Office Action 1: Non-Final Rejection (2024-10-28)
Rejection types: Double Patenting

CLAIMS:
Claims

1\. A humidification system for aircrafts comprising:
a first duct configured to guide a first air stream;
a second duct configured to guide a second air stream, said second duct
comprising a humidifier for humidifying the air in the second duct;a first conduit for directing a part of the second air stream to the first duct, said first conduit comprising a first conduit inlet leading into the first duct and a first conduit outlet extending from the second duct; and
a second conduit for directing a part of the first air stream to the second duct, said
second conduit comprising a second conduit inlet leading into the second duct and a second conduit outlet extending from the first duct, wherein the first conduit outlet is arranged downstream of the humidifier, the second conduit inlet is arranged separate from the first conduit outlet and wherein the first conduit inlet is arranged separate from the second conduit outlet, wherein the first duct and the second duct each carry humidified air downstream the first conduit inlet and downstream the second conduit inlet, respectively,
when the humidification system is in use.
2\. The humidification system according to claim 1, further comprising a first guide element arranged at the second conduit outlet in the second duct for separating the air
stream coming from the second conduit from the air stream in the second conduit at least on a part of a length of the second duct.
3\. The humidification system according to claim 1, further comprising a second guide element arranged at the first conduit inlet in the first duct for separating the air
stream coming from the first conduit from the air stream in the first duct at least on a part of a length of the first duct.
4\. The humidification system according to claim 2, further comprising at least one restricting element positioned in the second duct upstream from the second conduit inlet.
5\. The humidification system according to claim 2, further comprising at least one restricting element positioned in the second duct downstream from the first conduit outlet.

6\. The humidification system according to claim 3, further comprising at least one restricting element positioned in the first duct upstream from the first conduit inlet.
7\. The humidification system according to claim 3, further comprising at least one
restricting element positioned in the first duct downstream from the second conduit outlet.
8\. The humidification system according to claim 2, wherein the first guide element is a flat guide plate.

9\. The humidification system according to claim 2, wherein the first guide element is an angled guide plate.

10\. The humidification system according to claim 3, wherein the second guide element is a flat guide plate.

11\. The humidification system according to claim 3, wherein the second guide element is an angled guide plate.

12\. The humification system according to claim 8, wherein the first guide element is
arranged parallel to the air stream in the second duct and wherein the first guide element extends over the second conduit inlet and the first conduit outlet.

13\. The humidification system according to claim 10, wherein the second guide element is arranged parallel to the air stream in the first duct and wherein the second guide
element extends over the first conduit inlet and the second conduit outlet. 5 10 15 20 25 30

OFFICE ACTION:
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 .
Information Disclosure Statement
The IDS document submitted 8/30/2023 is acknowledged and has been considered.
Drawings
The drawings submitted 8/30/2023 are acknowledged and acceptable.
Claim Objections
Claim 3 is objected to because of the following informalities: In claim 3, “a second guide element” is required.  However, indication of any second item dictates a preceding indication of a “first” corresponding item, and there is no indication of a “first guide element”.  Examiner assumes that claim 3 was intended to depend from claim 2.  Appropriate correction is required.
Double Patenting
The non-statutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A non-statutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on non-statutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA  as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a non-statutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13.
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer.
Claim 1 is rejected on the ground of non-statutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 1 of U.S. Patent No. 11,760,493.  Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the only difference between the instant claim 1 and the conflicting claim 1 is at line 11 of the instant claim 1 stating “the second conduit inlet is arranged separate from the first conduit outlet and wherein the first conduit inlet is arranged separate from the second conduit outlet”.  Note that although the language is not identical, at line 19 of claim 1 of the conflicting patent, the language “each of the first conduit, the second conduit, the first duct and the second duct are separate from one another” encompasses the instant claim 1 language since it logically teaches that the first and second conduits as well as their respective inlets and outlets, are separate from one another.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 2-13 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 the indication of allowable subject matter:  With respect to claim 2, the closest prior at fails to teach or make obvious, including all the limitations of claim 2, a first guide element arranged at the second conduit outlet in the second duct for separating the air stream coming from the second conduit from the air stream in the second conduit at least on a part of a length of the second duct.  Note that it is assumed that claim 3 was intended to depend from claim 2 as it pertains to the indication of allowable subject matter for claims 3, 7, 10, 11 and 13.
Summary/Conclusion
Claim 1 is rejected and claims 2-13 are objected to.


NEXT OFFICE ACTION: 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 .
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s response is acknowledged and appreciated.  The amendment of claim 3 has overcome the objection.  Applicant’s Terminal Disclaimer filed 1/30/2025 has been disapproved and therefore the following double patenting rejection is maintained.
Double Patenting
The non-statutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A non-statutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on non-statutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA  as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a non-statutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13.
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer.
Claim 1 is rejected on the ground of non-statutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 1 of U.S. Patent No. 11,760,493.  Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the only difference between the instant claim 1 and the conflicting claim 1 is at line 11 of the instant claim 1 stating “the second conduit inlet is arranged separate from the first conduit outlet and wherein the first conduit inlet is arranged separate from the second conduit outlet”.  Note that although the language is not identical, at line 19 of claim 1 of the conflicting patent, the language “each of the first conduit, the second conduit, the first duct and the second duct are separate from one another” encompasses the instant claim 1 language since it logically teaches that the first and second conduits as well as their respective inlets and outlets, are separate from one another.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 2-13 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 the indication of allowable subject matter:  With respect to claim 2, the closest prior at fails to teach or make obvious, including all the limitations of claim 2, a first guide element arranged at the second conduit outlet in the second duct for separating the air stream coming from the second conduit from the air stream in the second conduit at least on a part of a length of the second duct.  Note that it is assumed that claim 3 was intended to depend from claim 2 as it pertains to the indication of allowable subject matter for claims 3, 7, 10, 11 and 13.
Summary/Conclusion
Claim 1 is rejected and claims 2-13 are objected to.
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL.  Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action.  In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any extension fee pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action.  In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.

CITED REFERENCE SUMMARIES: Ref US11760493: Claims:
1. A humidification system for aircrafts comprising:
a first duct configured to guide a first air stream;
a second duct configured to guide a second air stream, said second duct comprising a humidifier for humidifying the air in the second duct;
a first conduit for directing a part of the second air stream to the first duct, said first conduit comprising a first conduit inlet leading into the first duct and a first conduit outlet extending from the second duct; and
a second conduit for directing a part of the first air stream to the second duct, said second conduit comprising a second conduit inlet leading into the second duct and a second conduit outlet extending from the first duct, wherein the first conduit outlet is arranged downstream of the humidifier, the second conduit inlet is arranged downstream of the first conduit outlet and wherein the first conduit inlet is arranged downstream of the second conduit outlet, and in which each of the first conduit, the second conduit, the first duct and the second duct are separate from one another, and wherein the first duct and the second duct each carry humidified air downstream the first conduit inlet and downstream the second conduit inlet, respectively, when the humidification system is in use.
2. The humidification system according to claim 1, further comprising an air supply duct configured to guide a supply air stream and a two-way manifold connected to the air supply duct, the first duct and the second duct, whereby the air is configured to flow from the air supply duct into the two-way manifold and then partially into the first duct and the second duct forming the first air stream and the second air stream.
3. The humidification system according to claim 1, wherein the humidifier is an adiabatic humidifier.
4. The humidification system according to claim 1, further comprising a bypass configured to bypass the humidifier on the second duct.
5. The humidification system according to claim 4, wherein the bypass comprises a controlling element.
6. The humidification system according to claim 1, wherein the first conduit and the second conduit are arranged in one duct or pipe.
7. The humidification system according to claim 1, wherein the humidifier comprises a humidifying pad for humidifying the second air stream.
8. The humidification system according to claim 1, wherein the first air stream and the second air stream comprise humidified air downstream of the first conduit inlet and the second conduit inlet, respectively.
9. The humidification system according to claim 1, wherein at least one of the first conduit or the second conduit comprises a controlling element.
10. The humidification system according to claim 1, wherein at least one of the first duct or the second duct comprises a controlling element.
11. The humidification system according to claim 1, wherein the first duct and the second duct comprise baffle elements downstream of the first conduit inlet and the second conduit inlet, respectively.
12. The humidification system according to claim 10, wherein the first duct and/or the second duct comprises at least one pressure sensor.
13. The humidification system according to claim 9, wherein the first conduit and/or the second conduit comprises at least one pressure sensor.
14. The humidification system according to claim 5, wherein the controlling element is at least one of a fan, a valve or a restrictor.
15. The humidification system according to claim 12, wherein the controlling element(s) and/or the pressure sensor(s) are connected to a control unit configured to control an environmental control system of the aircraft.
16. The humidification system according to claim 9, wherein the controlling element(s) can be any of a fan, a valve or a restrictor.
17. The humidification system of claim 10, wherein the controlling element can be any of a fan, a valve or a restrictor.
18. The humidification system of claim 13, wherein the controlling elements and/or the pressure sensor(s) are connected to a control unit configured to control an environmental control system of the aircraft.