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 Objections
Claim 19 is objected to because of the following informalities:
In claim 19, “a fixing part for configured to” should read “a fixing part
Appropriate correction is required.
Double Patenting
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a nonstatutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13.
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer.
Claims 1 and 10-12 are provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1 and 15-17 of copending Application No. 18/825496 (hereinafter referred to as ‘496).
Claim 1 is rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 1 of ‘496. Claim 1 of ‘496 teaches a dehumidifier comprising a main body forming a first suction part into which a first flow is suctioned and a second suction part into which the second flow is suctioned; a fan provided between the first suction part and the second suction part and through which the first flow and the second flow are suctioned; a dehumidification module provided between the first suction part and the fan and including a dehumidification member that separates moisture in the air forming the first flow; and a heat exchanger in which heat is exchanged between moisture separated from the dehumidification module and air forming the second flow. Although claim 1 of ‘496 does not explicitly disclose that the heat exchanger is between the fan and the second suction part. However, ‘496 does teach that heat is exchanged between moisture separated from the dehumidification module and air forming the second flow, the particular placement of the heat exchanger is an obvious matter of design choice and does not patentably distinguish the instant claims from claim 1 of ‘496. See MPEP § 2144.04(VI)(C). This is a provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejection because the patentably indistinct claims have not in fact been patented.
Claim 10 is rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 15 of ‘496. Claim 15 of ‘496 is dependent upon claim 1 of ‘496 which teaches all of the limitations of the instant claim 1 as explained above, as well as wherein the dehumidification module comprises a connection port configured to discharge the moisture separated from the dehumidification module, wherein the dehumidifier further comprises a connection pipe coupled to the connection port and extending to the heat exchanger to supply the separated moisture to the heat exchanger. This is a provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejection because the patentably indistinct claims have not in fact been patented.
Claim 11 is rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 16 of ‘496. Claim 16 of ‘496 is dependent upon claim 15 of ‘496 which teaches all of the limitations of the instant claim 10 as explained above, as well as further comprising a vacuum pump connected to the connection pipe. This is a provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejection because the patentably indistinct claims have not in fact been patented.
Claim 12 is rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 17 of ‘496. Claim 17 of ‘496 is dependent upon claim 1 of ‘496 which teaches all the limitations of the instant claim 1 as explained above, as well as a drain tank configured to store water condensed in the heat exchanger. This is a provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejection because the patentably indistinct claims have not in fact been patented.
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.
Claims 1-19 are 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 1 recites the limitations “the first flow” and “the second flow” in lines 2-3. There is insufficient antecedent basis for these limitations in the claim.
Claim 1 recites the limitation “a dehumidification module provided between the first suction part and the fan and including a dehumidification member that separates moisture in the air forming the first flow; and a heat exchanger provided between the fan and the second suction part and in which heat is exchanged between moisture separated from the dehumidification module and air forming the second flow.” Claim 1 is indefinite because it is a single claim which claims both an apparatus and the method steps for using the apparatus. Specifically, claim 1 is an apparatus claim because it is to a “dehumidifier.” The italicized limitations describe method steps for using the apparatus. Therefore, claim 1 is indefinite because it is unclear whether infringement would occur when the apparatus is created that allows the method steps to be performed, or whether infringement requires that the method steps are actually performed. See MPEP § 2173.05(p)(ii). Applicant may consider amending the claim to read “a dehumidification module provided between the first suction part and the fan and including a dehumidification member that is configured to separateforming the first flow; and a heat exchanger provided between the fan and the second suction part and that is configured to heat between moisture separated from the humidification module and air forming the second flow.”
Claim 3 recites the limitations “the axial direction” and “the radial direction” in lines 2-3. There is insufficient antecedent basis for these limitations in the claim.
Claim 9 recites the limitations “the partition wall” and “the air discharged from the fan” in lines 2-3. There is insufficient antecedent basis for these limitations in the claim.
Claim 9 recites the limitation “wherein the dehumidifier further includes a supply pipe configured to supply air passing through the guide hole to the dehumidification module to allow water vapor accumulated in the dehumidification module to be removed.” It is unclear whether Applicant intends for the supply pipe to both guide air through the guide hole to the dehumidification module and guide the water vapor away from the dehumidification module or if supplying air to the dehumidification module is the manner in which the water vapor is removed. As the claim may have more than one reasonable interpretation, it is unclear when infringement may occur and the claim is therefore indefinite. Where there is a great deal of confusion and uncertainty as to the proper interpretation of the limitations of a claim, it would not be proper to reject such a claim on the basis of prior art. As stated in In re Steele, 305 F.2d 859, 134 USPQ 292 (CCPA 1962), a rejection under 35 U.S.C. 103 should not be based on considerable speculation about the meaning of terms employed in a claim or assumptions that must be made as to the scope of the claims. See § MPEP 2173.06 (II).
Claim 10 recites the limitation “the separated moisture” in line 5. There is insufficient antecedent basis for these limitations in the claim.
Claims 2, 4-8, and 11-14 are dependent upon claim 1 and are likewise 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 15 recites the limitation “the outside of the dehumidification module” in line 11. There is insufficient antecedent basis for these limitations in the claim.
Claim 15 recites the limitation “a dehumidification module provided inside the first suction part and including a dehumidification member that separates moisture in the air forming the first flow; a heat exchanger provided inside the second suction part and performing heat exchange between moisture separated from the dehumidification module and air forming the second flow; a vacuum pump that discharges moisture separated from the dehumidification module to the outside of the dehumidification module.” Claim 15 is indefinite because it is a single claim which claims both an apparatus and the method steps for using the apparatus. Specifically, claim 15 is an apparatus claim because it is to a “dehumidifier.” The italicized limitations describe method steps for using the apparatus. Therefore, claim 15 is indefinite because it is unclear whether infringement would occur when the apparatus is created that allows the method steps to be performed, or whether infringement requires that the method steps are actually performed. See MPEP § 2173.05(p)(ii). Applicant may consider amending the claim to read “a dehumidification module provided inside the first suction part and including a dehumidification member that is configured to separatethat is configured to performis configured to discharge
Claim 16 recites the limitation “the separated moisture” in line 6. There is insufficient antecedent basis for these limitations in the claim.
Claim 18 recites the limitation “the lower portion of the main body” in line 2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for these limitations in the claim.
Claims 17 and 19 are dependent upon claim 15 and are likewise 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 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.
Claims 1-7 and 12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over U.S. Patent Publication No. US 2006/0283327 A1 to Yoon et al. (hereinafter referred to as Yoon), and further in view of Swedish Patent Publication No. SE 1851206 A1 to Henriksson (hereinafter referred to as Henriksson).
Regarding claim 1, Yoon teaches a dehumidifier (Fig. 3) comprising: a main body (Fig. 3, case 10) forming a first suction part into which the first flow is suctioned (Fig. 3, inlet 11a) and a second suction part into which the second flow is suctioned (Fig. 3, inlet 12a); a fan provided between the first suction part and the second suction part and through which the first flow and the second flow are suctioned (Fig. 3, fan 41 is between inlets 11a and 12a); a dehumidification module provided between the first suction part and the fan (Fig. 3, desiccant assembly 30 is between inlet 11a and fan 41) and including a dehumidification member that separates moisture in the air forming the first flow (¶0041 “the dehumidifier includes a case 10 of an exterior of the dehumidifier, a heat exchanger 20 of a heat conductive material in the case 10, a desiccant assembly 30 is the case 10 for absorbing moisture from the air”); and a heat exchanger (Fig. 3, heat exchanger 20). Yoon does not teach wherein the heat exchanger is between the fan and the second suction part and in which heat is exchanged between moisture separated from the dehumidification module and air forming the second flow.
However, Henriksson teaches a dehumidifier (Fig. 1) which contains a fan (Fig. 1, fan 10), a dehumidification module (Fig. 1, drying device 6), and a heat exchanger (Fig. 1, heat exchanger 8), wherein the fan is placed between the dehumidification module and the heat exchanger (Fig. 1) and wherein heat is exchanged between moisture separated from the dehumidification module and air entering the dehumidifier (Abstract “allowing an exchange of heat between wet regeneration air having passed through the drying device (6) and air entered through the first inlet of the heat-exchanger” ; ¶0014 “Thereby, the process air can be used for cooling the wet regeneration air.”). Henriksson further teaches that a separate regeneration air intake may be provided wherein it does not first pass through the heat exchanger (¶0036 “The inventive idea also covers an embodiment with a separate circuit for regeneration air, i.e., instead of using part of the dried process air as regeneration air, a separate regeneration air intake is provided.” ; ¶0037 “In other words, a separate air path for air entering the first inlet of the heat-exchanger may be provided while the process air to be dried is brought to the drying device without passing the heat-exchanger.”) and that such a configuration results in a more versatile dehumidifier (¶0005 “A versatile dehumidifier which can be switched between different operating modes is thereby provided.” ; wet regeneration air can either exit the dehumidifier or can exchange heat with air entering the dehumidifier).
Yoon and Henriksson are considered analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of dehumidification devices. 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 dehumidifier as taught by Yoon to incorporate the configuration as taught by Henriksson such that the dehumidification module and the heat exchanger are separated by the fan. The rearrangement of parts is not patentably significant if the alteration does not modify the operation of the device. See MPEP § 2144.04(VI)(C). Furthermore, the modification of Yoon to incorporate the configuration of Henriksson would allow for a more versatile dehumidifier.
Regarding claim 2, Yoon and Henriksson teach the dehumidifier as applied to claim 1 above. Yoon further teaches wherein the fan includes a two-way suction fan having a first suction side into which the first flow is suctioned and a second suction side into which the second flow is suctioned (Fig. 3, fan 41 pulls air from one direction through inlet 11a and through a second direction through inlet 12a).
Regarding claim 3, Yoon and Henriksson teach the dehumidifier as applied to claim 1 above. Yoon further teaches wherein the fan intakes air in the axial direction and discharges the air in the radial direction (Fig. 6 depicts the direction of airflow from one direction wherein it enters the dehumidifier from an axial direction and is discharged into a radial direction). Yoon does not disclose the type of fan for element 41. However, Yoon does teach that the regeneration fan may be a centrifugal fan (¶0065 “The regenerating fan 52 may be a centrifugal type fan”) and Henriksson teaches the use of a centrifugal fan (¶0019 “There is provided a fan 10, such as a centrifugal fan”). A simple substitution of one known element for another to obtain predictable results (drawing air through the dehumidifier) supports a prima facie case of obviousness. See MPEP § 2143(I)(B).
Regarding claim 4, Yoon and Henriksson teach the dehumidifier as applied to claim 1 above. Yoon further teaches wherein the first suction part and the second suction part are formed on surfaces of the main body facing each other (Fig. 3, inlets 11a and 12a are on opposite sides of the dehumidifier facing each other).
Regarding claim 5, Yoon and Henriksson teach the dehumidifier as applied to claim 1 above. Yoon further teaches wherein the first and second suction parts are disposed opposite each other with respect to the fan so that the first flow and the second flow are formed in a direction approaching each other (Fig. 3, inlets 11a and 12a are opposite to one another with respect to fan 41), and wherein the fan includes a fan discharge part that discharges combined first and second flows (Fig. 3, discharge flow passage 48 ; ¶0062 “At a top of the blower housing 43, there is a discharge flow passage 48 for discharging the room air drawn by the fan 41 to outside of the dehumidifier.”).
Regarding claim 6, Yoon and Henriksson teach the dehumidifier as applied to claim 1 above. Yoon further teaches a partition wall separating a first space where the dehumidification module is installed and a second space where the fan and the heat exchanger are installed (Fig. 3, rotor housing 35 separates heat exchanger 20 from desiccant assembly 30 ; with the modification of Yoon to incorporate the configuration of Henriksson the heat exchanger 20 could instead be placed on the opposite side of the dehumidifier where fan 41 is and blower housing 43 would read on a partition wall), wherein the partition wall forms a fan suction part that guides the first flow passing through the dehumidification module to be suctioned into the fan (Fig. 6 depicts the passage of airflow through blower assembly 40).
Regarding claim 7, Yoon and Henriksson teach the dehumidifier as applied to claim 6 above. Yoon further teaches a module mounting guide protruding from the partition wall in a direction toward the first suction part (Fig. 3, rotor housing 35 protrudes towards inlet 11a). Yoon and Henriksson do not teach wherein the mounting guide is disposed on both sides of the fan suction part so that the dehumidification module is detachably mounted on the main body. However, if it were considered desirable for any reason to obtain access to the dehumidification module (i.e., regular maintenance), it would be obvious to make the dehumidification module separable for that purpose. See MPEP § 2144.04(V)(C).
Regarding claim 12, Yoon and Henriksson teach the dehumidifier as applied to claim 1 above. Yoon further teaches a drain tank configured to store water condensed in the heat exchanger (Fig. 3, drain pan 60 ; ¶0069 “there is a drain pan 60 under the heat exchanger 20 for collecting condensed water from the heat exchanger 20”).
Claims 8, 10-11, and 15-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yoon and Henriksson, and further in view of International Patent Publication No. WO 2025/090935 A1 to Grinham et al. (hereinafter referred to as Grinham).
Regarding claim 8, Yoon and Henriksson teach the dehumidifier as applied to claim 1 above. Yoon further teaches a fixing part configured to fix the dehumidification member by potting (¶0017 “a desiccant rotor rotatably mounted for housing the desiccant member” ; Fig. 3, desiccant assembly 30 sits inside of rotor 33); and a cap configured to accommodate the fixing part (Fig. 3, rotor cover 36). Yoon and Henriksson do not teach wherein the dehumidification module includes a dehumidification member including polymer membrane fibers to selectively separate moisture in air.
However, Grinham teaches a dehumidifier (Fig. 1) comprising a fan (¶0092 “In embodiments, each manifold of the plurality of manifolds can include a dry channel, a wet channel, a movable baffle, and one or more fans.”), dehumidifier module (Fig. 1, dehumidification system 110), and a heat exchanger (Fig. 1, exchange media 130), wherein the dehumidification module includes a dehumidification member including polymer membrane fibers to selectively separate moisture in the air (¶0072 “In some embodiments, the nanoporous vacuum membranes 112 of the VMD system 110 can include dense polymer films”).
Yoon, Henriksson, and Grinham are considered analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of dehumidifier devices. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention that the desiccant assembly as taught by Yoon could be substituted for the polymer membrane as taught by Grinham. A simple substitution of one known element for another to obtain predictable results (the separation of moisture from air) supports a prima facie case of obviousness. See MPEP § 2143(I)(B).
Regarding claim 10, Yoon and Henriksson teach the dehumidifier as applied to claim 1 above. Yoon and Henriksson do not teach wherein the dehumidification module includes a connection port configured to discharge moisture separated from the dehumidification module, and wherein the dehumidifier further includes a connection pipe connected to the connection port and extending to the heat exchanger to supply the separated moisture to the heat exchanger.
However, Grinham teaches a dehumidifier (Fig. 1) comprising a fan (¶0092 “In embodiments, each manifold of the plurality of manifolds can include a dry channel, a wet channel, a movable baffle, and one or more fans.”), dehumidifier module (Fig. 1, dehumidification system 110), and a heat exchanger (Fig. 1, exchange media 130), wherein the dehumidification module includes a connection port configured to discharge moisture separated from the dehumidification module (Fig. 1, vacuum inlet 116 ; ¶0060 “In some embodiments, the water vapor captured by the vacuum membrane dehumidification 110 can be directed to a vacuum inlet 116”), and wherein the dehumidifier further includes a connection pipe coupled to the connected port and extending to the heat exchanger to supply the separated moisture to the heat exchanger (Fig. 1, vacuum inlet 116 is connected to exchange media 130 ; ¶0008 “an exchange media configured to receive the extracted water vapor from the vacuum pump”). Grinham further teaches that in traditional dehumidification systems water vapor is typically unused or left as a waste byproduct (¶0006 “However, water vapor captured by the dehumidification system is often released to the atmosphere unused or left as a waste byproduct of the dehumidification stage.”) and that passing the dehumidifier waste water to the heat exchange media results in condensation of the water and subsequent collection for other uses (¶0006 “wherein the extracted water vapor and cool air exchange heat at the exchange media to condense and collect the extracted water vapor.”).
Yoon, Henriksson, and Grinham are considered analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of dehumidifier devices. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention that the dehumidifier as taught by Yoon and Henriksson could be further modified to incorporate the connection port and pipe as taught by Grinham to extract waste water from the dehumidification module and utilize said waste water in outside processes.
Regarding claim 11, Yoon, Henriksson, and Grinham teach the dehumidifier as applied to claim 10 above. Grinham further teaches a vacuum pump connected to the connection pipe (Fig. 1, vacuum pump 114).
Regarding claim 15, Yoon teaches a dehumidifier (Fig. 3) comprising: a main body forming a first suction part into which a first flow is suctioned (Fig. 3, inlet 11a) and a second suction part into which a second flow is suctioned (Fig. 3, inlet 12a); a fan through which the first and second flows are suctioned (Fig. 3, fan 41); a dehumidification module provided inside the first suction part (Fig. 3, desiccant assembly 30) and including a dehumidification member that separates moisture in the air forming the first flow (¶0041 “the dehumidifier includes a case 10 of an exterior of the dehumidifier, a heat exchanger 20 of a heat conductive material in the case 10, a desiccant assembly 30 is the case 10 for absorbing moisture from the air”); a heat exchanger performing heat exchange (Fig. 3, heat exchanger 20); and a first partition wall configured to separate an installation space of the dehumidification module and an installation space of a pump (Fig. 1, drain pan 60 reads on a “partition wall” that separates the desiccant assembly 30 from pump P which is located below drain pan 60 on base pan 270). Yoon does not teach wherein heat is exchanged between moisture separated from the dehumidification module and air forming the second flow and does not explicitly teach a vacuum pump that discharges moisture separated from the dehumidification module to the outside of the dehumidification module.
However, Henriksson teaches a dehumidifier (Fig. 1) which contains a fan (Fig. 1, fan 10), a dehumidification module (Fig. 1, drying device 6), and a heat exchanger (Fig. 1, heat exchanger 8), wherein the fan is placed between the dehumidification module and the heat exchanger (Fig. 1) and wherein heat is exchanged between moisture separated from the dehumidification module and air entering the dehumidifier (Abstract “allowing an exchange of heat between wet regeneration air having passed through the drying device (6) and air entered through the first inlet of the heat-exchanger” ; ¶0014 “Thereby, the process air can be used for cooling the wet regeneration air.”). Henriksson further teaches that a separate regeneration air intake may be provided wherein it does not first pass through the heat exchanger (¶0036 “The inventive idea also covers an embodiment with a separate circuit for regeneration air, i.e., instead of using part of the dried process air as regeneration air, a separate regeneration air intake is provided.” ; ¶0037 “In other words, a separate air path for air entering the first inlet of the heat-exchanger may be provided while the process air to be dried is brought to the drying device without passing the heat-exchanger.”) and that such a configuration results in a more versatile dehumidifier (¶0005 “A versatile dehumidifier which can be switched between different operating modes is thereby provided.” ; wet regeneration air can either exit the dehumidifier or can exchange heat with air entering the dehumidifier).
Yoon and Henriksson are considered analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of dehumidification devices. 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 dehumidifier as taught by Yoon to incorporate the configuration as taught by Henriksson such that the dehumidification module and the heat exchanger are separated by the fan. The rearrangement of parts is not patentably significant if the alteration does not modify the operation of the device. See MPEP § 2144.04(VI)(C). Furthermore, the modification of Yoon to incorporate the configuration of Henriksson would allow for a more versatile dehumidifier.
As to the vacuum pump, Grinham teaches a dehumidifier (Fig. 1) comprising a fan (¶0092 “In embodiments, each manifold of the plurality of manifolds can include a dry channel, a wet channel, a movable baffle, and one or more fans.”), dehumidifier module (Fig. 1, dehumidification system 110), and a heat exchanger (Fig. 1, exchange media 130), as well as a vacuum pump that discharges moisture separated from the dehumidification module to the outside of the dehumidification module (Fig. 1, vacuum pump 114). Grinham further teaches that in traditional dehumidification systems water vapor is typically unused or left as a waste byproduct (¶0006 “However, water vapor captured by the dehumidification system is often released to the atmosphere unused or left as a waste byproduct of the dehumidification stage.”) and that passing the dehumidifier waste water to the heat exchange media results in condensation of the water and subsequent collection for other uses (¶0006 “wherein the extracted water vapor and cool air exchange heat at the exchange media to condense and collect the extracted water vapor.”).
Yoon, Henriksson, and Grinham are considered analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of dehumidifier devices. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention that the dehumidifier as taught by Yoon and Henriksson could be further modified to incorporate the vacuum pump (in place of or in addition to the pump P as taught by Yoon) as taught by Grinham extract waste water from the dehumidification module and utilize said waste water in outside processes.
Regarding claim 16, Yoon, Henriksson, and Grinham teach the dehumidifier as applied to claim 15 above. Yoon further teaches wherein the first partition wall extends in a horizontal direction to separate an internal space of the main body into an upper space and a lower space (Fig. 3, base pan 70 forms a lower portion separated by drain pan 60), and wherein the dehumidification module is seated on an upper side of the first partition wall (Fig. 3, desiccant assembly 30 is located above drain pan 60), and the vacuum pump is disposed on a lower side of the first partition wall so that the separated moisture flows downward (Fig. 12, in an embodiment with pump P present it is located on base pan 270 ; ¶0115 “a pump P is mounted on the base pan 270”).
Regarding claim 17, Yoon, Henriksson, and Grinham teach the dehumidifier as applied to claim 15 above. Yoon further teaches a second partition wall connected to the first partition wall (Fig. 3, blower housing 43) and configured to separate a space where the dehumidification module is installed and a space where the fan and the heat exchanger are installed (Fig. 3, blower housing 43 separates desiccant assembly from fan 41 ; with the modification of Yoon to incorporate the configuration as taught by Henriksson, the heat exchanger 20 could be placed on the opposite side of fan 41), wherein the second partition wall forms a fan suction part for suctioning air into the fan (Fig. 3, motor support 44 forms an opening in blower housing 43).
Regarding claim 18, Yoon, Henriksson, and Grinham teach the dehumidifier as applied to claim 15 above. Yoon further teaches a tank provided at the lower portion of the main body and configured to store water (Fig. 12, base pan 270 ; see also Fig. 8, water tank 71); and a third partition wall configured to separate an installation space where the tank is installed and an installation space where the vacuum pump is installed (Fig. 12, the walls of base pan 270 separates the space where water tank 71 can be placed and where pump P is located).
Regarding claim 19, Yoon, Henriksson, and Grinham teach the dehumidifier as applied to claim 15 above. Yoon further teaches a fixing part configured to fix the dehumidification member by potting (¶0017 “a desiccant rotor rotatably mounted for housing the desiccant member” ; Fig. 3, desiccant assembly 30 sits inside of rotor 33); and a cap configured to accommodate the fixing part (Fig. 3, rotor cover 36). Yoon and Henriksson do not teach wherein the dehumidification module includes a dehumidification member including polymer membrane fibers. However, Grinham teaches the use of polymer membranes for selective separation of moisture in the air (¶0072 “In some embodiments, the nanoporous vacuum membranes 112 of the VMD system 110 can include dense polymer films”). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art that the desiccant assembly as taught by Yoon could be substituted for the polymer membrane as taught by Grinham. A simple substitution of one known element for another to obtain predictable results (the separation of moisture from air) supports a prima facie case of obviousness. See MPEP § 2143(I)(B).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to RACHEL MARIE SLAUGOVSKY whose telephone number is (571)272-0188. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 8:30 am - 5:30 pm EST.
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.
/RACHEL MARIE SLAUGOVSKY/Examiner, Art Unit 1776
/Jennifer Dieterle/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1776
Prosecution Insights