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, claims 1-19 in the reply filed on 01/14/2026 is acknowledged.
Claim 20 is withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected invention, there being no allowable generic or linking claim.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 01/14/2026.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to as failing to comply with 37 CFR 1.84(p)(4) because it is not clear what the difference is between reference characters "11" and "21" in Figs. 1, 9A, 9B, 11, and 12 given that both reference characters have been used for the part of the figure. Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
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 and 11-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Matsui et al. (JP 2013104030).
Regarding claims 1, 3, 4, 12, and 13, Matsui et al. teaches film degradation-preventing material (See Abstract), i.e. humidity control material, comprising carboxylate which refers to a salt obtained by neutralizing a carboxylic acid with an alkali polycarboxylates, in particular polyacrylates. Specifically, the carboxylate can be in the form of a salt such as sodium, i.e. sodium polyacrylate (bottom of pages 3 and 5). Matsui et al. further salts such as alkali acetate salts, e.g. sodium acetate salt, potassium acetate salt, etc. (page 6).
Given that Matsui et al. teaches metal salt identical to that presently claimed, the metal salt would necessarily have a deliquescence point as presently claimed, absent evidence to the contrary. It is noted that the humidity control agent maintains the atmospheric humidity at a predetermined value within a range of 20% RH to 40% RH (page 6).
Given the overlap between the film deterioration preventing material of Matsui et al. and that presently claimed, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use a film deterioration preventing material that is both disclosed by Matsui et al. and encompassed by the present claims and thereby arrive that the claimed invention.
Regarding claim 2, given that Matsui et al. teaches metal salt identical to that presently claimed, the metal salt would necessarily form a hydrate crystal as presently claimed, absent evidence to the contrary.
Regarding claims 11, 14, 15, and 16, Matsui et al. teaches wherein the film deterioration preventing material may be sealed inside a packaging film composed of paper, non-woven fabric, etc. (page 7), i.e. support that is a porous body. The film deterioration preventing material may a sheet (page 7).
Regarding claims 17 and 18, Matsui et al. teaches wherein the film deterioration preventing material can include a dye (pH indicator) whose color changes depending on the pH in the atmosphere is used (pages 7-8).
Claim(s) 5-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Matsui et al. (JP 2013104030) in view of Egberg et al. (US 8,748,723).
Matsui et al. is relied upon as disclosed above.
Regarding claims 5, 6, and 7, given that Matsui et al. teaches metal salt and humidity control ingredient identical to those presently claimed, the metal salt and humidity control ingredient would necessarily have a threshold humidity as presently claimed, absent evidence to the contrary.
Matsui et al. fails to teach an additive.
However, Egberg et al. teaches a humidity control device comprising an aqueous humidity control solution including sodium formate, combined with potassium acetate or sodium lactate and the solutions may contain excess solute, i.e. sodium formate, potassium acetate, or sodium lactate to increase the capacity of the device to remove water vapor from the surroundings (col. 3, lines 55-61).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to include another metal salt such as potassium acetate or sodium lactate, in the humidity control ingredient of Matsui et al. in order to increase the capacity of the device to remove water vapor from the surroundings (Egberg et al., col. 3, lines 58-61).
Regarding claims 8 and 9, note that because claim 6 is in the form of a Markush group, and Matsui et al. teaches another metal salt, it is not required that Matsui et al. meet the further limitation of the non-selected groups via subsequent dependent claims.
Claim(s) 19 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Matsui et al. (JP 2013104030) in view of Bedford et al. (WO 03/063919).
Matsui et al. is relied upon as disclosed above.
Regarding claim 19, Matsui et al. fails to teach an additive.
However, Bedford et al. teaches a desiccant composition comprising a compound capable of absorbing at least its own weight of moisture such as sodium polyacrylate (page 4) and a fragrance (page 7).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to include fragrance in the water absorbing material of Matsui et al. in order to mask undesirable odors (Bedford et al., page 7).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to CHENG HUANG whose telephone number is (571)270-7387. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday-Thursday from 7 AM to 5 PM.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner's supervisor, Callie Shosho, can be reached at 571-272-1123. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/CHENG YUAN HUANG/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1787
Prosecution Insights