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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 11/21/25 has been entered.
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.
Claims 1 and 7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Sakaki (US 2016/0022852).
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
(ii) prevent release of mist containing peracetic acid into the second container (pars. 64, 67, and 90 disclose the size of the peracetic acid gasified by the ultrasonic atomizer constitute a dry fog, which is distinct from a mist in that is does not wet the filter, particularly the mist is not released inside the inside duct as shown in fig. 2),
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).
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
prevent release of mist containing peracetic acid into the container (pars. 64, 67, and 90 disclose the size of the peracetic acid gasified by the ultrasonic atomizer constitute a dry fog which is distinct from a mist in that it does not wet the filter, the mist being produced outside the inside duct which reads on the container),
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.
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 2 and 10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sakaki (US 2016/0022852) in view of Golkowski (WO 2019/084203) 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
(ii) prevent release mist containing peracetic acid into the container (pars. 64, 67, and 90 disclose the size of the peracetic acid gasified by the ultrasonic atomizer constitute a dry fog, which is distinct from a mist in that is does not wet the filter, particularly the mist is not released inside the inside duct as shown in fig. 2, par. 67 disclosing the gas reaches the filter), wherein
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 particular features of the decontamination device including a tray and a porous member.
Golkowski discloses a decontamination device including a tray containing the chemical agent containing peracetic acid (pars. 188, 320 Fig. 1C shows the basin in the bottom of evaporator 32a holding the fluid, the fluid including peracetic acid, the bottom reading on the limitation of a tray); a porous member configured to suck up the chemical agent in the tray by capillary action (par. 189 discloses the evaporator includes a wick for wicking up the agent in the tray, the wick resting in a pool of the disinfectant). 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 decontamination device includes a tray, and a porous member such that the porous member is disposed in the work area of Sakaki in order to arrive at the claimed invention. One would have been motivated to do so to successfully evaporate the peracetic acid according to known-effective means to arrive at an improved disinfecting device. The simple substitution of one known element for the same purpose as another, like wicks for evaporating and atomizers for gasifying chemical decontaminates, to arrive at results that are nothing more than predictable is prima facie obvious. MPEP 2143(I)(B).
Regarding the limitation specifically directed towards a tray, and assuming arguendo –
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 and (ii) prevent release mist containing peracetic acid into the container, 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 particular features of the decontamination device.
Golkowski discloses a decontamination device including a tray containing the chemical agent containing peracetic acid (pars. 188, 320 Fig. 1C shows the basin in the bottom of evaporator 32a holding the fluid, the fluid including peracetic acid, the bottom reading on the limitation of a tray); a porous member configured to suck up the chemical agent in the tray by capillary action (par. 189 discloses the evaporator includes a wick for wicking up the agent in the tray, the wick resting in a pool of the disinfectant). 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 decontamination device includes a tray, and a porous member such that the porous member is disposed in the work area of Sakaki in order to arrive at the claimed invention. One would have been motivated to do so to successfully evaporate the peracetic acid according to known-effective means to arrive at an improved disinfecting device. The simple substitution of one known element for the same purpose as another, like wicks for evaporating and atomizers for gasifying chemical decontaminates, to arrive at results that are nothing more than predictable is prima facie obvious. MPEP 2143(I)(B).
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 filed 11/21/25 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues that the device disclosed by Sakaki fails to teach or fairly suggest the limitation presented in each independent claim reciting “prevent[ing] release of mist containing peracetic acid into the second container”, which is not persuasive. Par. 24 of Sakaki specifically discloses the interior of the cabinet being decontaminated by the gasification of the droplets, which would result in the presence of gas and not droplets in the stream, or at least would satisfy the limitation of being “configured to” prevent release of mist into the second container as claimed. The claims lack any specific structure for performing the claimed function of preventing release of mist into the second container, and the prior art reference discloses the claimed structure. There is no evidence presented that would suggest that Sakaki would not reasonably gasify the peracetic acid resulting in a substantial reduction of the presence of mist in the stream. Pars. 90-91 specifically state the dry fog is gasified by the diffusion fan (not the circulation fan as argued by Applicant on page 7), which would in turn prevent the stream from containing mist as claimed. A recitation of the intended use of the claimed invention, like the device being configured to prevent release of mist, must result in a structural difference between the claimed invention and the prior art in order to patentably distinguish the claimed invention from the prior art. If the prior art structure is capable of performing the intended use, then it meets the claim.
Applicant has failed to identify any structural differences present in the claim and has failed to specifically reason how a dry fog that is gasified as taught by Sakaki reads on the limitation of a “mist”, that would be excluded by the claim. The prior art device further is explained in par. 97 as not distributing mist in the preferred embodiment, and teaches away from damp conditions, which is not different from the claimed function but is indeed the same. Applicant’s arguments directed towards claims 1-2, 7, and 10, are therefore not persuasive.
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