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 .
Election/Restrictions
Applicant's election with traverse of claims 1 and 6-10 in the reply filed on 4 June 2026 is acknowledged. The traversal is on the ground(s) that Chang-Wook teaches away from providing a transport mechanism since it has multiple discrete transmitter coils at different heights. The Examiner disagrees, noting that providing multiple discrete coils at different heights, or moving a single coil to different heights, are simply obvious alternative mechanisms for achieving the same result of providing transmission from different heights. Nevertheless, whether or not this is agreed upon, it is noted that the newly applied Seo renders the claimed invention of independent claim 1 obvious as set forth below. As such, the claims further fail to recite a common special technical feature.
The requirement is thus deemed proper and is therefore made FINAL.
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.
The application includes the limitation “means for determining” in claim 8.
This application also 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: “transport mechanism” in claim 1 and 6-10.
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.
For the record:
“Means for determining” has been interpreted according to the corresponding structure described at para. 0021 as being limit switches, encoders, sensors, etc., or equivalents thereof.
“Transport mechanism” has been interpreted according to the corresponding structure described at para. 0021 in that it can include “a belt, cable, gear rack, screw or any other means used for the linear transport of components,” or equivalents thereof. Note that these are listed simply as examples, and that the key feature of the transport mechanism is that provides linear transport.
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 § 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.
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.
At lines 2-3 of claim 9, the claim recites “so to as to” which is grammatically incorrect, and renders the metes and bounds of the claim unclear.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
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(s) 1 and 6-9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Seo (US 2018/0313556 A1).
As per claim 1, Seo discloses a humidifier 100 comprising: a water tank 120;
a humidifying module 130 positionable in the water tank (Fig. 1, etc.), the humidifying module including a wireless power receiver (paras. 0047, 0055 re. receiving wireless power; receiver is implicit) and an ultrasonic transducer (para. 0057) in electrical communication with the wireless power receiver (paras. 0055, 0057; etc.);
a wireless power transmitter 110 configured to wirelessly transmit electrical power through a wall of the water tank to the wireless power receiver (through inner wall at 124 (Figs. 1 and 3; etc.); and
a transport mechanism (insert guide portion of 124 discussed at para. 0050) configured facilitate movement of the wireless power transmitter with respect to the water tank. Note that while the guide portion of 124 facilitates linear transport of the power transmitter 110, it does not itself actively move the transmitter into place. However, such placement/assembly can easily be performed either manually by pushing the transmitter into place, or by a mechanical device to provide such movement. It is considered a simple mechanical expedient that would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the effective filing date of the application to utilize a mechanical device (e.g., “a belt, cable, gear rack, screw or any other means used for the linear transport of components” as listed by applicant) for the purpose of facilitating movement of the wireless power transmitter 110 of Seo into place within the cavity defined by 124.
As per claim 6, Seo do not teach wherein the transport mechanism includes at least one of a belt, a cable, gear rack and a screw configured for moving the wireless power transmitter along a vertical axis with respect to the water tank. Again, it is considered a simple mechanical expedient that would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the effective filing date of the application to utilize a mechanical device (e.g., “a belt, cable, gear rack, screw or any other means used for the linear transport of components” as listed by applicant) for the purpose of facilitating movement of the wireless power transmitter 110 of Seo into place within the cavity defined by 124, and further that such movement occurs along a vertical axis with respect to the water tank (Figs. 1, 3; etc.).
As per claim 7, Seo further does not teach wherein the transport mechanism includes a motor operably connected with the at least one of the belt, the cable, gear rack and the screw. However, official notice its taken that providing a motor to facilitate the placement of the transmitter 110 into the cavity within 124 of Seo would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the effective filing date of the application as a simple mechanical expedient constituting a basic automation of a known manual activity.
As per claim 8, Seo also does not teach wherein the transport mechanism includes include means for determining at least one position of the wireless power transmitter along a vertical axis. Official notice is taken that addition of a means for determining (see interpretation under U.S.C. 112(f), above) would have been a simple mechanical expedient that would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the effective filing date of the application to apply to the arrangement of Seo for the simple purpose of determining that the transmitter 110 is properly positioned within the cavity formed by 124.
As per claim 9, Seo also does not teach the arrangement further comprising a carriage carried by the transport mechanism, wherein the wireless power transmitter is fixed to so as to move along with the carriage with respect to the water tank. However, the provision of a carriage to hold the transmitter 110 is considered a further simple mechanical expedient that would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the effective filing date of the application to apply to the arrangement of Seo for the purpose of facilitating the movement of the transmitter as it is positioned into place.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 10 is 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.
As per claim 10, there is no teaching or suggestion in the prior art to modify the system of Seo to further comprise a transport-side magnetic component connected with the transport mechanism and configured to move with respect to the water tank, and a humidifying module-side magnetic component associated with the humidifying module, wherein the transport-side magnetic component cooperates with the humidifying module-side magnetic component to move the humidifying module to move up and down in the water tank.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MARC E NORMAN whose telephone number is (571)272-4812. The examiner can normally be reached 8:00-4:30 M-F.
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, Frantz Jules can be reached at 571-272-6681. 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.
/MARC E NORMAN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3763
Prosecution Insights