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
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 5 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 5 positively recites the limitation "floor" in line 3. However, it appears the misting system in claim 1 does not include the floor. The examiner is unsure if the floor is part of the misting system, as a result, the limitation renders the claim indefinite.
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.
Claims 1-4 and 6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Matsushita (JP2003000462A).
With regard to claim 1, Matsushita discloses a misting system comprising: a misting device (5) that sprays mist in a space; and a control device (23) that controls a temperature of a floor of the space (via nozzle 7 for jetting hot water to the bathroom floor), wherein the control device (23) controls the temperature of the floor to cause the temperature of the floor to be greater than or equal to a temperature Tn.
Matsushita does not disclose that the temperature Tn satisfies Equation 1 below:
M
+
N
=
217
×
6.1078
×
10
7.5
×
T
n
T
n
+
237.3
T
n
+
273.15
where an amount of the mist sprayed in the space by the misting device is denoted by M, an amount of water vapor in the space is denoted by N, and a temperature calculated based on a temperature of the space is denoted by Tn.
However, it would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to create an amount of the mist and an amount of water vapor in the space satisfies the relationship below
M
+
N
=
217
×
6.1078
×
10
7.5
×
T
n
T
n
+
237.3
T
n
+
273.15
, wherein Tn is the controlling temperature, since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or working ranges involves only routine skill in the art. In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233. See MPEP 2144.05.II. The Examiner notes that a particular parameter must be recognized as a result effective variable, in this case, that parameter is
217
×
6.1078
×
10
7.5
×
T
n
T
n
+
237.3
T
n
+
273.15
which achieves the recognized result of generating a desire amount of water vapor and mist, therefore, one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention would have found the claimed range through routine experimentation. In re Antonie, 559 F.2d 618, 195 USPQ 6 (CCPA 1977). See also In re Boesch, 617 F.2d 272, USPQ 215 (CCPA 1980).
With regard to claim 2, the device of Matsushita as modified discloses the invention as disclosed in the rejection of claim 1 above. Matsushita further discloses that the control device further controls the temperature of the floor to cause the temperature of the floor to be greater than or equal to the temperature Tn, and cause a discomfort index to be less than or equal to 80, the discomfort index being calculated based on the temperature of the space and a humidity of the space (the temperature sensor 23 and nozzle 7 are designed for jetting hot water to the bathroom floor).
With regard to claim 3, the device of Matsushita as modified discloses the invention as disclosed in the rejection of claim 2 above. Matsushita further discloses that the control device controls the temperature of the floor to cause the temperature of the floor to be less than or equal to a temperature Tdi, except the temperature Tdi that satisfies Equation 2 below: DI = 0.81 Tdi + 0.01 H x (0.99 Tdi - 14.3) + 46.3 (Equation 2) where the discomfort index is denoted by DI, the temperature of the space is denoted by Tdi, and the humidity of the space is denoted by H, wherein in Equation 2 above, the discomfort index DI is 80 and the humidity H is 100 percent.
However, it would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to create a discomfort index satisfies the relationship below DI = 0.81 Tdi + 0.01 H x (0.99 Tdi - 14.3) + 46.3 (Equation 2), wherein Tdi is the temperature of the space, since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or working ranges involves only routine skill in the art. In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233. See MPEP 2144.05.II. The Examiner notes that a particular parameter must be recognized as a result effective variable, in this case, that parameter is 0.81 Tdi + 0.01 H x (0.99 Tdi - 14.3) + 46.3 which achieves the recognized result of generating a desire comfort for the user, therefore, one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention would have found the claimed range through routine experimentation. In re Antonie, 559 F.2d 618, 195 USPQ 6 (CCPA 1977). See also In re Boesch, 617 F.2d 272, USPQ 215 (CCPA 1980).
With regard to claim 4, the device of Matsushita as modified discloses the invention as disclosed in the rejection of claim 1 above. Matsushita does not disclose that a particle diameter of the mist sprayed in the space by the misting device is less than or equal to 10 µm.
However, it would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to create the mist sprayed with a particle diameter less than or equal to 10 µm, since our reviewing courts have held that where the only difference between the prior art and the claims was a recitation of relative dimensions of the claimed device and a device having the claimed relative dimensions would not perform differently than the prior art device, the claimed device was not patentably distinct from the prior art device. Gardner v. TEC Systems, Inc., 725 F.2d 1338, 220 USPQ 777 (Fed. Cir. 1984), cert. denied, 469 U.S. 830, 225 USPQ 232 (1984). Additionally, Matsushita also discloses that the particle diameter sprayed from the nozzle is determined by the turning groove diameter 19, the hole diameter 20 of the cap 16, and the like. When the turning groove diameter 19 and the hole diameter 20 of the cap 17 are reduced, the particle diameter becomes small. Increasing the hole diameter 20 can increase the particle size.
With regard to claim 6, since the device of Matsushita discloses all structure of the claimed invention, in its use, the device of Matsushita will inherently perform all the method steps of claim 6.
Claim 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Matsushita in view of Schaffer et al. (US 2014/0259371 A1).
With regard to claim 5, the device of Matsushita as modified discloses the invention as disclosed in the rejection of claim 1 above. Matsushita does not disclose that the floor is made of one of plywood, natural wood, synthetic resin, or concrete.
Schaffer teaches a bathroom floor is made of plywood (Par. [0026]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the bathroom floor of Matsushita, by making it a plywood subfloor, tile underlayment and tile finish surface as taught by Schaffer, doing it would extend the lifespan of the floor.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JOEL ZHOU whose telephone number is (571)270-1163. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri 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, ARTHUR HALL can be reached at 5712701814. 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.
JOEL . ZHOU
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 3752
/QINGZHANG ZHOU/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3752
Prosecution Insights