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 .
Information Disclosure Statement
Non-Patent Literature Cite No. 3 in the IDS dated December 01, 2023 is not considered because it lacks a date.
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election without traverse of Group I, claims 1–11 in the reply filed on February 16, 2026 is acknowledged.
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.
Claim 10 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.
Claim 10 recites:
10. The humidity control device according to claim 1, wherein the time to reach the targeted equilibrium relative humidity level (ERHi) within ±2%RH, in an enclosure comprising said humidity control device, is less than 24 hours.
Claim 10 is indefinite because the claim is to a device (an apparatus) but the limitations of the claim describe method steps for using the apparatus. Therefore, the claim is indefinite because it is unclear whether infringement would occur when a device is created that is capable of performing the method steps, or whether infringement would require that the method steps actually be performed. See MPEP 2173.05(p), subsection II (a single claim which claims both an apparatus and the method steps of using the apparatus is indefinite). To overcome this rejection, claim 10 could be amended to read:
10. The humidity control device according to claim 1, wherein the humidity control device is configured such that the time to reach the targeted equilibrium relative humidity level (ERHi) within ±2%RH, in an enclosure comprising said humidity control device, is less than 24 hours.
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.
Claims 1, 2 and 5–10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Kuhn et al., WO 2014/042897 A1.1
Regarding claim 1, Kuhn teaches a device for humidity control that can be used to maintain the moisture level in an enclosure by absorbing or releasing water. See Kuhn p. 1 (Field), p. 6 (first full paragraph). The device for humidity control reads on the claimed “humidity control device for maintaining a relative humidity in an enclosure within a given range by absorbing or releasing water vapor.” See Kuhn p. 1 (Field).
The device comprises an envelope made of a substrate material with a fill material enveloped by the substrate. See Kuhn p. 1 (first full paragraph). The substrate material reads on the claimed “envelope” and the fill material reads on the “humidity control agent arranged inside the envelope.”
The substrate material is liquid water resistant and water vapor permeable, as claimed, because the substrate is substantially impermeable to liquid water but permeable to water vapor. See Kuhn p. 2 (first full paragraph).
The fill material comprises a “hydrated superabsorbent polymer,” as claimed, because the fill material comprises a superabsorbent polymer with water adsorbed by the fill material. See Kuhn p. 2 (first full paragraph). The fill material (the “humidity control agent”) comprises exclusively (i.e., 100%) of the superabsorbent polymer and water because Kuhn indicates that the fill material can comprise only these two components. Id. This reads on “a sum of the weight of water and the weight of dry superabsorbent polymer is higher than or equal to 90% of a total weight of the humidity control agent.”
The hydrated superabsorbent polymer is capable of absorbing moisture when exposed to a high humidity environment of >50% RH and desorbing moisture when exposed to a low humidity environment of <90% in a closed environment. See Kuhn p. 6 (first full paragraph). This reads on “the hydrated superabsorbent polymer has an adjusted moisture content selected to provide a targeted equilibrium relative humidity level (ERHI) in a range of 45%RH to 90%RH, in a sealed container.”
Regarding claim 2, Kuhn teaches that the substrate (the “envelope”) has a WVTR (water vapor transfer rate) of greater than 0.1 g/hour (2,400 mg per 24 hours) in an environment that can be 30°C with a relative humidity of 70%RH. See Kuhn ps. 3–4 (bridging paragraph), ps. 7–8 (bridging paragraph). This reads on “the envelope has a water vapor transfer capacity of higher than 20 mg per 24 hours, in an environment at 30°C with a relative humidity of 65%RH.”
Regarding claim 5, the superabsorbent polymer of Kuhn is presumed to be capable of performing the claimed function of being able to absorb more than 500 mg of water per gram of dry superabsorbent, when equilibrium relative humidity is increased from ERH1-50%RH to ERH2=80%RH, because teaches that the superabsorbent polymer (i.e., Luqasorb) is able to absorb at least 80 ml of water (80 g or 800 mg) (see Kuhn ps. 13–14, bridging paragraph) and that the superabsorbent polymer is able to desorb moisture when the humidity environment is 80%RH (id. at p. 5, first full paragraph).
Regarding claim 6, the hydrated superabsorbent polymer of Kuhn is presumed to be capable of performing the claimed function of with the adjusted moisture content corresponding to the targeted equilibrium relative humidity level situated in the range of 50 to 80%RH, is capable of absorbing or releasing at least 60 mg of water vapor per gram of dry superabsorbent polymer while maintaining the relative humidity in an enclosure within a range of +/-%RH around the targeted equilibrium relative humidity level, because 1 g of superabsorbent polymer (Luquasorb) is able to absorb 70 mL of water (see Kuhn p. 3, paragraph describing Fig. 3) and can desorb at least 50 g of water (id. at ps. 7–8, bridging paragraph) while maintaining the relative humidity within the container at a constant desired humidity level (id. at p. 4, third full paragraph).
Regarding claim 7, Kuhn teaches that the superabsorbent polymer can be Liquiblock, which is cross-linked polyacrylic acid and its salts, which reads on a “cross-linked synthetic (co)polymer,” as claimed. See Kuhn p. 6, first full paragraph; Diegelmann et al., US 2009/0155342 A1, [0064]; Custom Rulings (1991) (teaching crosslinked polyacrylic acid is a copolymer).
Regarding claim 8, Kuhn teaches that the superabsorbent polymer can be Liquiblock, which is a cross-linked polyacrylic acid (and its salts), with the cross-linked polyacrylic acid salt being a polymer comprising anionic charges carried by at least a partially salified acrylic acid monomer. See Kuhn p. 6, first full paragraph; Diegelmann et al., US 2009/0155342 A1, [0064]; Delheur et al., US 2015/0047843 A1, [0042].
Regarding claim 9, Kuhn teaches that the hydrated superabsorbent polymer has an adjusted moisture content of 100% when 1 g of Luquasorb with 70 mL of water has desorbed 69 mL of water (leaving 1 g of Luquasorb and 1 g of water). See Kuhn p. 3 (paragraph describing Fig. 3), ps. 7–8 (bridging paragraph) (describing the superabsorbent can desorb 50 g…100 g or more of water).
Regarding claim 10, the limitations of the claim indicating that the time to reach the targeted equilibrium relative humidity level within +/-2%RH, in an enclosure comprising the humidity control device, is 24 hours, fails to patentably distinguish over the prior art because it describes the manner of operating the device rather than its structure. See MPEP 2114, subsection II (manner of operating the device does not differentiate apparatus claim from the prior art).
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.
Claims 3 and 22 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kuhn et al., WO 2014/042897 A1 in view of Mashiko, US 2009/0120949 A1.
Regarding claims 3 and 22, Kuhn teaches that the substrate (the “liquid resistant envelope”) is made entirely (claim 3) (and therefore “at least one part of,” claim 22) of a gas-permeable material, as claimed, with some, unspecified Frazier air permeance. See Kuhn p. 2 (first full paragraph).
Kuhn differs from claim 3 because it is silent as to the air permeance of the substrate. Therefore, the reference fails to provide enough information to teach that the substrate has a Frazier air permeance of less than 30 cm3.cm-2.s-1, as claimed.
But the air permeance of the substrate is result effective because the air permeance affects the rate at which water vapor will move in and out of the envelope formed by the substrate. Also, Mashiko teaches a ventilation membrane comprising a gas permeable and liquid repellent membrane with the membrane having a permeability ranging from 50 to 200,000 cm3/min.cm2 (0.083 to 3.333 cm3.cm-2s-1). See Mashiko [0062], [0073]. It would have been obvious to use routine experimentation to determine the optimal air permeance of the substrate to optimize the rate at which water vapor moves in and out of the envelope. A person of ordinary skill in the art would have had a reasonable expectation of success in achieving the claimed range of a Frazier air permeance of less than 30 cm3.cm-2s-1 because Mashiko teaches a gas permeable, water impermeable membrane (similar to the substrate) with a permeability ranging from 0.083 to 3.333 cm3.cm-2s-1. See MPEP 2144.05, subsection II (where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation).
Claims 4 and 11 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kuhn et al., WO 2014/042897 A1 in view of Esse et al., US 2018/0099804 A1.
Regarding claim 4, Kuhn teaches the limitations of claim 1, as explained above.
Kuhn differs from claim 4 because it is silent as to the ratio of an inner volume of the substrate (the “envelope”) to a volume of the dry superabsorbent polymer of the filler. Therefore, the reference fails to provide enough information to teach the ratio is less than 4.
But Esse teaches a device for controlling humidity comprising a humidity control agent located within an envelope formed by a base layer and a permeable layer, with Esse explaining that the quantity humidity control agent within the envelope being result effective for affecting the relative humidity (RH) control capacity. See Esse [0029]. It would have been obvious to use routine experimentation to determine the optimal ratio the envelope volume to volume of dry superabsorbent polymer in the device of Kuhn to optimize the relative humidity control capacity of the device. A person of ordinary skill in the art would have had a reasonable expectation of success in achieving the claimed range of less than 4 because the ratio would be around 1 when the envelope is completely filled with superabsorbent polymer. See MPEP 2144.05, subsection II (where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation).
Regarding claim 11, Kuhn teaches that the device is in the form of an envelope, which reads on the claimed “capsule.” See Kuhn p. 8 (first full paragraph). The substrate (the “liquid water resistant envelope”). The envelope comprises a gas-permeable substrate material. Id.
Kuhn differs from claim 11 because it is silent as to the envelope comprising a gas-impermeable body configured to receive the hydrated superabsorbent polymer and covered by the gas-permeable substrate material.
But Kuhn teaches that the envelope can be made from several pieces of material. See Kuhn p. 9 (first full paragraph). Also, Esse teaches a device for controlling humidity in a space, where the device 100 comprises a humidity control agent 120 (similar to the superabsorbent polymer of Kuhn) with a base layer 110 that is gas-impermeable and that receives the humidity control agent 120, and a gas-permeable layer that is configured to close the base layer 110 so that the humidity control agent 120 is retained inside the device 100. See Esse Fig. 1A, [0031]. The base layer 110 is beneficial because it can increase the stiffness of the device. Id.
PNG
media_image1.png
388
682
media_image1.png
Greyscale
It would have been obvious for the envelope of Kuhn to have a similar configuration as the device 100 of Esse (a gas-impermeable base layer closed by the gas permeable substrate) to increase the stiffness of the envelope.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Biesecker Logacre et al., US 2018/0099797 A1 (a container assembly with a moisture controlling material 217); Gloriso et al., US 9,616,382 B2 (a humidity control system comprising a humectant bag 10 made of a vapor porous, liquid impermeable material with a humectant material 14); Egberg et al., US 2015/0328584 A1 (a laminated humidity control device).
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to T. BENNETT MCKENZIE whose telephone number is (571)270-5327. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Thurs 7:30AM-6:00PM.
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.
T. BENNETT MCKENZIE
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 1776
/T. BENNETT MCKENZIE/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1776
1 Kuhn is in the record as the 28-page Foreign Reference filed December 01, 2023.
Prosecution Insights