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 .
Information Disclosure Statement
Applicant is reminded of the duty to disclose, as recited in MPEP §609: “In nonprovisional applications, applicants and other individuals substantively involved with the preparation and/or prosecution of the application have a duty to submit to the Office information which is material to patentability as defined in 37 CFR 1.56."
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 9 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 9 recites the limitation "the first suction pipe". There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 9 recites the limitation "the second suction pipe". There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
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.
Claims 1-3 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by O'Brien US 10,906,379 (hereafter O'Brien)
Regarding claim 1, O'Brien teaches a car mounted humidifier (Fig 1), comprising: a humidifier unit (102, mist, col 15 lines 33-53), a water cup groove (groove comprising 124), and a fixing member (member comprising 128) that are arranged coaxially from top to bottom, wherein a lower edge of the humidifier unit is hinged with an opening edge of the water cup groove through a hinge member (hinge 124).
Regarding claim 2, O'Brien teaches all the limitations of claim 1. O'Brien further teaches wherein a rotational axis of the hinge member is parallel to an axis of the water cup groove (as shown in Fig 1).
Regarding claim 3, O'Brien teaches all the limitations of claim 1. O'Brien further teaches wherein the fixing member comprises a fixed shaft (122) fixed at a center of a lower end face of the water cup groove, and an elastic member (128) provided on a peripheral side of the fixed shaft.
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 4 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over O’Brien as applied to claim 3 above, and further in view of Ikeda et al. JP2013231566 published 14 Nov. 2013 as translated by EPO (hereafter Ikeda).
Regarding claim 4, O'Brien teaches all the limitations of claim 3.
O'Brien does not teach wherein the elastic member is a plurality of soft rubber flaps uniformly arranged along an axis direction of the fixed shaft.
Ikeda teaches a portable gas generation apparatus which is car mounted (¶1) wherein the elastic member (70) is a plurality of flaps uniformly arranged along an axis direction of the fixed shaft (as shown in Figs 1, 4-5, 8) in order to provide a non-slip surface (¶40).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to modify the elastic member (128) of O’Brien to be the plurality of flaps (70) of Ikeda in order to provide a non-slip surface (¶40).
O’Brien further teaches where rubber provides friction while being compressible (col 33 lines 18-38).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to modify the elastic member (128 of O’Brien; 70 of Ikeda) to be plurality of soft rubber flaps in order to provides friction while being compressible (O’Brien col 33 lines 18-38) and as an obvious use of a known material based on its suitability (MPEP §2144.07).
Claim 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over O’Brien as applied to claim 3 above, and further in view of Conroy US 2017/0232130 (hereafter Conroy) and Bankers et al. US 2009/0117012 (hereafter Bankers).
Regarding claim 5, O'Brien teaches all the limitations of claim 4.
O'Brien further teaches where the humidifier unit comprises a pumping unit (col 15 lines 33-53).
O'Brien does not teach wherein the humidifier unit comprises an upper shell and a lower shell that are detachably buckled; an interior of the upper shell is provided with a pumping unit, and an end of the pumping unit is extended into an internal of the lower shell.
Conroy teaches a liquid spray system (Figs 22-23, ¶75-77) wherein the humidifier unit comprises an upper shell (2304 in Fig 23) and a lower shell (2314) that are detachably buckled (twist lock, ¶16); an interior of the upper shell is provided with a pumping unit (¶76-77), and an end (2308) of the pumping unit is extended into an internal of the lower shell (as shown in Fig 23). Conroy teaches where a pump enables drawing the liquid out of the lower shell for diffusion (¶76).
Bankers teaches a liquid spray system (Fig 2) comprising a pump (¶28-29) which dispenses scented water (¶22).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to modify the humidifier unit (102) of O’Brien by incorporating the upper shell (2304) and lower shell (2314) of Conroy comprising the pumping unit (Conroy ¶76-77; O'Brien col 15 lines 33-53; Bankers ¶28-29) in order to enable drawing the liquid out of the lower shell for diffusion (Conroy ¶76) and dispense scented water (Bankers ¶22).
Regarding claim 9, O'Brien in view of Conroy and Bankers teaches all the limitations of claim 5.
O’Brien does not teach wherein an upper end surface of the upper shell is respectively provided with a first spray hole and a second spray hole communicated with the first suction pipe and the second suction pipe.
Bankers teaches wherein an upper end surface of the upper shell (12, 14) is respectively provided with a first spray hole (18) and a second spray hole (32) communicated with the first suction pipe (19) and the second suction pipe (28) in order to dispense scented water (Bankers ¶22) allow single or complimentary air treatments (¶30).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to modify the humidifier unit (102) of O’Brien by incorporating the first (18) and second (32) spray holes and first (19) and second (28) suction pipes of Bankers in order to dispense scented water (Bankers ¶22) allow single or complimentary air treatments (¶30).
Regarding claim 10, O'Brien in view of Conroy and Bankers teaches all the limitations of claim 5.
O'Brien further teaches wherein a control unit (col 6 lines 14-62) and a lighting unit (118) are provided in the upper shell, an induction unit (120) is provided on an upper end face of the upper shell, and a loophole (where one of ordinary skill would understand a loophole would be present to allow light to pass through to the sensor) is provided on a periphery of the upper shell to allow light waves to pass through; wherein the control unit is configured to obtain an obstacle signal feedback from the induction unit and trigger the lighting unit to start based on the obstacle signal (col 6 line 63 – col 7 line 12).
Claim 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over O’Brien in view of Conroy and Bankers as applied to claim 5 above, and further in view of Bourne et al. US 2021/0077650 (hereafter Bourne).
Regarding claim 6, O'Brien in view of Conroy and Bankers teaches all the limitations of claim 5.
O'Brien does not teach wherein an inner bottom of the lower shell is provided with a partition, which divides an internal of the lower shell into a first water storage tank and a second water storage tank; the pumping unit comprises a first suction pipe and a second suction pipe, the first suction pipe and the second suction pipe are respectively inserted into the first water storage tank and the second water storage tank.
Conroy further teaches where the pumping unit comprises a first suction pipe (2308) inserted into the first water storage tank (2314) in order to draw up the liquid (¶18).
Bankers teaches where multiple reservoirs allow single or complimentary air treatments (¶30).
Bourne teaches a liquid dispersion device (abstract) where there are a plurality of reservoirs separated by a solid divider wall therein with each reservoir served by a suction pipe in order to provide multiple fluids (¶55).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to modify the humidifier unit (102) of O’Brien by incorporating lower shell (2314) of Conroy, wherein an inner bottom of the lower shell is provided with a partition (solid divider wall of Bourne ¶55), which divides an internal of the lower shell into a first water storage tank and a second water storage tank (Bourne ¶55; Bankers ¶30); the pumping unit comprises a first suction pipe and a second suction pipe (where Conroy teaches the first suction pipe 2308; Bourne teaches each reservoir has a suction pipe in ¶55; Bankers teaches conduits 19, 28 for reservoirs 40, 38), the first suction pipe and the second suction pipe are respectively inserted into the first water storage tank and the second water storage tank (Conroy as shown in Fig 23; Bourne ¶55; Bankers as shown in Fig 2) in order to enable drawing the liquid out of the lower shell for diffusion (Conroy ¶76), dispense scented water (Bankers ¶22), allow single or complimentary air treatments (Bankers ¶30), and provide multiple fluids (Bourne ¶55).
Regarding claim 7, O'Brien in view of Conroy, Bankers, and Bourne teaches all the limitations of claim 6.
O’Brien does not teach wherein ends of the first suction pipe and second suction pipe respectively abut against bottoms of the first water storage tank and the second water storage tank.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to modify the ends of the suction pipes (Conroy 2308; Bankers 19, 28; Bourne ¶55) such that the suction pipes abut against bottoms of the first water storage tank and the second water storage tank in order to allow the pipes to access the bottom of the tank and suck all the fluid from the reservoirs.
Regarding claim 8, O'Brien in view of Conroy, Bankers, and Bourne teaches all the limitations of claim 6.
O’Brien does not teach wherein the partition is configured to be a circular baffle, and a height of an opening end of the circular baffle is consistent with a height of an opening end of the lower shell.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to modify the partition (Bourne ¶55) such that the partition is configured to be a circular baffle, and a height of an opening end of the circular baffle is consistent with a height of an opening end of the lower shell in order to divide the reservoirs (Bourne ¶55) and as a matter of obvious change in size/shape (MPEP 2144.04 IV A-B). For instance, a circular baffle would have a smaller surface to volume ratio than an equivalent flat baffle.
Conclusion
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