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 § 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.
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.
Claims 1 and 7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sakaki (US 2016/0022852) in view of Golkowski (US 2012/0277662).
Regarding claim 1, Sakaki (US 2016/0022852) discloses –
A decontamination device (title, abstract; Fig. 2 showing the device) configured to
decontaminate an air filter for particle removal (the device directs disinfectant at the circulation HEPA filter as shown in fig. 1; par. 67 discloses the decontaminating of the filter), the decontamination device comprising:
a first container configured to contain a chemical agent containing peracetic acid (there must necessarily and inherently be provided a source reading on a storage body in order to provide the atomizer with peracetic acid for implementing the disclosure of Sakaki, and the atomizer is shown in fig. 2 as having a container body and nozzle part) and
a blower configured to blow air to a gas generated by evaporation of the peracetic acid contained in a housing (diffusion fan 2 shown in fig. 2, the fan 2 being inside the work area reading on the limitation of a housing),
wherein the air filter is a high efficiency particulate air (HEPA) or ultra-low penetration air (ULPA) filter (Fig. 2 shows the HEPA filter in the inside duct),
the air filter is held by a second container and configured to be used to remove particles in the second container (the inside duct reads on the limitation of a container as it contains and holds the filter, the filter performing the function of filtering and therefore removes particles in the inside duct; furthermore this limitation is presented in the preamble and is not structurally limiting, and the device disclosed by Sakaki is well capable acting on an air filter being held by a container), and
the decontamination device is configured to
(i) release gas containing peracetic acid into the second container (pars. 71 and 78-80 describe an ultrasonic atomizer for atomizing peracetic acid and a diffusion fan for gasifying the peracetic acid to create a dry fog that is not a mist and does not wet the filter) such that
the gas reaches the air filter and
the gas is generated without heating the chemical agent containing the peracetic acid (the fog is created by atomizing the fluid and then gasifying it by blowing it with a diffusion fan; pars. 78-80), and the gas to which the air has been blown by the blower reaches the air filter (Fig. 2 shows this circulation, par. 67 discloses the gasified peracetic acid decontaminating the HEPA air filter).
Sakaki appears to be silent with regards to the blower blowing air to selectively release gas without releasing mist, but does teach there being a motivation to avoid undue humidity by the formation of droplets (see par. 97).
Golkowski (US 2012/0277662) teaches an evaporation process for a sterilizing gas that includes evaporating a liquid peracetic acid (par. 36) without heating by passing a carrier gas over a wick (par. 37), which is equivalent to the embodiment disclosed in fig. 3 of the instant application, and therefore reads on this limitation. 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 Sakaki such that the decontaminating gas is produced by blowing gas to facilitate evaporation by a wick as taught by Golkowski to arrive at the claimed invention. One would have been motivated to do so to successfully evaporate a decontaminating fluid as is known in the art without disadvantageously wetting the filter with dew as set forth by Golkowski to arrive at an improved device.
Regarding claim 7, Sakaki discloses –
A system comprising
an air filter for particle removal (Fig. 2 HEPA filter in inside duct);
a container configured to hold the air filter for particle removal (Fig. (2) shows the inside duct holding the air filter);
a decontamination device configured to decontaminate the filter (ultrasonic atomizer 2, pars. 71 and 78-80),
wherein the decontamination device is configured to
release gas containing peracetic acid into the container such that the gas reaches the air filter and
the gas is generated without heating a chemical agent containing peracetic acid (the fog is created by atomizing the fluid and then gasifying it by blowing it with a diffusion fan, which does not involve heating; pars. 78-80),
the decontamination device comprises:
a storage body configured to store the chemical agent containing peracetic acid (there must necessarily and inherently be provided a source reading on a storage body in order to provide the atomizer with peracetic acid for implementing the disclosure of Sakaki, fig. 2 shows a body and nozzle part of the atomizer); and
a blower configured to blow air to the gas generated though evaporation of peracetic acid stored in the storage body (diffusion fan 2 shown in fig. 2), and
the gas to which the air has been blown by the blower reaches the air filter (Fig. 2 shows this circulation, par. 67 discloses the gasified peracetic acid decontaminating the HEPA air filter.
Sakaki appears to be silent with regards to the blower blowing air to selectively release gas without releasing mist, but does teach there being a motivation to avoid undue humidity by the formation of droplets (see par. 97).
Golkowski (US 2012/0277662) teaches an evaporation process for a sterilizing gas that includes evaporating a liquid peracetic acid (par. 36) without heating by passing a carrier gas over a wick (par. 37), which is equivalent to the embodiment disclosed in fig. 3 of the instant application, and therefore reads on this limitation. 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 Sakaki such that the decontaminating gas is produced by blowing gas to facilitate evaporation by a wick as taught by Golkowski to arrive at the claimed invention. One would have been motivated to do so to successfully evaporate a decontaminating fluid as is known in the art without disadvantageously wetting the filter with dew as set forth by Golkowski to arrive at an improved device.
Claims 2 and 10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sakaki (US 2016/0022852) in view of Golkowski (US 2012/0277662) in view of Tollens (CA 2603547).
Regarding claim 2, Sakaki (US 2016/0022852) discloses –
A decontamination device configured to decontaminate an air filter for particle removal, the decontamination device comprising (Fig. 2 showing the device):
a housing (Fig. 2 the entirety of the cabinet forms a housing) provided with a fluid flow channel therein (the interior of the work area has fluid circulated therein and reads on the limitation of a flow channel) and an opening portion formed on the downstream side of the fluid flow channel (the opening portion at the circulation fan 4 shown in fig 2); and
a blower disposed on the flow channel (circulation fan 4),
the air filter being a high efficiency particulate air (HEPA) or ultra-low penetration air (ULPA) filter (title, abstract; Fig. 2 showing the device, the device directs disinfectant at the circulation HEPA filter as shown in fig. 1; par. 67 discloses the decontaminating of the filter),
the air filter being held by a container and configured to be used to remove particles in the container (Fig. 2 shows the HEPA filter in the inside duct), and
the decontamination device being configured to
release gas containing peracetic acid into the container such that the gas reaches the air filter and
the gas is generated without heating the chemical agent containing peracetic acid (the fog is created by atomizing the fluid and then gasifying it by blowing it with a diffusion fan; pars. 78-80).
Sakaki appears to be silent with regards to the blower blowing air to selectively release gas without releasing mist, the decontamination device including a tray and a porous member, but does teach there being a motivation to avoid undue humidity by the formation of droplets (see par. 97).
Golkowski (US 2012/0277662) teaches an evaporation process for a sterilizing gas that includes evaporating a liquid peracetic acid (par. 36) without heating by passing a carrier gas over a porous member including a wick (par. 37), which is equivalent to the embodiment disclosed in fig. 3 of the instant application, and therefore reads on this limitation. 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 Sakaki such that the decontaminating gas is produced by blowing gas to facilitate evaporation by a wick as taught by Golkowski to arrive at the claimed invention. One would have been motivated to do so to successfully evaporate a decontaminating fluid as is known in the art without disadvantageously wetting the filter with dew as set forth by Golkowski to arrive at an improved device.
Regarding the limitation specifically directed towards a tray, –
Tollens (WO 2006/113253) discloses a delivery system for volatile materials (title) including a porous member (wick 5 in fig. 1) for sucking up chemical agent out of a tray (p. 16 lines. 13-20 discloses the wick can be of any length particularly to keep the wick submerged as much as possible). 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 wick and container disclosed by Golkowski such that the container is shallow and wide such that it reads on the limitation of a tray to arrive at the claimed invention. One would have been motivated to do so in order to maximize the emission delivery of the peracetic acid to arrive at an improved device.
Regarding claim 10, Sakaki teaches –
A system comprising: an air filter for particle removal; a container configured to hold the air filter; and a decontamination device configured to decontaminate the air filter, wherein the decontamination device is configured to (i) release gas containing peracetic acid into the container such that the gas reaches the air filter wherein the gas is generated without heating a chemical agent containing peracetic acid (title, abstract; Fig. 2 showing the device, the device directs disinfectant at the circulation HEPA filter as shown in fig. 1; par. 67 discloses the decontaminating of the filter, see the rejection of claim 7 above),
a housing (Fig. 2 the entirety of the cabinet forms a housing) provided with a fluid flow channel therein (the interior of the work area has fluid circulated therein and reads on the limitation of a flow channel) and an opening portion formed on the downstream side of the fluid flow channel (the opening portion at the circulation fan 4 shown in fig 2); and
a blower disposed on the flow channel (circulation fan 4); Sakaki appears to be silent with regards to the particular features of the decontamination device.
Sakaki appears to be silent with regards to the blower blowing air to selectively release gas without releasing mist, the decontamination device including a tray and a porous member, but does teach there being a motivation to avoid undue humidity by the formation of droplets (see par. 97).
Golkowski (US 2012/0277662) teaches an evaporation process for a sterilizing gas that includes evaporating a liquid peracetic acid (par. 36) without heating by passing a carrier gas over a porous member including a wick (par. 37), which is equivalent to the embodiment disclosed in fig. 3 of the instant application, and therefore reads on this limitation. 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 Sakaki such that the decontaminating gas is produced by evaporation by blowing gas to facilitate a wick as taught by Golkowski to arrive at the claimed invention. One would have been motivated to do so to successfully evaporate a decontaminating fluid as is known in the art without disadvantageously wetting the filter with dew as set forth by Golkowski to arrive at an improved device.
Regarding the limitation specifically directed towards a tray, and assuming arguendo –
Tollens (WO2006/113253) discloses a delivery system for volatile materials (title) including a porous member (wick 5 in fig. 1) for sucking up chemical agent out of a tray (p. 16 lines. 13-20 discloses the wick can be of any length particularly to keep the wick submerged as much as possible). 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 wick and container disclosed by Golkowski such that the container is shallow and wide such that it reads on the limitation of a tray to arrive at the claimed invention. One would have been motivated to do so in order to maximize the emission delivery of the peracetic acid to arrive at an improved device.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claims 1-2, 7, and 10 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
Sakaki is no longer relied upon for teaching the argued limitation present in the claims, the newly cited Golkowski (US 2012/0277662) is relied upon as necessitated by Applicant’s amendment.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). 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 nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) 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.
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