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 “a control part” in claim 20 includes a generic/nonce term “part” coupled with function “control” without reciting sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function. A return to the specification provides the limitation “a control part” can be implemented in various ways, such as “a controller” (see figure 22). 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 Liu et al. (CN115307227A).
Regarding claim 1, Liu discloses a dehumidifier comprising:
a main body (1) including a suction part (the suction inlet of the air pump 2) and a fan (the fan which associated with the air pump 2; paragraph 2 of page 10);
a dehumidification module (a refrigerating box 3) including a dehumidification member (3) which separates moisture (moisture content) from the air suctioned from the suction part (inlet of the air pump 2) by driving the fan (the fan which coupled with the air pump 2; paragraph 2 of page 8 and paragraph 2 of page 10);
a vacuum pump (the air pump 2) configured to provide driving force to discharge moisture (moisture content) separated from the dehumidification module (3) to an outside of the dehumidification module (3; the moisture is discharge through drain pipe 13; see figure 1);
a heat exchanger (the heat exchanger within the dehumidification box 3) fluidly connected to the vacuum pump (2) and configured to condense the separated moisture (the last paragraph of page 12 and paragraph 1 of page 13; see figure 1); and
a drain tank (the water storage tank 12 and/or the collecting box 19) configured to store water condensed in the heat exchanger (the heat exchanger within the dehumidification box 3; see figure 1),
wherein the dehumidification module (3) and the heat exchanger (the heat exchanger within the dehumidification box 3) are disposed on an upper portion of the main body (1; see figure 1),
wherein the vacuum pump (2) and the drain tank (12 or 19) are disposed at a lower portion of the main body (1; see figure 1), and
wherein the drain tank (12 or 19) is mounted to be withdrawable (movably inserted; paragraph 1 of page 9) from a space corresponding to a lower side of the dehumidification module (3; see figure 1).
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) 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Liu in view of Xing et al. (CN111473429A).
Regarding claim 20, Liu discloses the dehumidifier further comprising: a water level sensor (the floating box 26 and switch 24) configured to detect the water level in the drain tank (12 and 19; paragraph 3 of page 12 and paragraph 5 of page 15); and a control part (a controller; see line 12 of page 2).
However, Liu fails to disclose the control part configured to calculate and display the remaining operation time of the dehumidifier based on the water level detected by the water level sensor.
Xing teaches a dehumidifier comprising a water level sensor (3) configured to detect the water level in the drain tank (see claim 22); and a control part (4) configured to calculate and display the remaining operation time (the remaining time on the display device) of the dehumidifier based on the water level detected (the current water level) by the water level sensor (3; see claim 22; see figures 1 and 4-7).
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 modified the dehumidifier of Liu to incorporate the claimed control feature as taught by Xing in order to determine the water level and the remaining time operation of the dehumidifier thus, to remind or alert user about the operation condition of the dehumidifier.
Claim(s) 1-2 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Japanese reference (JP H03247502A) hereinafter “JP502” in view of Liu.
Regarding claim 1, JP502 discloses a dehumidifier comprising:
a main body (the casing 1) including a suction part (4) and a fan (12; see figure 1);
a dehumidification module (the separation membrane module 9) including a dehumidification member (9a) which separates moisture (moisture content) from the air suctioned from the suction part (4) by driving the fan (12; abstract; see figure 1);
a vacuum pump (the vacuum pump 14) configured to provide driving force to discharge moisture (moisture) separated from the dehumidification module (9) to an outside of the dehumidification module (9; abstract; see figure 1);
a heat exchanger (the heat exchanger 6) fluidly connected to the vacuum pump (14) and configured to condense the separated moisture (moisture; abstract; see figure 1); and
wherein the dehumidification module (9) and the heat exchanger (6) are disposed on an upper portion of the main body (1; see figure 1),
wherein the vacuum pump (2) and the drain tank (12 or 19) are disposed at a lower portion of the main body (1; see figure 1).
However, JP502 fails to disclose a drain tank configured to store water condensed in the heat exchanger, and wherein the drain tank is mounted to be withdrawable from a space corresponding to a lower side of the dehumidification module.
Liu disclose a dehumidifier comprising a drain tank (the water collecting box 19) configured to store water condensed in the heat exchanger (the heat exchanger within the dehumidification box 3; see figure 1), and wherein the drain tank (19) is mounted to be withdrawable (movably inserted; paragraph 1 of page 9) from a space corresponding to a lower side of the dehumidification module (3; see figure 1).
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 modified the dehumidifier of JP502 to incorporate the claimed withdrawable drain tank as taught by Liu in order to collect water condensate.
Regarding claim 2, JP502 discloses dehumidifier further comprising: a base (the base which associated with the wheels 2) forming a bottom surface of the main body (1; see figure1); and
a first partition wall (the upper horizontal partition wall of the compartment 15) configured to divide the dehumidification module (9), the heat exchanger (6), the vacuum pump (14), and the drain tank (19, Liu) in a vertical direction (see figure 1).
Claim(s) 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over JP502 in view of Liu as applied to claim 1 and further in view of Xing.
Regarding claim 20, JP502 discloses a controller (41; see figure 1).
However, JP502 fails to disclose the dehumidifier further comprising: a water level sensor configured to detect the water level in the drain tank; and a control part configured to calculate and display the remaining operation time of the dehumidifier based on the water level detected by the water level sensor.
Xing teaches a dehumidifier comprising a water level sensor (3) configured to detect the water level in the drain tank (see claim 22); and a control part (4) configured to calculate and display the remaining operation time (the remaining time on the display device) of the dehumidifier based on the water level detected (the current water level) by the water level sensor (3; see claim 22; see figures 1 and 4-7).
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 modified the dehumidifier of JP502 to incorporate the claimed water level sensor and the claimed control operation of the dehumidifier corresponding to the sensor as taught by Xing in order to determine the water level and the remaining time operation of the dehumidifier thus, to remind or alert user about the operation condition of the dehumidifier.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 3-19 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 allowance:
The primary reference Liu taken alone or in combination fails to disclose the claimed structure detail of the dehumidifier as required in claims 3-19. Also, the prior art of record fails to provide further teachings or motivation to modify the dehumidifier of Liu in order to arrive the claim invention. Therefore, claims 3-19 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