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 .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 5/22/26 has been entered.
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 16-17 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.
Claims 16 and 17 both recite “an electronic component at least partially disposed in the interior of the enclosure” and it cannot be determined from the claim whether this electronic component is the same electronic component as the electronic component recited in claim 14 from which claims 16 and 17 depend. Therefore, the scope of the claim is indefinite. For the purpose of examination, it is interpreted that it is the same electronic component.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 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.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 14, 16-17, 19, 33, 35-36 and 38 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Lynn (US 2018/0311396).
Regarding claim 14, Lynn teaches –
A kit for retrofitting a pre-existing electronic component enclosure for microbial control of an interior of the enclosure (par. 46 the system is intended to be secured to some interior surface such as a wall 15), the enclosure including an access cover and an electronic component having a controller disposed in the interior (the enclosure is not part of the claimed invention and this is merely an intended use of the kit, one which the system 10 of Lynn is well capable of), the kit consisting of:
a switch (Fig. 1 switch 60) configured to operably couple to the electronic component and to the access cover of the enclosure or another component of the enclosure such that the switch is configured to be in a first position when the access cover is in an open position with respect to the enclosure and the switch is configured to be in a second position when the access cover is in a closed position with respect to the enclosure (the enclosure is not positively claimed as part of the invention and therefore these limitations are a manner in which the kit is intended to be used, and the switch 60 is well capable of being coupled to some door of some enclosure by some means in order to move it between the on and off position; par. 46); and
an oxidant generator (the contents of housing 12 which include the ozone gas generator 92 read on the limitation of an oxidant generator) configured to:
be positioned within the interior of the enclosure (fig. 1 shows this position within a space); generate an oxidizing agent in a gaseous state within the interior of the enclosure for the microbial control (par. 46), the oxidizing agent being adapted to contact and clean the electronic component (par. 46 ozone is generated and the housing would be in contact with it); and
be directly coupled to the switch of the kit (fig. 1 shows the switch 60 on the housing 12), wherein the switch is further configured to at least one of:
prevent operation of the oxidant generator of the kit when the switch is in the first position; or allow the oxidant generator to operate when the switch is in the second position (par. 46 describes the switch 60 as an on/off switch).
Regarding claim 16, Lynn teaches the oxidant generator of the kit is configured to receive electrical power from an electronic component at least partially disposed in the interior of the enclosure (fig. 1 shows a wall plug 63 and power cable 62 in a space from which the housing 12 receives power).
Regarding claim 17, Lynn further teaches the oxidant generator of the kit is configured to receive electrical power from a power source separate from an electronic component at least partially disposed in the interior of the enclosure (the wall socket 63 reads on this limitation).
Regarding claim 19, Lynn further teaches the oxidant generator of the kit comprises an ozone generator and wherein the oxidizing agent comprises ozone (generator 92 is an ozone gas generator, par. 46).
Regarding claim 33, Lynn teaches –
A kit for retrofitting a pre-existing electronic component enclosure for microbial control of an interior of the enclosure (Fig. 1 system 10 is mounted on wall 15 of an interior space), the enclosure including an access cover and an electronic component having a controller disposed in the interior (the enclosure is not part of the claimed invention and this is merely an intended use of the kit, one which the system 10 of Lynn is well capable of), the kit consisting of:
a switch (Fig. 1 switch 60) configured to operably couple to the electronic component and to the access cover of the enclosure or another component of the enclosure such that the switch is configured to be in a first position when the access cover is in an open position with respect to the enclosure and the switch is configured to be in a second position when the access cover is in a closed position with respect to the enclosure (the enclosure is not positively claimed as part of the invention and therefore these limitations are a manner in which the kit is intended to be used, and the switch 60 is well capable of being coupled to some door of some enclosure by some means in order to move it between the on and off position; par. 46); and
an oxidant generator (the contents of housing 12 which include the ozone gas generator 92 read on the limitation of an oxidant generator) configured to:
be positioned in and in fluid communication with the interior of the enclosure (Fig. 1 shows the system 10 in some enclosure and is well capable of being positioned within any type of enclosure);
generate an oxidizing agent in a gaseous state (par. 46);
distribute the oxidizing agent to the interior of the enclosure for the microbial control, the oxidizing agent being adapted to contact and clean the electronic component (par. 46, Fig. 1 the housing 12 would be contacted by ozone);
receive electrical power from the electronic component (The device 12 is well capable of receiving power from an electrical component within an enclosure by cable 62); and
be directly coupled to the switch of the kit, wherein the switch of the kit (Fig. 1 shows the switch 60 on the housing 12) is further configured to at least one of:
prevent operation of the oxidant generator of the kit when the switch is in the first position; or allow the oxidant generator to operate when the switch is in the second position (par. 46).
Regarding claim 35, Lynn teaches the oxidant generator of the kit is configured to receive electrical power from an electronic component at least partially disposed in the interior of the enclosure (fig. 1 shows a wall plug 63 and power cable 62 in a space from which the housing 12 receives power).
Regarding claim 36, Lynn further teaches the oxidant generator of the kit is configured to receive electrical power from a power source separate from an electronic component at least partially disposed in the interior of the enclosure (the wall socket 63 reads on this limitation).
Regarding claim 38, Lynn further teaches the oxidant generator of the kit comprises an ozone generator and wherein the oxidizing agent comprises ozone (generator 92 is an ozone gas generator, par. 46).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
Claims 14, 16-17, 19-20, 33, 35-36, and 38 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Campagna (US 2010/0266445) in view Hecht (US 2016/0029686) in view of Fry (US 3,893,843).
Regarding claim 14, Campagna (US 2010/0266445) teaches –
A kit for an electronic component enclosure for microbial control within an interior of the enclosure (Title, abstract; the assembled components of Figs. 1-4 including chamber 8), the kit including:
a switch configured to operably couple to an access cover of the enclosure or another component of the enclosure such that the switch is configured to be in a first position when the access cover is in an open position with respect to the enclosure and the switch is configured to be in a second position when the access cover is in a closed position with respect to the enclosure (claim 18, door state switch 36 in fig. 6); and an oxidant generator configured to: be positioned within an interior of the enclosure; generate an oxidizing agent in a gaseous state within the interior of the enclosure (Fig. 4 ozone lamp 4; Paragraph [0091]); and be operably coupled to the switch, wherein the switch is further configured to at least one of: prevent operation of the oxidant generator when the switch is in the first position; or allow the oxidant generator to operate when the switch is in the second position (claim 18 door switch and solenoid lock). Campagna appears to be silent with regards to the kit consisting of a switch and an oxidant generator, and the oxidant generator being directly coupled to the switch.
Regarding the limitations directed towards the kit consists only of a switch and an oxidant generator being configured to be retrofitted to an enclosure: The patentability of a product does not depend on its method of production, and if the product in a claim is the same as or obvious from a product of the prior art, the claim is unpatentable even though the prior art product was made by a different process, MPEP 2113.
Regarding the limitation directed towards a kit for retrofitting to an existing structure: Hecht (US 2016/0029686) discloses a kit for retrofitting disinfecting means to an existing structure (par. 46), providing the advantage of applying the device to existing structures in need of disinfection. Therefore it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the device disclosed by Campagna such that it is portable and separable, and retrofitable onto an existing structure as taught by Hecht such that the device can have parts separably and able to be changed out and the device can be transported in order to arrive at a device that is capable of being retrofitted or having parts retrofitted thereto to arrive at the claimed invention. One would have been motivated to do so to allow the convenient transport of the device and to allow for the replacement and servicing of broken or old parts and making a claimed device separable and portable is not sufficient to patentably distinguish over an otherwise old device unless there are new or unexpected results, MPEP 2144.04(V). Furthermore, the mere recitation that the kit is intended to be for “retrofitting” an existing enclosure does not modify the structure of the claimed apparatus sufficiently to distinguish it from the prior art device, because there is otherwise no structural difference between the claimed device and the prior art device. The components of the enclosure disclosed by Campagna in a disassembled state includes an oxidant generator and a switch capable of performing the claimed functions, and therefore Campagna discloses a group of components that consists of a switch and an oxidant generator as claimed. Separating the switch and the oxidant generator from the enclosure and defining the components as a kit, particularly when the switch and generator are as claimed applied to an enclosure including other components, does not patentably distinguish those two components from the prior art that also discloses those two components.
Regarding the limitation that the oxidant generator is directly coupled to the switch: Fry (US 3,893,843) discloses a disinfecting device comprising a door-state switch that is directly coupled to the generator (fig. 29B. tub cover 48 closes lid switch 228 which is directly coupled to electric motor 127 which operates the system including disinfectant pump 126, and the opening of switch 228 opens the circuit and prevents operation; Column 18 lines 15-18). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the device taught by Campagna such that the switch and oxidant generator are directly coupled to one another as disclosed by Fry to arrive at the claimed invention. One would have been motivated to do so to prevent the accidental operation and possible exposure of a user as desired by Campagna to arrive at an improved and safer device. The combination of familiar prior art elements according to known means to arrive at results that are nothing more than predictable is prima facie obvious. MPEP 2143(I)(A).
Regarding the limitation that the enclosure includes a controller disposed in the interior where the oxidizing agent is adapted to contact and clean the controller: The enclosure is not positively claimed and is not part of the invention. The claimed invention is directed towards a kit with a switch and an oxidant source, where the kit and oxidant source are intended to be used in such a way that they are positioned in an enclosure to perform the claimed functions. The oxidant source and switch disclosed by Campagna when made into a kit as set forth above are well capable of being implemented in an enclosure that includes a controller that is contactable with the oxidant produced by the oxidant source. Apparatus claims cover what a device is, not what a device does and a claim containing a recitation with respect to the manner in which a claimed apparatus is intended to be employed does not differentiate the claimed apparatus from a prior art apparatus if the prior art apparatus teaches all the structural limitations of the claim (see MPEP 2114, II).
Regarding claim 16, modified Campagna further teaches the oxidant generator is configured to receive electrical power from an electronic component at least partially disposed in the interior of the enclosure (Paragraph [0016] discloses an electrical connection to the ozone lamp, necessitating some electrical component located within the device).
Regarding claim 17, modified Campagna further teaches the oxidant generator is configured to receive electrical power from a power source separate from an electronic component at least partially disposed in the interior of the enclosure (wall power 48 powers the lamps and requires an electrical connection to the lamps inside the enclosure, fig. 6, see rejection of claim 16 above).
Regarding claim 19, modified Campagna further teaches the oxidant generator is an ozone generator (ozone lamp 4).
Regarding claim 20, modified Campagna further teaches the ozone source is a UV light source (ozone lamp 4, paragraph [0091]).
Regarding claim 33, Campagna teaches –
A kit for an electronic component enclosure for microbial control within an enclosure (Title abstract; Figs. 1-4 chamber 8), including: a switch configured to operably couple to an access cover of the enclosure such that the switch is configured to be in a first position when the access cover is in an open position with respect to the enclosure and the switch is configured to be in a second position when the access cover is in a closed position with respect to the enclosure (claim 18, door switch); and an oxidant generator configured to: be positioned in and in fluid communication with an interior of the enclosure; generate an oxidizing agent in a gaseous state; distribute the oxidizing agent to the interior of the enclosure (Fig. 4 ozone lamp 4; Paragraph [0091]); and be operably coupled to the switch, wherein the switch is further configured to at least one of: prevent operation of the oxidant generator when the switch is in the first position; or allow the oxidant generator to operate when the switch is in the second position (claim 18 door switch and solenoid lock). Campagna appears to be silent with regards to the kit consisting of a switch and an oxidant generator, and the oxidant generator being directly coupled to the switch.
Regarding the limitations directed towards the kit only consists of a switch and an oxidant generator being configured to be retrofitted to an enclosure: The patentability of a product does not depend on its method of production, and if the product in a claim is the same as or obvious from a product of the prior art, the claim is unpatentable even though the prior art product was made by a different process, MPEP 2113.
Regarding the limitation directed towards a kit for retrofitting to an existing structure: Hecht (US 2016/0029686) discloses a kit for retrofitting disinfecting means to an existing structure (par. 46), providing the advantage of applying the device to existing structures in need of disinfection. Therefore it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the device disclosed by Campagna such that it is portable and separable, and retrofitable onto an existing structure as taught by Hecht such that the device can have parts separably and able to be changed out and the device can be transported in order to arrive at a device that is capable of being retrofitted or having parts retrofitted thereto to arrive at the claimed invention. One would have been motivated to do so to allow the convenient transport of the device and to allow for the replacement and servicing of broken or old parts and making a claimed device separable and portable is not sufficient to patentably distinguish over an otherwise old device unless there are new or unexpected results, MPEP 2144.04(V). Furthermore, the mere recitation that the kit is intended to be for “retrofitting” an existing enclosure does not modify the structure of the claimed apparatus sufficiently to distinguish it from the prior art device, because there is otherwise no structural difference between the claimed device and the prior art device. The components of the enclosure disclosed by Campagna in a disassembled state includes an oxidant generator and a switch capable of performing the claimed functions, and therefore Campagna discloses a group of components that consists of a switch and an oxidant generator as claimed. Separating the switch and the oxidant generator from the enclosure and defining the components as a kit, particularly when the switch and generator are as claimed applied to an enclosure including other components, does not patentably distinguish those two components from the prior art that also discloses those two components.
Regarding the limitation that the oxidant generator is directly coupled to the switch: Fry (US 3,893,843) discloses a disinfecting device comprising a door-state switch that is directly coupled to the generator (fig. 29B. tub cover 48 closes lid switch 228 which is directly coupled to electric motor 127 which operates the system including disinfectant pump 126, and the opening of switch 228 opens the circuit and prevents operation; Column 18 lines 15-18). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the device taught by Campagna such that the switch and oxidant generator are directly coupled to one another as disclosed by Fry to arrive at the claimed invention. One would have been motivated to do so to prevent the accidental operation and possible exposure of a user as desired by Campagna to arrive at an improved and safer device. The combination of familiar prior art elements according to known means to arrive at results that are nothing more than predictable is prima facie obvious. MPEP 2143(I)(A).
Regarding the limitation that the enclosure includes a controller disposed in the interior where the oxidizing agent is adapted to contact and clean the controller: The enclosure is not positively claimed and is not part of the invention. The claimed invention is directed towards a kit with a switch and an oxidant source, where the kit and oxidant source are intended to be used in such a way that they are positioned in an enclosure to perform the claimed functions. The oxidant source and switch disclosed by Campagna when into a kit as set forth above are well capable of being implemented in an enclosure that includes a controller that is contactable with the oxidant produced by the oxidant source. Apparatus claims cover what a device is, not what a device does and a claim containing a recitation with respect to the manner in which a claimed apparatus is intended to be employed does not differentiate the claimed apparatus from a prior art apparatus if the prior art apparatus teaches all the structural limitations of the claim (see MPEP 2114, II).
Regarding claim 35, modified Campagna further teaches the oxidant generator is configured to receive electrical power from an electronic component at least partially disposed in the interior of the enclosure (Paragraph [0016] discloses an electrical connection to the ozone lamp, necessitating some electrical component located within the device).
Regarding claim 36, modified Campagna further teaches the oxidant generator is configured to receive electrical power from a power source separate from an electronic component at least partially disposed in the interior of the enclosure (wall power 48 powers the lamps and requires an electrical connection to the lamps inside the enclosure, fig. 6, see rejection of claim 16 above).
Regarding claim 38, Richardson further teaches the oxidant generator is an ozone generator generating ozone (Ozone lamp 4, Paragraph [0092]).
Claims 21 and 39 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Campagna (US 2010/0266445) in view of Fry (US 3,893,843) in view of Hecht (US 2016/0029686) as applied to claims 14 and 33 above and further in view of Richardson (2018/0055963).
Regarding claims 21 and 39, modified Campagna is set forth with regards to claims 14 and 33 above but appears to be silent with regards to a chlorine dioxide generator.
Richardson discloses an enclosure for microbial control (title, abstract) comprising a chlorine dioxide generator (Fig. 1 chlorite media 130 producing chlorine dioxide gas 135). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the device taught by Campagna such that chlorine dioxide is used in the sterilization process or alternatively to include the door switches taught by Campagna in the device taught by Richardson to arrive at the claimed invention. One would have been motivated to do so in order to better sterilize the work piece as desired or alternatively to successfully control the oxidant source according to the door state to arrive at a sterilization enclosure with more user control of the sterilizing function or to control the door safety function disclosed by Richardson in paragraph [0021] to arrive at an improved device. The combination of familiar prior art elements according to known means to arrive at results that are nothing more than predictable is prima facie obviousness. MPEP 2143(I)(A).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 1, 3-13, and 31-32 are allowed.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
The prior art, alone or in combination, fails to teach or fairly suggest each and every limitation of claim 1. The prior art considered to be the closest prior art is Lynn (US 2018/0311396).
Lynn teaches a microbial control system for us in a food processing environment in an enclosure (fig. 1 system 10, par. 9 discloses a walk-in cooler for food) including an enclosure that includes an electronic component (the assembly includes a timer and control means associated with the timer, see claim 1) and an oxidant generator (ozone generator 92; par. 46) where the ozone gas produced would come into contact with the electronic component (Fig. 1, par. 46 – the ozone gas would be produced and then come into contact with the housing 12). Lynn does not teach the electronic component monitors or controls a pH or chlorine level of water that is used in the food processing facility and used outside the enclosure as claimed. There would be no motivation to modify Lynn to adjust or monitor the pH or chlorine levels of water, and therefore claim 1 includes subject matter that is not disclosed or fairly suggested by the prior art and is allowed. Claims 3-13 and 31-32 are allowed for depending from the claim 1.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, filed 5/22/26, with respect to the 112(a) rejection and the 103 rejection of claim 1 and its dependents have been fully considered and are persuasive. The rejections have been withdrawn.
Applicant's arguments filed 5/22/26 with respect to independent claims 14 and 33 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant’s arguments directed towards Campagna, Hecht, and Fry are not persuasive. Applicant argues that the term “retrofitting” is more narrow that the structure that is disclosed by Campagna. Claims 14 and 33 are directed towards an apparatus and the limitation that the structure required by the claim is “for retrofitting” is merely an intended use of the structure required by the claim. The structure required by the claim is an oxidant generator that is configured to generate an oxidant and a switch that can move between two positions, and the remaining limitations of both claims 14 and 33 are limitations that describe the particular manner in which these structures are intended to be used in conjunction with an enclosure, an access door, and an electronic component – all of which are features that are not only not positively recited as being part of the claim, but are necessarily excluded from being part of the claimed invention by the transition phrase “consisting of” used in both claims 14 and 33. Campagna teaches an oxidant generator and a switch as set forth in the rejections above.
All of the structural components of the claims are taught in Campagna, and the modification to make these components retrofitable to the enclosure disclosed in Campagna or any other similar enclosure is a modification that only requires making these parts separable. Replacing or removing and then reattaching a part, such as a switch and an oxidant generator, would satisfy the use that is argued by Applicant with regards to the reference. Applicant does not articulate how the structure required by the claim differs from the structure taught by the prior art, namely Campagna. The enclosure having an access cover is not part of the claimed invention and the limitation that the kit is applied to the enclosure via retrofitting is a manner in which the kit is intended to be used.
Furthermore, Hecht teaches the utility of taking an oxidant generator and retrofitting it to an enclosure by means of a kit (par. 37, 46) further making this implementation of the structure taught by Campagna obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art.
Applicant presents no arguments directed towards Lynn (US 2018/0311396), which teaches all of the limitations of claims 14 and 33.
Claim 14 and 33, as well as their dependents, remain rejected herein.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to BRENDAN A HENSEL whose telephone number is (571)272-6615. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Thu 8:30 - 7pm;.
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, Maris Kessel can be reached at (571) 270-7698. 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.
/BRENDAN A HENSEL/Examiner, Art Unit 1758
Prosecution Insights