Fig. 2, [0032, 0060]).
Regarding claim 3, Silverman et al. teaches the following elements of the current invention:
An inlet through which air is admitted into the humidification chamber represented by blower 524 where in “the blower outlet of the blower 524 may be in fluidic connection with the water storage tank 504” (Fig. 9, [0092]).
An outer wall attached to the inlet represented by the top wall of water storage tank 504 which is shown to be connected to the blower outlet of blower 524 as shown in Figure 9.
An inner wall spaced from the outer wall represented by the bottom wall of water storage tank 504 as shown in Figure 9.
A first side wall connecting the outer wall and the inner wall represented by the left wall of the water storage tank 504 as shown in Figure 9.
The reference is silent as to the sterilizer being disposed on the first side wall. However, the reference does teach that the sterilizer mat be attached to an inside wall of the water storage tank 504. Therefore, disposing the sterilizer on the first side wall is simply a design choice and would not modify the operation of the device. The courts have previously stated obvious matters of design choice, such as rearrangement of parts, are valid rejections in re Japikse, 181 F.2d 1019, 86 USPQ 70 (CCPA 1950) (see MPEP 2144.04). It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of claimed invention to have made the sterilizer disposed on the first side wall for simplification of the device.
Regarding claim 6, Silverman et al. teaches the inner wall including the following elements of the current invention:
A wall surface portion spaced from the first side wall represented by the middle section of the bottom wall of the water storage tank 524 where Figure 9 clearly depicts the middle of the inner side wall (the bottom wall of the water storage tank 504) being spaced from the first side wall (the left wall of the water storage tank 504).
The inner wall having a first edge portion that connects the wall surface portion and the first sidewall is represented by the bottom left corner of the bottom wall of the storage tank 504 where Figure 9 clearly depicts the bottom left corner of the inner side wall connecting the wall surface portion and the first side wall. Furthermore, Figure 9 clearly depicts the first edge portion being curved from the wall surface position in a direction away from the inside of the humidification chamber (water storage tank 504).
A second edge portion being symmetrical to the first edge portion with respect to the wall surface position is represented by the bottom right corner of the inner side wall as shown by Figure 9.
Regarding claim 7, Silverman et al. teaches the following elements of the humidification assembly of the current invention:
An inlet through which air is admitted into the humidification chamber is represented by blower 524 where in “the blower outlet of the blower 524 may be in fluidic connection with the water storage tank 504” (Fig. 9, [0092]).
An outlet through which mist produced in the humidification assembly is discharged represented by “the system may further include an ozone saturated dry mist dispensing outlet for dispensing the ozone saturated dry mist” [0064].
The sterilizer being spaced from both the inlet and the outlet is represented by Figure 9, where the sterilizer 522 is clearly spaced from both the inlet of the blower 524 and the outlet of the dry mist generator 544. Furthermore, spacing the sterilizer in this manner is simply a design choice and would not modify the operation of the device. The courts have previously stated obvious matters of design choice, such as rearrangement of parts, are valid rejections in re Japikse, 181 F.2d 1019, 86 USPQ 70 (CCPA 1950) (see MPEP 2144.04). Spacing the sterilizer from both the inlet and the outlet would be beneficial for simplification of design.
Regarding claim 9, Silverman et al. teaches the humidification assembly including an outlet through which mist produced in the humidification assembly is discharged represented by “the system may further include an ozone saturated dry mist dispensing outlet for dispensing the ozone saturated dry mist” [0064]. The reference is silent as to the sterilizer 522 being positioned lower than the outlet. However, positioning the sterilizer in this manner is simply a design choice and would not modify the operation of the device. The courts have previously stated obvious matters of design choice, such as rearrangement of parts, are valid rejections in re Japikse, 181 F.2d 1019, 86 USPQ 70 (CCPA 1950) (see MPEP 2144.04). Positioning the sterilizer below the outlet through which mist produced in the humidification assembly is discharged would be beneficial for simplification of design.
Claim 13 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Silverman et al. US 20220364749 A1 in view of Akiyama et al. US 20210341173 A1 and in further view of Shah et al. US 20160282572 A1.
Regarding claim 13, Silverman et al. in view of Akiyama et al. teaches all the limitations of claim 1.
Silverman et al. in view of Akiyama et al. fails to teach the reflector including a dimple formed by indenting the reflector in a direction away from the internal space of the humidification chamber.
Shah et al. teaches the reflector including a dimple formed by indenting the reflector in a direction away from the internal space of the humidification chamber represented by dimple 115 where “Fig. 5 shows an example of a textured pattern on the surface of the reflector 124…the textured pattern can be an array of dimples 115” (Fig. 5, [0046]). The dimples can be adjusted in size and number are beneficial to help “control the fraction of scattered light” [0046].
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of claimed invention to have modified Silverman et al. in view of Akiyama et al. to incorporate the teachings of Shah et al. to include a dimple on the reflector to help control the fraction of scattered light.
Claim 14 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Silverman et al. US 20220364749 A1 in view of Akiyama et al. US 20210341173 A1 and in further view of DeWalt US 10596959 B1.
Regarding claim 14, Silverman et al. in view of Akiyama et al. teaches all the limitations of claim 1.
Silverman et al. in view of Akiyama et al. fails to teach the reflector being made of a chrome plated material.
DeWalt teaches the reflector being made of a chrome plated material represented by “the reflector may have a chrome plated surface” (Fig. 1, pg. 10). It is well known in the art that chrome plating is a highly reflecting surface. Therefore, the reflector having a chrome plated surface is beneficial to help maximize the efficiency of the reflector.
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of claimed invention to have modified Silverman et al. in view of Akiyama et al. to incorporate the teachings of DeWalt to include the reflector being made of a chrome plated material to help maximize the efficiency of the reflector.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 4, 5, 8, 10, 11, 12, and 15 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
Claim 4 would be allowable as the prior art fails to teach the reflector including: an outer reflector disposed on the outer wall; and an inner reflector disposed on the inner wall.
Claim 5 would be allowable as the prior art fails to teach the outlet through mist produced in the humidification assembly included a supporter that extends downward toward the inside of the humidification chamber and is disposed more adjacent to the second side wall than to the first side wall.
Claim 8 would be allowable as the prior art fails to teach a body including a first opening communicating with the heating device and a second opening communicating with the humidification chamber.
Claim 10 would be allowable as the prior art fails to teach a recess formed by indenting the outer lower end upward.
Claim 11 would be allowable as the prior art fails to teach a mist intake opening protruding from the outlet body into the humidification chamber.
Claim 12 would be allowable as the prior art fails to teach a mist inlet opening extending vertically toward the inside of the humidification chamber and a communication opening formed through the mist inlet opening that opens toward the connector.
Claim 15 would be allowable as the prior art fails to teach an air flow path separated from the humidification flow path and connected to the discharge opening.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to AMMAD BUTT whose telephone number is (571)272-6550. The examiner can normally be reached M-Th, 7-5PM.
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, Jennifer Dieterle can be reached at (571) 270-7872. 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.
/AMMAD W BUTT/ Examiner, Art Unit 1776
/Jennifer Dieterle/ Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1776
Prosecution Insights