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 Rejections - 35 USC § 112(b)
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 7–12 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 7 recites:
7. A dehumidifier comprising:
cardboard,
a removable tray or punnet or cuvette inside which there is housed a bag with a humidity absorbent material,
an outer case open at both ends through which the tray can be removed from and inserted into the space defined by the outer case provided on its front face with a series of perforations or slots,
wherein all the materials are made of cardboard and only the tray is treated to render it water-repellent, and
wherein the material used in manufacturing the tray is formed by at least one recycled inner face and layers of unbleached raw Kraft paper plus polyethylene (PE). Emphasis added.
Claim 7 is indefinite because “both ends” in the limitation “an outer case open at both ends” lacks antecedent basis as a case can have more than two ends.
Claim 7 is also indefinite because it is unclear whether the following limitations are optional because they each refer to “the tray” but the claim introduces the tray as an option selected from “a removable tray or punnet or cuvette”:
“an outer case open at both ends through which the tray can be removed from an inserted into the space”
“only the tray is treated to render it water-repellent”
“the tray is formed by at least one recycled inner face and layers of unbleached raw Kraft paper plus polyethylene (PE)”
Claim 7 is further indefinite because “the space defined by the outer case” lacks antecedent basis.
Claim 7 is also indefinite because it is unclear whether “its front face” refers to a front face of the “outer case,” the “tray” or another element. Also, “its front face” lacks antecedent basis because a front face has not been introduced in the claim.
Claim 7 is further indefinite because “the materials” in “all the materials are made of cardboard” lacks antecedent basis. This limitation is also indefinite because it is unclear whether “all the materials are made of cardboard” means that the entire dehumidifier is made of cardboard, or whether only some elements of the dehumidifier are made of cardboard. If the limitation means that the entire dehumidifier is made of cardboard, this renders the claim indefinite for being inconsistent with the disclosure, which teaches, for instance, that the bag is made of plastic films while the humidity adsorbent material is made of calcium chloride. See Spec. p. 3; MPEP 2173.03 (a claim, although clear on its face, may also be indefinite when a conflict or inconsistency between the claimed subject matter and the specification renders the scope of the claim uncertain).
Claim 7 is also indefinite because it is unclear if “cardboard” in the limitation “all the materials are made of cardboard” refers to the “carboard” initially introduced in the claim, or to different cardboard.
Claims 8–12 are indefinite because they depend from claim 7.
Also, claim 8 recites:
8. The dehumidifier according to claim 7, wherein the tray has a basis weight of 700 g, wherein the composition and percentages of the cardboard are:
Recycled fibre: 556 g = 79.43%
Kraft fibre: 120 g = 17.14%
PE: 24 g = 3.43%. Emphasis added.
Claim 8 is indefinite because it is unclear whether the limitations of this claim are optional as it refers to “the tray” which is one of three options in claim 7 of “a removable tray or punnet or cuvette.”
Claim 8 is also indefinite because “a basis weight of 700 g” is unclear as basis weight is measured in g/m2 rather than g.
Claim 8 is further indefinite because it is unclear what cardboard is referred to by “the cardboard,” as claim 7 says that “all the materials are made of cardboard.”
Claim 9 recites:
9. The dehumidifier according to claim 7, further comprising a separable flap which can be separated from the rest of the case which covers the perforations like a seal. Emphasis added.
Claim 9 is indefinite because it is unclear whether “which covers the perforations like a seal” is optional, as claim 7 refers to “perforations or slots.”
Claim 9 is indefinite because it is unclear what “like” in the phrase “like a seal” is intended to convey. See MPEP 2173.05(b), subsection III, E (the phrase “ZSM-type aluminosilicate zeolites” was held indefinite because it was unclear what “type” was intended to convey)
Claim 10 recites:
10. The dehumidifier according to claim 9,
wherein the tray comprises a base, two end members and two longitudinal members, wherein a folding hanger is arranged on preferably one of the end members,
wherein the sheet for forming the outer case comprises a front face provided with a series of perforations, another rear face separated by lateral side, there being on the free edge of the front face a closing flap, closing over the lateral side from which there further emerges the separable flap which is provided with a closing tab. Emphasis added.
Claim 10 is indefinite because it is unclear whether the limitations describing the structure of the “tray” are optional as the tray is one of three options in claim 7 of “a removable tray or punnet or cuvette.”
Claim 10 is also indefinite because “preferably one of the end members” is exemplary claim language that leads to confusion over the intended scope of the claim. See MPEP 2173.05(d).
Claim 10 is further indefinite because “the sheet” and “the free edge” lack antecedent basis.
Claim 10 is further indefinite because it is unclear whether “a front face” and “a series of perforations” (of the outer case) refer to the “outer case provided on its front face with a series of perforations or slots” of claim 7.
Claim 11 recites:
11. The dehumidifier according to claim 9, wherein the separable flap which can be separated from the rest of the sheet of the outer case is attached by means of a perforated line. Emphasis added.
Claim 11 is indefinite because “the sheet” lacks antecedent basis.
Claim 12 recites:
12. The dehumidifier according to claim 10, wherein the closing tab can be fitted in a slot defined in the fold line defined between the front face and the lateral side. Emphasis added.
Claim 12 is indefinite because “the fold line” lacks antecedent basis.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure:
Dick et al., US 2011/0048976 A1 (a desiccant container comprising a protective sleeve that can be opened on either end by flaps, where the protective sleeve can be made of cardboard, with the protective sleeve holding a desiccant arrangement of pouches of desiccant material). See Dick Figs. 1, 5, [0062], [0076], [0090].
Magargee et al., US 2009/0056361 A1 (moisture absorbing product comprising desiccant holding compartments 30 supported by covering material 90 that can be made of cardboard). See Magargee Fig. 4, [0026], [0038].
Hoffman, US 7,348,067 B1 (a composite paperboard material comprising an inner layer 3 that can be made of recycled pulp and outer layers 5 made of unbleached virgin kraft pulp with a polyethylene film 14). See Hoffman Figs. 2, 3, col. 5, ll. 34–46, ll. 66–67.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to T. BENNETT MCKENZIE whose telephone number is (571)270-5327. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Thurs 7:30AM-6:00PM.
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.
T. BENNETT MCKENZIE
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 1776
/T. BENNETT MCKENZIE/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1776
Prosecution Insights