DETAILED CORRESPONDENCE
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)
Claims 1-20 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 limitation "the air". There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claims 2-20 depend upon claim 1.
Claim 9 recites the limitation "the wall". There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112(d)
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(d):
(d) REFERENCE IN DEPENDENT FORMS.—Subject to subsection (e), a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, fourth paragraph:
Subject to the following paragraph [i.e., the fifth paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112], a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
Claim 10 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(d) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, 4th paragraph, as being of improper dependent form for failing to further limit the subject matter of the claim upon which it depends, or for failing to include all the limitations of the claim upon which it depends.
Claim 10 recites “The dehumidifier of claim 1, wherein the dehumidification member includes a polymer membrane fiber to selectively separate moisture in the air” where claim 1 recites “a dehumidification member made of polymer membrane fibers to separate moisture from the air”. Claim 10 does not further limit the invention of claim 1.
Applicant may cancel the claim(s), amend the claim(s) to place the claim(s) in proper dependent form, rewrite the claim(s) in independent form, or present a sufficient showing that the dependent claim(s) complies with the statutory requirements.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 1-9 and 11-20 would be allowable if rewritten to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 2nd paragraph, set forth in this Office action and to include all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Regarding claim 1, the closest prior art is Yingwen WO2021052278 and Mhetar US 2023/0175712.
Yingwen teaches a dehumidifier (Figs 20-24) comprising: a main body including a suction part (10a) and a fan (13); a dehumidification module including a dehumidification member (101) made of polymer membrane fibers (¶138) to separate moisture from the air suctioned in from the suction part; a water supply tank (15a) configured to supply water to the dehumidification module (where the fluid in tank 15a would comprise water); and a connection pipe (pipe with valve 16a) configured to connect the water supply tank and the dehumidification module. Yingwen does not teach the vacuum pump. The modification would not have been obvious because the vacuum pump mechanism of vapor transport is not used in conjunction with the fluid tank.
Mhetar teaches a dehumidifier (Fig 1) comprising: a main body including a suction part (706) and a fan (502); a dehumidification module (110) including a dehumidification member made of polymer membrane fibers (¶85) to separate moisture from the air suctioned in from the suction part; a vacuum pump (150) configured to provide driving force to discharge moisture separated from the dehumidification module to the outside of the dehumidification module; a heat exchanger (182) fluidly connected to the vacuum pump and configured to condense the separated moisture. Mhetar does not teach a water supply tank configured to supply water to the dehumidification module; and a connection pipe configured to connect the water supply tank and the dehumidification module. The modification would not have been obvious because the water supply tank is not used in conjunction with a vacuum pump.
Claims 2-20 depend upon claim 1.
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