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 .
Specification
The title of the invention is not descriptive, as a method is not recited in the claims. A new title is required that is clearly indicative of the invention to which the claims are directed.
Claim Objections
Claim 1 is objected to because of the following informalities: In one version of the claims, Claim 1 is not labeled properly. Appropriate correction is required.
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 1-10 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.
Regarding Claim 1, the claim recites “a liquid material panels”. There is a mismatch between “a” and “panels”, as one implies only one panel while another requires multiple panels, which would make it uncertain to one with ordinary skill in the art what is required and renders the claim indefinite. For purposes of examination, one or more panels are suitable.
Claims 2-10 are also rejected, due to their dependency on Claim 1.
Regarding Claim 3, the claim recites “an area defined and closed by the stitching and completely of the liquid permeable material”. It is uncertain what it means for “completely of the liquid permeable material”, as the area enclosed would include other areas not liquid permeable material, as the stitching goes through the front and rear layers.
For purposes of examination, the area includes the liquid permeable material.
Claim 4 is also rejected, due to its dependency on Claim 3.
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 1-3 and 6-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Garcia (DE 202020103177 U1) in view of Harris (US 9,771,202 B1).
Claim 1 is not labeled in one version of the claims. One version has a Claim 1 properly labeled.
Regarding Claim 1, Garcia teaches a moisture removing pad that can be folded around an electronic device (Title; Figure 1; Paragraph 0008) comprising a main pad body (Item 1) with a front layer of a liquid permeable material (Item 5) and a rear layer opposing the front layer (Item 4), the front and rear layers permanently sealed together around an entire perimeter to define and encapsulate an interval cavity therein (Fig. 1 and 2; Paragraph 0007) and a structurally unattached periphery. (Fig. 1-2)
Garcia teaches an array of compartments that hold silica for purposes of moisture absorption. (Item 9, Paragraph 0003). Garcia does not specifically teach the array of individually sealed silica compartments are each formed from one or more liquid permeable material panels unattached to the front and rear layers, each flanked by the front and rear layers disposed within the internal cavity, and each housing desiccated silica therein.
Harris teaches an reusable moisture removal pouch (Abstract) comprising a front layer of a liquid permeable material and a rear layer opposing the front layer, the front and rear layers permanently sealed together around an entire perimeter to define and encapsulate an internal cavity therein and an array of individually sealed silica compartments each formed from a liquid permeable material panels unattached to the front and rear layers, each flanked by the front and rear layers, disposed within the internal cavity, and each housing desiccated silica therein. (Fig. 8 and 10). Harris teaches this arrangement for the array of individual silica compartments allows the moisture absorbing structure be re-reusable, which is better for the environment, allows for faster drying of the silica compartments, which allows the moisture absorbing structure to be re-used faster. (Column 4, Lines 15-29, Column 12, Lines 48-60). Thus, it would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill in the art to use claimed silica compartments taught by Harris as the compartments in the moisture absorbing pad of Garcia for re-usability and faster re-use of the moisture absorbing pad.
Garcia does not specifically teach a hook-and-loop fastener is disposed on an outer surface of the rear layer of the main pad body.
Harris teaches adding a hook-and-loop fastener to the outer surfaces of the layers of the main body. (Column 10, Lines 16-45; Column 3, Lines 5-14). Garcia teaches this hook-and-loop fastener allows the body to selectively closed around the electronic device. (Column 3, Lines 5-10). Thus, it would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill in the apply a hook and hook fastener on the outer surface of the rear and/or front layer of the main pad body of Garcia as taught by Harris to allow the mat to be selectively closed around the electronic device.
Regarding Claim 2-3, Garcia teaches the front and rear layers are sealed around a perimeter, where the seal is proximal to a bottom edge of the main pad body, an upper edge of the main pad body opposing the bottom edge of the main pad body, a first side edge of the main pad body, and a second side edge of the main pad body opposing the first side edge of the main pad body, the bottom edge, upper edge, and first and second side edges defining a continuous periphery of the main pad body. (Fig 1-2). Garcia an area is defined and enclosed by the sealing, which includes the liquid permeable material of the front layer. (Fig. 1-2).
Garcia does not specifically teach the sealing method is stitching.
Harris teaches any manner of sealing, including stitching or permeant adhesive is suitable for joining layers of a pad for a moisture absorbing pad. (Column 7, Lines 25-35). Thus, as Harris teaches stitching is suitable in ensure the pad stays together, it would have been obvious to use any suitable sealing method, including stitching or adhesive as taught by Harris, to the sealed areas of Garcia.
Regarding Claim 6, Garcia shows two rows of horizontally aligned silica compartments and at least two columns with vertically aligned individual sealed silica compartments. (Fig. 1). Garcia teaches multiple compartments can be made to improve the flexibility of the pad. (Paragraph 0021-0022).
Regarding Claim 7, Harris teaches each of the horizontally and vertically aligned individually sealed silica compartments are individually sealed by an internal liner of a liquid permeable material and disposed within the internal cavity. (Fig. 8, 10). Harris teaches the internal liner material ensures the proper moisture flow (Column 10, Lines 45-67, Column 11, Lines 1-45). Thus, it would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill in the art to have the individually sealed silica compartments individual sealed by an internal liner of a liquid permeable material.
Regarding Claim 8, Garcia teach the horizontal and vertically aligned silica compartments are maintained in an offset distance with the internal liner to form a plurality of flexible joints within the internal cavity. (Fig. 1 of Garcia). Harris teaches the liner structure and compartment structure, as discussed above.
Garcia and Harris do not specifically teach the offset distance is at least 6 mm. However, Garcia teaches the offset distance area is where the folding occurs. (Paragraph 0022). Thus, it would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill in the art to optimize this offset distance range to ensure proper folding of the mat.
Regarding Claim 9, Harris teaches each of the horizontally and vertically aligned individually sealed silica compartments are individually sealed by an internal liner of a liquid permeable material and disposed within the internal cavity. (Fig. 8, 10). Harris teaches the internal liner material ensures the proper moisture flow (Column 10, Lines 45-67, Column 11, Lines 1-45). Thus, it would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill in the art to have the individually sealed silica compartments individual sealed by an internal liner of a liquid permeable material.
Regarding Claim 10, Garcia teaches four silica compartments in an array that are maintained in an offset distance within the internal cavity to form a plurality of flexible joints. (Fig. 1 of Garcia). Harris teaches the liner structure and compartment structure, as discussed above.
Garcia and Harris do not specifically teach the offset distance is at least 6 mm. However, Garcia teaches the offset distance area is where the folding occurs. (Paragraph 0022). Thus, it would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill in the art to optimize this offset distance range to ensure proper folding of the mat.
Claims 4-5 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Garcia and Harris, in further view of Sangerlaub (NPL).
Regarding Claim 4, Garcia and Harris do not specifically teach the array of the sealed silica compartments makes up at least 85% of the area defined and eclosed by the stitching. Harris does teach the array should be shaped and sized to provide efficient moisture removal. (Column 8, Lines 1-15)
However, Sangerlaub teaches amount of desiccant present determines the amount of moisture absorption. (Page 11) Thus, the amount of amount of silica present is a results-effective variable that determines how much moisture the moisture pad can fully absorb. One with ordinary skill in the art would be able to optimize with routine experimentation to reach the claimed amount of silica to ensure proper moisture absorption. Thus, it would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill in the art to reach the claimed amount of silica in the pad of Garcia and Harris as taught by Sangerlaub to increase the amount of desiccant for more absorption.
Regarding Claim 5, Garcia and Harris do not specifically teach the array of individually sealed compartments makes up at least 85% of the total volume of the internal cavity. Harris does teach the array should be shaped and sized to provide efficient moisture removal. (Column 8, Lines 1-15)
However, Sangerlaub teaches amount of desiccant present determines the amount of moisture absorption. (Page 11) Thus, the amount of amount of silica present is a results-effective variable that determines how much moisture the moisture pad can fully absorb. One with ordinary skill in the art would be able to optimize with routine experimentation to reach the claimed amount of silica to ensure proper moisture absorption. Thus, it would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill in the art to reach the claimed amount of silica in the pad of Garcia and Harris as taught by Sangerlaub to increase the amount of desiccant for more absorption.
Correspondence
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MICHAEL ZHANG whose telephone number is (571)270-0358. The examiner can normally be reached Monday through Friday: 9:30am-3:30pm, 8:30PM-10:30PM.
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, Frank Vineis can be reached at (571) 270-1547. 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.
/Michael Zhang/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1781
Prosecution Insights