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 Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitation(s) is/are:
the limitation “an opening/closing member” in claims 2 and 11 includes a generic/nonce term “member” coupled with function “opening/closing” without reciting sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function. A return to the specification provides the limitation “an opening/closing member” can be implemented in various ways, such as “a magnetic material” [0089] and see claim 3. Therefore, the limitation is interpreted as the same or equivalents thereof.
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
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(s) 1 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Kim et al. (KR20210004759A).
PNG
media_image1.png
912
716
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 1, Kim discloses an air purifier with a humidification function, comprising:
a body frame (10) having a partition wall that partitions a first space at a front (the left-hand side of the partition wall) thereof and a second space at a rear (the right-hand side of the partition wall) thereof (see annotated figure A above), an upper plate that is provided with a spray hole (an outlet 12) while forming an upper surface (see annotated figure above), and a bottom plate that forms a bottom surface (see annotated figure A above);
an upper frame protruding from a rear surface of the partition wall and forming a third space between an upper portion of the second space and the upper plate (see annotated figure A above);
a moss frame installed in the first space of the body frame (10) and accommodating a moss panel (see annotated figure A above);
a humidifier (50) installed in the second space of the body frame (10), generating water vapor, and discharging the generated water vapor toward the spray hole (12) while passing through the third space (see annotated figure A above and figures 3a and 3b); and
a communication passage formed to communicate between the first space and the third space (see annotated figure A above).
Claim(s) 1 and 8-9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Kim applied as an alternative.
PNG
media_image2.png
916
776
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 1, Kim applied as an alternative discloses an air purifier with a humidification function, comprising:
a body frame (10) having a partition wall that partitions a first space at a front (the right-hand side of the partition wall) thereof and a second space at a rear (the left-hand side of the partition wall) thereof (see annotated figure B above), an upper plate that is provided with a spray hole (an outlet 12) while forming an upper surface (see annotated figure B above), and a bottom plate that forms a bottom surface (see annotated figure B above);
an upper frame protruding from a rear surface of the partition wall and forming a third space between an upper portion of the second space and the upper plate (see annotated figure B above);
a moss frame installed in the first space of the body frame (10) and accommodating a moss panel (see annotated figure B above);
a humidifier (40) installed in the second space of the body frame (10), generating water vapor, and discharging the generated water vapor toward the spray hole (12) while passing through the third space (see annotated figure B above and figures 3a and 3b); and
a communication passage formed to communicate between the first space and the third space (see annotated figure B above).
Regarding claim 8, Kim applied as an alternative discloses the first space is formed to be partitioned from an external environment (ambient air) by a front cover (see annotated figure B above), and the front cover is provided with an inflow hole (the inlet 20) through which indoor air (the inlet 20 takes indoor air) is introduced (see annotated figure B above).
Regarding claim 9, Kim applied as an alternative discloses the inflow hole (20) and the communication passage are each located on opposite sides (upper side and lower side) of the first space (see annotated figure B above).
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.
Claim(s) 2 and 5 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kim in view of Jung (KR20190017125A).
Regarding claim 2, Kim fails to disclose the upper plate of the body frame is further provided with an opening/closing member that opens and closes the spray hole.
Jung teaches a humidifier comprising an upper plate of the body frame is further provided with an opening/closing member (a spray cover 130) that opens and closes the spray hole (a spray hole 134; paragraph 4 of page 8; see figures 1a-1b).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time before the effective filing date of the claim invention to modify the humidifier of Kim to incorporate the claimed opening/closing member as taught by Jung in order to provide opening and closing control for the spray hole.
Regarding claim 5, Kim fails to disclose the body frame further includes a detection sensor detecting whether the spray hole is closed, and a controller controlling an operation of the humidifier based on information detected by the detection sensor.
Jung teaches a humidifier comprising a detection sensor (138) detecting whether the spray hole (134) is closed by the opening/closing member (130; paragraph 4 of page 8); and a controller (150) receiving detection information (the humidity) on whether the spray hole (134) is closed from the detection sensor (138) and controlling an operation of the humidifier (paragraph 4 of page 8; see figures 1a-1b).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time before the effective filing date of the claim invention to modify the humidifier of Kim to a detection sensor, a controller and the control relationship between the three elements as taught by Jung in order to provide automatic opening and closing control of the spray hole.
Claim(s) 11 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kim in view of Jung.
PNG
media_image3.png
898
714
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 11, Kim discloses an air purifier with a humidification function, comprising:
a body frame having a first space that has an upper surface on which a spray hole (12) is formed and is provided with a moss panel (see annotated figure C above), a second space in which a humidifier (40) is installed (see annotated figure C above), and a third space that is formed to communicate with the first space and through which water vapor generated from the humidifier passes therethrough before being sprayed into the spray hole (12; see annotated figure C above);
However, Kim fails to disclose an opening/closing member provided to selectively close the spray hole; a detection sensor detecting whether the spray hole is closed by the opening/closing member; and a controller receiving detection information on whether the spray hole is closed from the detection sensor and controlling an operation of the humidifier.
Jung teaches a humidifier comprising an opening/closing member (a spray cover 130) provided to selectively close the spray hole (134; see figures 1a-1b); a detection sensor (138) detecting whether the spray hole (134) is closed by the opening/closing member (130; paragraph 4 of page 8); and a controller (150) receiving detection information (the humidity) on whether the spray hole (134) is closed from the detection sensor (138) and controlling an operation of the humidifier (paragraph 4 of page 8; see figures 1a-1b).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time before the effective filing date of the claim invention to modify the humidifier of Kim to incorporate the claimed opening/closing member, a detection sensor, a controller and the control relationship between the three elements as taught by Jung in order to provide automatic opening and closing control of the spray hole.
Claim(s) 12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kim in view of Jung as applied to claim 11 above and further in view of Chen et al. (CN110736168A).
Regarding claim 12, Kim as modified fails to disclose the controller is configured to operate the humidifier only for a set time when the spray hole is closed.
Chen teaches an ultrasonic particle spraying device is configured to operate the fan of the spraying device only for a set time when the spray hole is closed (nozzle is closed; paragraph 6 of page 9).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time before the effective filing date of the claim invention to modify the air purifier of Kim to incorporate the claim control between the humidifier and spray hole as taught by Chen in order to better control the humidity of the air purifier.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 3-4, 6-7 and 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:
The primary reference Kim taken alone or in combination fails to disclose the claimed open/close member is made of a magnetic material as required in claim 3. It would be a hindsight to change the material of the open/close member (130) of Jung to a magnetic material since the open/close member of Jung is motor actuated. Also, it is not obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art to modify the modifier of Jung to change the motor actuated open/close member (130, Jung) to an open/close member which is made of magnetic material in order to provide magnetic force to open or close the spray hole. In addition, Kim taken alone or in combination fails to disclose the claimed structure detail of the air purifier as required in claims 4, 6-7 and 10. The prior of record fails to provide further teachings or motivations to modify the air purifier of Kim in order to arrive the claim invention. Therefore, claims 3-4, 6-7 and 10 are allowable.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to KUN KAI MA whose telephone number is (571)-270-3530. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday-Friday 9am-6pm.
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, Jianying Atkisson can be reached on 5712707740. 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.
/KUN KAI MA/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3763