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(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 16 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.
Regarding claim 16, “the second guide slope” lacks sufficient antecedent basis in light of “a guide slope”. The examiner suggests using consistent language for the sake of clarity. For the purposes of this examination, the claim is interpreted to read “a second guide slope.”
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.
Claims 1, 2, and 11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hong et al. US 20230093557 A1.
Regarding claim 1, Hong et al. teaches a humidifier represented by humidifier 100 (Fig. 1, [0060]). The humidifier 100 comprises of the following elements of the current invention:
A water tank represented by water tank 141 (Fig. 3, [0056]). The water tank 141 inherently possesses a water storage space that stores water as it is configured to “[accommodate] the water discharged from the water container 130 [0077]. The reference is silent as to the stored water being used to generate humidified air. However, the claim limitation is functional only. Claims directed to an apparatus must be distinguished in the prior art in terms of structure rather than function (see MPEP 2114).
The water tank having an upper side that is open is represented by Figure 3 where in water tank 141 is clearly depicted to have an upper side which is open that other components may connect with.
A water tank cover that covers at least a portion of the upper side of the water tank represented by water tank cover 145 wherein “the water tank cover 145 [is] configured to cover a least a portion of an upper portion of the water tank 141” (Fig. 3, [0077]).
A water tank cover including a water supply hole that is positioned above an upper side of the water storage space and is configured to allow the water to flow downward into the water storage space represented by installation opening 147 (Fig. 3, [0080]). The reference further teaches the outlet port 136 passes through the installation opening 147 where in “water accommodated in the water container 130 may be discharged through the outlet port 136 and may be supplied to the water tank 141” [0098]. Therefore, the water supply hole of Hong et al. is inherently configured to allow water to flow downward into the water storage space.
For the purposes of this examination “the circumference of the upper end of the water tank” is interpreted as any edge of the water tank for non-circular configurations. The reference is silent as to the water supply hole being defined along at least a portion of the circumference of the upper end of the water tank. However, positioning the water supply hole in this manner is simply a design choice as any hole in the water tank cover would allow water to pass through to the water storage area. The courts have previously ruled that matters of obvious engineering choice, such as rearrangement of parts, are valid reject ions, in re Japikse, 181 F.2d 1019, 86 USPQ 70 (CCPA 1950)) (see MPEP 2144.04). It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Hong et al. to position the water supply hole along at least a portion of the circumference of the upper end of the water tank for simplification of the device.
Regarding claim 2, for the purposes of this examination “the circumference of the upper end of the water tank” is interpreted as any edge of the water tank for non-circular configurations. Hong et al. teaches the water supply hole being positioned further inward in a horizontal direction relative to the circumference of the upper end of the water tank represented by installation opening 147 clearly being depicted inward relative to the edge of the water tank cover 145 and therefore inward relative to the edge of the water tank 141 itself (Fig. 3, [0080]). Furthermore, positioning the water supply hole in this manner is simply a design choice as any hole in the water tank cover would allow water to pass through to the water tank. The courts have previously ruled that matters of obvious engineering choice, such as rearrangement of parts, are valid reject ions, in re Japikse, 181 F.2d 1019, 86 USPQ 70 (CCPA 1950)) (see MPEP 2144.04). It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Hong et al. to position the water supply hole along at least a portion of the circumference of the upper end o the water tank for simplification of the device.
Regarding claim 11, Hong et al. teaches the following elements of the current invention:
A case having an open upper side represented by housing 110 and clean air discharge port 117 wherein “the humidifier 100 according to an embodiment of the present disclosure may include a housing 110 forming the exterior of the product” (Fig. 1, [0061]). Clean air discharge port 117 is clearly shown to be on an upper side of the housing 110, and is “open” as it allows the passage of air.
A humidifying device that receives water from the water tank and generated the humidified air disposed inside the case represented by humidifying member 170 wherein “the humidifying member (a humidifying filter) 170 may perform humidification using the water supplied from the water container 130 to the water tank 141 of the water tank unit 140” (Fig. 2, [0083]).
The reference is silent as to the water tank being disposed above the humidifying device. However, the reference does teach “the installation structure of the humidifying member 170 is not limited” to the described structure [0086]. Furthermore, arranging the water tank above the humidifying member is simply a design choice and would not result in an unpredicted result. The courts have previously ruled that matters of obvious engineering choice, such as rearrangement of parts, are valid rejections, in re Japikse, 181 F.2d 1019, 86 USPQ 70 (CCPA 1950)) (see MPEP 2144.04). It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Hong et al. to position the water tank above the humidifying device for simplification of the device.
A discharge flow path through which humidified air flows is defined between the case and the water tank represented by air flow path unit F1, F2, and F3 wherein “ to allow the water tank unit 140 including the humidifying member 170 to be disposed on the humidification flow path F3, a through-hole through which the water tank unit 140 portion including the humidifying member 170 mounted therein may be drawn in and out may be formed on the side surface of the partition 112” (Fig. 8, [0088]).
Claims 3 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hong et al. US 20230093557 A1 in view of Oram et al. US 20220178561 A1.
Regarding claim 3, Hong et al. teaches all the limitations of claim 1.
Hong et al. fails to teach the water tank cover including; a guide rim that is disposed above the upper end of the water tank and extends along at least a portion of the circumference of the upper end of the water tank; and a guide cover that is coupled to the guide rim and covers the upper side of the water storage space.
Oram et al. teaches a guide rim that is disposed above the upper end of the water tank and extends along at least a portion of the circumference of the upper end of the water tank represented by rim 2420 wherein “rim 2420 projects downwardly from the periphery of the lid portion 2401, with this rim 1403 being arranged to fit closely around the outside of a corresponding rim 2313 that projects upwardly from the periphery of the tank opening 2312 to thereby locate and align the tank cap 2400 over the opening 2312” (Fig. 46, [0179]). The reference clearly teaches the rim is beneficial to help align the water tank cover with the water tank itself.
Oram et al. further teaches a guide cover that is coupled to the guide rim and covers the upper side of the water storage space represented by lid portion 2401 and flange 2042 wherein “rim 2420 projects downwardly from the periphery of the lid portion 2401” (Fig. 46, [0179]). The lid portion 2401 and flange 2402 are beneficial as it is well known in the art flanges provide strong, leak proof joints between components.
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Hong et al. with the teachings of Oram et al. to incorporate the guide rim to help align the water tank cover with the water tank itself and the guide cover to have a strong leak proof connection.
Regarding claim 20, Hong et al. teaches a humidifier represented by humidifier 100 (Fig. 1, [0060]). The humidifier 100 comprises of the following elements of the current invention:
A water tank including a wall that defined a storage space to receive water used to generate humidified air represented by water tank 141 (Fig. 3, [0056]). The water tank 141 inherently possesses a water storage space that stores water as it is configured to “[accommodate] the water discharged from the water container 130 [0077]. The reference is silent as to the stored water being used to generate humidified air. However, the claim limitation is functional only. Claims directed to an apparatus must be distinguished in the prior art in terms of structure rather than function (see MPEP 2114).
An opening through which water flows into the storage space represented by installation opening 147 (Fig. 3, [0080]). The reference further teaches the outlet port 136 passes through the installation opening 147 where in “water accommodated in the water container 130 may be discharged through the outlet port 136 and may be supplied to the water tank 141” [0098]. The reference is silent as to the opening being defined between the guide rim and an outer edge of the guide cover plate, however, positioning the opening in this manner is simply a design choice as any hole in the water tank cover would allow water to pass through to the water tank. The courts have previously ruled that matters of obvious engineering choice, such as rearrangement of parts, are valid reject ions, in re Japikse, 181 F.2d 1019, 86 USPQ 70 (CCPA 1950)) (see MPEP 2144.04).
Hong et al. fails to teach a guide rim that is positioned above an upper end of the wall of the water tank and extends along the upper end of the wall and a guide cover plate that is coupled to the guide rim and is positioned over the storage space.
Oram et al. teaches a guide rim that is positioned above an upper end of the wall of the water tank and extends along the upper end of the wall represented by rim 2420 wherein “rim 2420 projects downwardly from the periphery of the lid portion 2401, with this rim 1403 being arranged to fit closely around the outside of a corresponding rim 2313 that projects upwardly from the periphery of the tank opening 2312 to thereby locate and align the tank cap 2400 over the opening 2312” (Fig. 46, [0179]). The reference clearly teaches the rim is beneficial to help align the water tank cover with the water tank itself.
Oram et al. further teaches a guide cover plate that is coupled to the guide rim and is positioned over the storage space represented by lid portion 2401 and flange 2042 wherein “rim 2420 projects downwardly from the periphery of the lid portion 2401” (Fig. 46, [0179]). The lid portion 2401 and flange 2402 are beneficial as it is well known in the art flanges provide strong, leak proof joints between components.
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Hong et al. with the teachings of Oram et al. to incorporate the guide rim to help align the water tank cover with the water tank itself and the guide cover plate to have a strong leak proof connection.
Claims 4, 5, and 6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hong et al. US 20230093557 A1 in view of Oram et al. US 20220178561 A1 and in further view of Liu US 20220168538 A1.
Regarding claim 4, Hong et al. in view of Oram et al. teaches all the limitations of claim 3.
Hong et al. in view of Oram et al. fails to teach the guide cover including a guide plate that covers the upper side of the water storage space and is inclined downward in a direction toward the water supply hole.
Liu teaches a guide plate represented by ring portion 33 wherein “the ring part 33 is a downward slope” and “the water is poured on ring part 33 and flows through water inlet 31” (Fig. 2, [0065]). The reference clearly teaches the guide plate being inclined downward in a direction toward the water supply hole. The guide plate is beneficial to help guide the water in the desired direction.
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Hong et al. in view of Oram et al. with the teachings of Liu to incorporate the guide plate to help guide water in the desired direction.
Regarding claim 5, Liu teaches a border wall that is spaced outwardly from an outer circumference of the guide plate represented the outer portion of cover 30 as shown by Figure 3 of the reference. The figure clearly depicts the ring portion 33 (the guide plate) being spaced inward compared to the outer shell of the cover 30.
The reference is silent as to the water supply hole being formed between the outer circumference of the guide plate and the border wall. However, the reference does teach “the water inlet 31 is formed among the ring portion 33.” Arranging the water supply hole to be between the outer circumference of the guide plate and the border wall is simply a design choice. The courts have previously ruled that matters of obvious engineering choice, such as rearrangement of parts, are valid rejections, in re Japikse, 181 F.2d 1019, 86 USPQ 70 (CCPA 1950)) (see MPEP 2144.04).
Regarding claim 6, the references are silent as to the guide plate including guide ribs that protrudes upward from an edge of the guide plate and extends along at least a portion of the water supply. However, Oram et al. does teach a plurality of alignment features 2433 wherein “the tank cap 2400 is provided with a plurality of alignment features 2433 in the form a plurality of protrusions that project radially outward from the external periphery of the lid portion 2401 of the tank cap 2400, with these protrusions being distributed irregularly around the periphery of the lid portion 2401 of the tank cap 2400” (Fig. 46, [0190]). Therefore, providing the guide plate with the plurality of alignment features 2433 (guide rib) is simply duplication of parts. The plurality of alignment features 2433 are beneficial to help align the components of the water tank cover.
Claim 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hong et al. US 20230093557 A1 in view of Oram et al. US 20220178561 A1 and in further view of Zippel US 5589132 A.
Regarding claim 7, Hong et al. in view of Oram et al. teaches all the limitations of claim 3.
Hong et al. in view of Oram et al. does not teach the guide cover being transparent.
Zippel teaches the guide cover being transparent represented by “a transparent cover plate” (pg. 8). It is well known in the art that transparent covers are beneficial they allow you to see inside the device , making monitoring operation and maintenance easier.
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Hong et al. in view of Oram et al. with the teachings of Zippel to incorporate the guide cover being transparent to help making monitoring operating and maintenance easier.
Claims 8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hong et al. US 20230093557 A1 in view of Oram et al. US 20220178561 A1 and in further view of Liu US 20220168538 A1 and in further view of Kanel et al. US 20120112371 A1.
Regarding claim 8, Hong et al. in view of Oram et al. and in further view of Liu teaches all the limitations of claim 4.
Hong et al. in view of Oram et al. and in further view of Liu does not teach the guide rim including a guide slope surface that is inclined downward toward a center of the guide plate.
Kanel et al. teaches a guide slope surface represented by the curved slope 302 wherein “the slope 302 curves downward” and “allows the water to flow into the pool in the funnel 324 quietly. The guide slope surface is beneficial to “prevent a loud splashing sound” and to help water flow gradually into the water tank.
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Hong et al. in view of Oram et al. and in further view of Liu with the teachings of Kanel et al. to incorporate the guide slope surface on the guide rim to help water flow quietly into the water tank.
Claim 12, 13, and 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hong et al. US 20230093557 A1 in view of Oram et al. US 20220178561 A1 and in further view of Kanel et al. US 20120112371 A1.
Regarding claim 12, Hong et al. teaches all the limitations of claim 11.
Hong et al. fails to teach the following elements of the current invention:
a guide rim that is disposed above the upper end of the water tank extends along at least a portion of the circumference of the upper end of the water tank
a guide cover that is coupled to the guide rim and covers the upper side of the water storage space
the guide rim including a guide slope surface inclined downward toward a center of the guide cover
an outer circumference of the guide slope surface is positioned further outward in a horizontal direction relative to the upper end of the water tank.
Oram et al. teaches a guide rim that is disposed above the upper end of the water tank and extends along at least a portion of the circumference of the upper end of the water tank represented by rim 2420 wherein “rim 2420 projects downwardly from the periphery of the lid portion 2401, with this rim 1403 being arranged to fit closely around the outside of a corresponding rim 2313 that projects upwardly from the periphery of the tank opening 2312 to thereby locate and align the tank cap 2400 over the opening 2312” (Fig. 46, [0179]). The reference clearly teaches the rim is beneficial to help align the water tank cover with the water tank itself.
Oram et al. further teaches a guide cover that is coupled to the guide rim and covers the upper side of the water storage space represented by lid portion 2401 and flange 2042 wherein “rim 2420 projects downwardly from the periphery of the lid portion 2401” (Fig. 46, [0179]). The lid portion 2401 and flange 2402 are beneficial as it is well known in the art flanges provide strong, leak proof joints between components.
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Hong et al. with the teachings of Oram et al. to incorporate the guide rim to help align the water tank cover with the water tank itself and the guide cover to have a strong leak proof connection.
Kanel et al. teaches a guide slope surface represented by the curved slope 302 wherein “the slope 302 curves downward” and “allows the water to flow into the pool in the funnel 324 quietly (Fig. 8, [0047]). The guide slope surface is beneficial to “prevent a loud splashing sound” and to help water flow gradually into the water tank.
The reference is silent as to an outer circumference of the guide slope surface being positioned further outward in a horizontal direction relative to the upper end of the water tank. However, arranging the guide slope surface in this configuration is simply a design choice and would not impact the operation of the device. The courts have previously ruled that matters of obvious engineering choice, such as rearrangement of parts, are valid reject ions, in re Japikse, 181 F.2d 1019, 86 USPQ 70 (CCPA 1950)) (see MPEP 2144.04).
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Hong et al. in view of Oram et al. with the teachings of Kanel et al. to incorporate the guide slope surface on the guide rim to help water flow quietly into the water tank.
Regarding claim 13, Hong et al. teaches the following elements of the current invention:
An outer shell spaced horizontally outward from the water tank represented by housing 110 (Fig. 2, [0082]). Figure 2 clearly shows the housing 110 being horizontally spaced from the water tank unit 140 wherein water tank 141 resides.
An inner shell that is disposed inside the outer shell and that accommodates the water tank represented by opening 113, water container 130 and water tank unit 140 where in “the water container 130 may be installed in the opening 113 of the housing 110” (Fig. 2, 0069]). The reference clearly teaches the inner shell going inside of the opening in the outer shell.
A first discharge flow path that is defined between the water tank and the inner shell through which humidified air flows represented by humidification flow path F3 wherein water tank unit 140 and humidifying member 170 are disposed on the humidification flow path F3 (Fig. 8, [0088]).
A second discharge flow path that is defined between the inner shell and the outer shell represented by partition 112 wherein “the housing 110 may include a partition 112 partitioning the opening 113 in which the water container 130 is installed and the air flow path unit F1, F2, and F3 through which air flows therein”
The reference is silent as to an outer circumference of the guide slope surface being positioned further inward in a horizontal direction relative to the upper end of the inner shell. However, arranging the guide slope surface in this configuration is simply a design choice and would not impact the operation of the device. The courts have previously ruled that matters of obvious engineering choice, such as rearrangement of parts, are valid reject ions, in re Japikse, 181 F.2d 1019, 86 USPQ 70 (CCPA 1950)) (see MPEP 2144.04).
Regarding claim 14, Hong et al. teaches the inner shell having a shell inlet through which the humidified air is received form the humidifying device represented by opening 163. The reference teaches opening 163 “guide[s] the water discharged from the outlet port of the opening/closing valve 135 to the water tank 141” [0061]. The reference further teaches the humidifying member 170 may be installed in the water tank 141 which is already in the inner shell of the device (Fig. 2, [0109]). Therefore, opening 163 can also inherently allow humidified air to pass into the inner shell.
Claims 15 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hong et al. US 20230093557 A1 in view of Kanel et al. US 20120112371 A1.
Regarding claim 15, Hong et al. teaches a humidifier represented by humidifier 100 (Fig. 1, [0060]). The humidifier 100 comprises of the following elements of the current invention:
A water tank that supplies water to generate humidified air represented by water tank 141 (Fig. 3, [0056]). The water tank 141 inherently possesses a water storage space that stores water as it is configured to “[accommodate] the water discharged from the water container 130 [0077]. The reference is silent as to the stored water being used to generate humidified air. However, the claim limitation is functional only. Claims directed to an apparatus must be distinguished in the prior art in terms of structure rather than function (see MPEP 2114).
The water tank having an upper side that is open is represented by Figure 3 where in water tank 141 is clearly depicted to have an upper side which is open that other components may connect with.
A water tank cover provided at the upper end of the water tank represented by water tank cover 145 wherein “the water tank cover 145 [is] configured to cover a least a portion of an upper portion of the water tank 141” (Fig. 3, [0077]).
A water tank cover including a water supply hole that is positioned above the water storage space and is configured to allow the water to flow downward into the water storage space represented by installation opening 147 (Fig. 3, [0080]). The reference further teaches the outlet port 136 passes through the installation opening 147 where in “water accommodated in the water container 130 may be discharged through the outlet port 136 and may be supplied to the water tank 141” [0098]. Furthermore, the limitation of the water supply hole being configured to allow the water to flow downward into the water storage space is functional only. Claims directed to an apparatus must be distinguished in the prior art in terms of structure rather than function (see MPEP 2114).
Hong et al fails to teach the following elements of the current invention:
A guide slope surface that extends along at least a portion of a circumference of the upper end of the water tank and that is inclined downward toward a center axis of the water tank
The guide slope surface being below the water supply hole to guide the water falling from the water supply hole toward the water storage space.
Kanel et al teaches a guide slope surface that extend along at least a portion of a circumference of the upper end of the water tank and that is inclined downward toward a center axis of the water tank represented by the curved slope 302 wherein “the slope 302 curves downward” and “allows the water to flow into the pool in the funnel 324 quietly (Fig. 8, [0047]). The guide slope surface is beneficial to “prevent a loud splashing sound” and to help water flow gradually into the water tank.
The reference is silent as to the guide slope surface being below the water supply hole. However, arranging the guide slope surface in this configuration is simply a design choice and would not impact the operation of the device. The courts have previously ruled that matters of obvious engineering choice, such as rearrangement of parts, are valid reject ions, in re Japikse, 181 F.2d 1019, 86 USPQ 70 (CCPA 1950)) (see MPEP 2144.04).
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Hong et al. in view of Oram et al. with the teachings of Kanel et al. to incorporate the guide slope surface to help water flow quietly into the water tank.
Claim 16 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hong et al. US 20230093557 A1 in view of Kanel et al. US 20120112371 A1 and in further view of Oram et al. US 20220178561 A1.
Regarding claim 16, Hong et al. in view of Kanel et al. teaches all the limitations of claim 15.
Hong et al. in view of Kanel et al. fails to teach the following elements of the current invention:
A water tank handle detachably coupled to the upper end of the water tank
The water tank handle including a handle rim coupled to the upper end of the water tank
A second guide slope included in the water tank handle extending inward from the handle rim
Oram et al. teaches the following elements of the current invention:
A water tank handle detachably coupled to the upper end of the water tank represented by tank handle 1308 wherein “the tank handle 1308 is pivotally attached to the water tank 1300 and is arranged to rotate between a first configuration in which the tank handle 1308 is stowed adjacent to the upper surface of the water tank” (Fig. 9, [0096]). The tank handle is beneficial to allow easy grip by a user. The reference is silent as to the tank handle being detachable, however this limitation is simply a design choice. The courts have previously ruled that matters of obvious engineering choice, such as making elements separable, are valid reject ions in re Dulberg, 289 F.2d 522, 523, 129 USPQ 348, 349 (CCPA 1961) (see MPEP 2144.04). It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Hong et al. in view of Kanel et al. with the teachings of Oram et al. to incorporate the tank handle to help users grip the water tank.
The water tank handle including a handle rim coupled to the upper end of the water tank represented by projection or pintle 1310 wherein “each end of the tank handle 1308 is provided with a projection or pintle 1310 that projects perpendicularly from the end of the tank handle 1308” (Fig. 10, [0097]). The reference further teaches the projection or pintle 1310 are beneficial to connect the tank handle 1308 to the water tank 1300.
A second guide slope included in the water tank handle extending inward from the handle rim represented by “the tank handle 1308 is bent (i.e. angled or curved) with both ends of the tank handle 1308 being pivotally attached to opposite sides of the upper surface of the water tank 1300” (Fig. 9, [0096]). The reference clearly shows the water tank handle having a slope inwards from the handle rim (projection or pintle 1310). The second guide slope is beneficial to allow the tank handle to rotate and sit flush with the upper end of the water tank.
Claims 17, 18, and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hong et al. US 20230093557 A1 in view of Kanel et al. US 20120112371 A1 and in further view of Oram et al. US 20220178561 A1 and in further view of Liu US 20220168538 A1.
Regarding claim 17, Hong et al. in view of Kanel et al. and in further view of Oram et al. teaches all the limitations of claim 16.
Hong et al. in view of Kanel et al. and in further view of Oram et al. further teach the following elements of the current invention:
Oram et al. teaches a guide rim that is disposed above the upper end of the water tank and extends along at least a portion of the circumference of the upper end of the water tank represented by rim 2420 wherein “rim 2420 projects downwardly from the periphery of the lid portion 2401, with this rim 1403 being arranged to fit closely around the outside of a corresponding rim 2313 that projects upwardly from the periphery of the tank opening 2312 to thereby locate and align the tank cap 2400 over the opening 2312” (Fig. 46, [0179]). The reference clearly teaches the rim is beneficial to help align the water tank cover with the water tank itself.
Oram et al. teaches a guide cover that is coupled to the guide rim and covers the upper side of the water storage space represented by lid portion 2401 and flange 2042 wherein “rim 2420 projects downwardly from the periphery of the lid portion 2401” (Fig. 46, [0179]). The lid portion 2401 and flange 2402 are beneficial as it is well known in the art flanges provide strong, leak proof joints between components.
Hong et al. in view of Kanel et al. and in further view of Oram et al. fail to teach the following elements of the current invention:
A guide plate that covers the upper side of the water storage space and is inclined downward in an outward direction
A border wall that is spaced outwardly from at least a portion of an outer circumference of the guide plate and is coupled to the guide rim
Liu teaches the following elements of the current invention:
Liu teaches a guide plate that covers the upper side of the water storage space and is inclined downward in an outward direction represented by ring portion 33 wherein “the ring part 33 is a downward slope” and “the water is poured on ring part 33 and flows through water inlet 31” (Fig. 2, [0065]). The reference clearly teaches the guide plate being inclined downward in a direction toward the water supply hole. The guide plate is beneficial to help guide the water in the desired direction.
Liu teaches a border wall that is spaced outwardly from at least a portion of an outer circumference of the guide plate and is coupled to the guide rim represented the outer portion of cover 30 as shown by Figure 3 of the reference. The figure clearly depicts the ring portion 33 (the guide plate) being spaced inward compared to the outer shell of the cover 30.
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Hong et al. in view of Kanel e al. and in further view of Oram et al. with the teachings of Liu to incorporate the guide plate to help guide water in the desired direction.
Regarding claim 18, Hong et al. in view of Kanel et al. and in further view of Oram et al. and in further view of Liu teach all the limitations of claim 17.
Kanel et al. teaches a guide slope surface represented by the curved slope 302 wherein “the slope 302 curves downward” and “allows the water to flow into the pool in the funnel 324 quietly (Fig. 8, [0047]). The guide slope surface is beneficial to “prevent a loud splashing sound” and to help water flow gradually into the water tank.
The reference is silent as to an outer circumference of the guide slope surface being positioned further outward in a horizontal direction relative to the water supply hole. However, arranging the guide slope surface in this configuration is simply a design choice and would not impact the operation of the device. The courts have previously ruled that matters of obvious engineering choice, such as rearrangement of parts, are valid reject ions, in re Japikse, 181 F.2d 1019, 86 USPQ 70 (CCPA 1950)) (see MPEP 2144.04).
Regarding claim 19, Hong et al. in view of Kanel et al. and in further view of Oram et al. and in further view of Liu teach all the limitations of claim 18.
Kanel et al. teaches a guide slope surface represented by the curved slope 302 wherein “the slope 302 curves downward” and “allows the water to flow into the pool in the funnel 324 quietly (Fig. 8, [0047]). The guide slope surface is beneficial to “prevent a loud splashing sound” and to help water flow gradually into the water tank.
The reference is silent as to an inner circumference of the guide slope surface being positioned further inward in the horizontal direction relative to the water supply hole. However, arranging the guide slope surface in this configuration is simply a design choice and would not impact the operation of the device. The courts have previously ruled that matters of obvious engineering choice, such as rearrangement of parts, are valid reject ions, in re Japikse, 181 F.2d 1019, 86 USPQ 70 (CCPA 1950)) (see MPEP 2144.04).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 9, 10 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.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
Claim 9 would be allowable as the prior art fails to teach the guide rim including an inner peripheral wall that extends downward from at least a portion of an inner circumference of the guide slope surface.
Claim 10 would be allowable by virtue of its dependency on claim 9.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to AMMAD BUTT whose telephone number is (571)272-6550. The examiner can normally be reached M-Th, 7-5PM.
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.
/AMMAD W BUTT/Examiner, Art Unit 1776
/Jennifer Dieterle/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1776
Prosecution Insights