DETAILED ACTION
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
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 4, 6, 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.
Claim 4 is indefinite because the phrase “substantially dry” has no clear metes and bounds. In light of the specification as a whole, the Examiner will consider “substantially dry” to mean commercially supplied or without adding water or introducing into humidity or merely the initial moisture content.
Claim 6 is indefinite for the phrase “time required.” It is unclear how to determine the time required for water to be absorbed versus the time required to leak, particularly when no leakage occurs. No testing method or endpoint is recited.
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.
Claim 1-7, 9, 13, and 15-17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Kuhn WO 2014/042897.
Regarding claims 1 and 2, Kuhn teaches a method of manufacturing a humidity control device comprising:
a) Providing an envelope that is in an open configuration by providing a pocket formed by creating a bottom and seal side (page 13, Example 3) ;
b) Introducing a given weight of a humidity control agent (1 gram of Luquasorb) into the open envelope. The Luquasorb comprises a known moisture content lower than a targeted equilibrium relative because it subsequently expands when water is (see top of page 14 where the swelling is measured, thus indicating an initial known moisture content);
c) Introducing a given weight of water in the at least one part of the open envelope containing the Luquasorb, wherein 80-ml, 100-ml or 120-ml water is introduced (Example 3, page 13); and
d) Sealing the envelope thus retaining the humidity control agent (pertinent to claim 2)(Example 3, page 13); wherein
said humidity control device comprising a water vapor permeable envelope (page 2, 1st paragraph line 13) and a hydrated humidity control agent (Luquasorb, Example 3, and page 2 1st paragraph line 3) arranged inside the envelope, wherein the hydrated humidity control agent has an adjusted moisture content selected to provide a targeted equilibrium relative humidity level (ERH) in a sealed container (Example 3, and page 1 last paragraph to page 2).
Regarding claim 3, the humidity control agent comprises Luquasorb which is a solid granular superabsorbent polymer (Example 3 and page 2, 1st paragraph line 14).
Regarding claim 4, the humidity control agent is introduced into the envelope without any prior moisture addition thus is considered “substantially dry” (Example 3).
Regarding claim 5, liquid water is added to the envelope (Example 3).
Regarding claim 6, Kuhn in Example 3 introduces the water at a rate such that the water is absorbed before leaking form the packet, as the CLAF A1 packets absorbed the added water without observed leakage (page 14 line 3).
Regarding claim 7, the envelope is formed of a gas-permeable material (page 2, 1st paragraph line 13), and the humidity control agent is added followed by the water (Example 3).
Regarding claim 9, the humidity control agent comprises a superabsorbent polymer (page 2, 1st paragraph line 14).
Regarding claim 13, Kuhn teaches a water vapor permeable substrate having a WVTR greater than 0.1 g/hour (page 5 line 2), equivalent to greater than 2400 mg per 24 hours, and identifies the operating conditions comprising 30 ⁰C and 65 RH (page 9 lines 3-6).
Regarding claims 15 and 16, Kuhn teaches the system comprises a container or carton to provide a closed environment for the envelopes, thus providing a gas-impermeable body configured to receive the envelopes containing the hydrated humidity agent. The containers can comprise vents or slots to allow air ventilation and water vapor to move freely, thus comprising a gas-permeable cover (column 10 1st paragraph).
Regarding claim 17, the envelope comprises a gas (water vapor) permeable material (page 2, first paragraph line 13) and is configured to enwrap hydrated humidity control agents (Example 3).
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 8, 10, and 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kuhn WO 2014/042897.
Regarding claim 8, the envelope is formed of a gas-permeable material (page 2, 1st paragraph line 13), where Kuhn teaches adding the agent before adding water to the envelope and does not teach adding water before the agent.
However, the selection of any order of performing process steps is prima facie obvious in the absence of new or unexpected results. See MPEP 2144.04. In this case, reversing the order or water and agent would have been an obvious selection of mixing because either order would provide a hydrated humidity control agent.
Regarding claim 10, Kuhn does not teach a ratio of an inner volume of the envelope to a volume of the dry superabsorbent polymer contained in the humidity control agent is less than 4. However, the amount of agent added into the pouch is a result effective variable and it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art to vary the ratio of agent to pouch volume by routine experimentation.
Regarding claim 14, Kuhn teaches the system comprises a container or carton to provide a closed environment for the envelopes, thus providing a gas-impermeable body configured to receive the envelopes containing the hydrated humidity agent. The containers can comprise vents or slots to allow air ventilation and water vapor to move freely, thus comprising a gas-permeable cover (column 10 1st paragraph).
Kuhn does not explicitly disclose fitting 50 envelopes in the container. However, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art to provide a container sufficient enough for 50 envelopes if needed. One having ordinary skill in the art would find it obvious since it requires a mere size adjustment of the container and duplication of parts (to provide the 50 envelopes). See MPEP 2144.04.
Claims 11 and 12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kuhn WO 2014/042897 in view of Logel US Patent 9,149,785.
Regarding claims 11 and 12, Kuhn does not explicitly teach hydrated silica and hydrated clay materials for the humidity control agent.
However, Logel teaches using hydrated silica or clay materials as desiccants because they have a useful EMC-RH (equilibrium moisture content to relative humidity) relationship over a broad humidity range as both absorb moisture to maintain a selected RH (Figures 1 and 2, column 4 lines 6-13, lines 54-58 and column 5 line 7 for hydration).
Thus, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art to use hydrated silica or clay as the humidity control agent because they have been found to provide a useful EMC-RH (equilibrium moisture content to relative humidity) relationship over a broad humidity range as both absorb moisture to maintain a selected RH.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to SHARON PREGLER whose telephone number is (571)270-5051. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 9am - 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, In Suk Bullock can be reached at (571) 272-5954. 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.
/SHARON PREGLER/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1772
Prosecution Insights