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 § 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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claim 17 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Jung US 5,832,176 (hereafter Jung) and further in view of Landry et al. 2019/0063741 (hereafter Landry).
Regarding claim 17, Jung teaches a humidifier (Fig 2), comprising:
a heating device (131) that heats water;
a humidifying device (141) that is connected with the heating device and produces humidified air using water supplied from the heating device;
a first connection tube (135) that connects the heating device and the humidifying device such that heated water in the heating device is supplied to the humidifying device;
a valve (A) that opens/closes the first connection tube;
an exhaust tube (160) that discharges humidified air produced in the humidifying device outside of the humidifying device; and
a blower fan (150) that supplies air into the humidifying device.
Jung does not teach a drain tube disposed on a side of the heating device that drains water stored in the heating device to the outside.
Landry teaches a humidifier comprising a drain tube (34) disposed on the heating device (12) that drains water stored in the heating device to the outside in order to evacuate waste water (¶6).
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 heating device (131) of Jung by incorporating the drain (34) of Landry in order to evacuate waste water (¶6).
Further, 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 heating device (131) of Koji by incorporating the drain (34) of Landry on a side of the heating device as a matter of obvious rearrangement of parts which would not have affected the operation of the device. See MPEP 2144.04 VI C. For instance, arranging the drain on the side would allow the drain tube to travel horizontally without an immediate vertical drop which would preserve the water’s potential energy.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 1, 3-16, and 19-20 are allowed.
Regarding claim 1, the closest prior art is Koji EP 1832817 and Jung US 5,832,176. Koji which teaches a humidifier comprising a water tank, a heating device, a humidifying device, a first connection tube, a second connection tube, and a pump. Koji does not teach the valve as claimed. Jung teaches a valve where opens/closes the first connection tube. The modification to result in the claimed invention would not have been obvious because the prior art does not teach the pump which would operate after the valve closes.
Claims 3-16 depend upon claim 1.
Regarding claim 19, Koji teaches a humidifier a water heater tank configured to be supplied with water from a water tank and heat the water, a water humidifier tank, a first connection tube, an exhaust tube, a pump. Koji does not teach a valve that opens/closes the first connection tube and the pump disposed at the first connection tube that pumps water stored in the water humidifier tank to the water heater tank through the first connection tube. Jung teaches a humidifier comprising a heating device and a humidifying device and further teaches a valve that opens/closes the first connection tube. The prior art does not teach the pump as claimed.
Claim 20 depends upon claim 19.
Claims 21-22 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.
Regarding claim 21, the closest prior art is Jung US 5,832,176 and Landry 2019/0063741. Jung teaches a humidifier comprising a heating device, a humidifying device, a first connection tube, a valve, an exhaust tube, and a blower fan. Landry teaches a humidifier comprising a drain tube disposed on the heating device that drains water stored in the heating device to the outside. The prior art does not teach the heating device as claimed.
Claim 22 depends upon claim 21.
Response to Arguments
The following is a response to Applicant’s arguments filed 9 Jul. 2026:
Applicant argues that the rejection of claim 1 is overcome by amendment.
Examiner agrees and the rejection is withdrawn. Claim 1 and dependent claims 3-16 are allowed.
Applicant argues that the rejection of claim 19 is overcome by amendment.
Examiner agrees and the rejection is withdrawn. Claim 19 and dependent claim 20 is allowed.
Applicant argues that the rejection of claim 17 is overcome by amendment.
Examiner agrees and the rejection is withdrawn. However, upon further search and/or consideration claim 17 is rejected in further view of Landry.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to STEPHEN HOBSON whose telephone number is (571)272-9914. The examiner can normally be reached 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, 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.
/STEPHEN HOBSON/Examiner, Art Unit 1776
Prosecution Insights