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 Amendment
Claim amendments filed 13 March 2026 are acknowledged. Claims 1-2, 4-5, 7, 14-15, 17-18, 21, 23-25 with claims 3, 6, 8-13, 16, 19-20, and 22 being cancelled.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 13 March 2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. The newly added limitations “a second controllable vaporizer unit to controllably vaporize the second decontamination agent” and “a first sensor configured to sense a first presence and/or a first concentration of the first decontamination agent and a second sensor configured to sense a second presence and/or a second concentration of the second decontamination agent” is not sufficient to overcome the previously presented 35 U.S.C. 103 rejection with respect to Baker in view of McVey. The applicant asserts that McVey only teaches mixing both decontamination agents prior to vaporization thus requiring only one vaporizer. However, Figure 3 shows an example of an embodiment of McVey that utilizes one vaporizer “20” for the hydrogen peroxide source “22” and an atomizer “50” for the ammonia source “32”. Additionally, McVey teaches a plurality of monitors connected to the controller to control the concentration of hydrogen peroxide and ammonia (paragraph [0043]). Therefore, despite the addition of new limitations, the combination of Baker and McVey continues to render the current invention obvious.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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 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.
Claims 1-2, 4-5, 7, 14-15, 17-18, 21, and 24-25 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Baker (US 20200360552 A1) in view of McVey (US 20060205991 A1).
Regarding claim 1, Baker teaches a decontamination system (decontamination process, abstract) comprising: a controllable humidity control unit to control humidity of air within a decontamination chamber (humidity control device, paragraph [0029]); a first decontamination agent reservoir to hold a first decontamination agent (container of liquid hydrogen peroxide, paragraph [0066]); a first controllable vaporizer unit to controllably vaporize the first decontamination agent, the second decontamination agent, or both the first decontamination agent and the second decontamination agent (injecting vaporized hydrogen peroxide from an atomizer, paragraph [0051]); and controller circuitry to control the humidity control unit to maintain a selected humidity within the decontamination chamber (control assembly which is connected to the humidity control unit, paragraph [0066]), and to control the controllable vaporizer unit to provide a selected flow rate of the first decontamination agent, the second decontamination agent, or both the first decontamination agent and the second decontamination agent into the decontamination chamber (flow control devices coupled to the control assembly, paragraph [0075]); wherein the first decontamination agent is H2O2 (introducing hydrogen peroxide into the chamber, paragraph [0040]), and the controller circuitry configured to operate in a condensing H2O2 mode during which H2O2 is injected into the decontamination chamber, via the controllable vaporizer, until the decontamination chamber and any contents within the decontamination chamber reach a saturation point of H2O2, at which time H2O2 condenses onto all surfaces of the decontamination chamber and any contents therein (wet cycle technique by fogging air with H2O2 until saturation point is reached and condensation occurs, paragraph [0050]), but does not teach a second decontamination agent reservoir to hold a second decontamination agent, a second controllable vaporizer unit to controllably vaporize the second decontamination agent and a first sensor configured to sense a first presence and/or a first concentration of the first decontamination agent and a second sensor configured to sense a second presence and/or a second concentration of the second decontamination agent. However, McVey teaches a second decontamination agent reservoir to hold a second decontamination agent (Figure 1 hydrogen peroxide source “22” and ammonia gas source “32”), a second controllable vaporizer unit to controllably vaporize the second decontamination agent (Figure 3 atomizer “50” for ammonia source “32” and alternatively the alkaline solution can be vaporized, paragraph [0049]) and a first sensor configured to sense a first presence and/or a first concentration of the first decontamination agent and a second sensor configured to sense a second presence and/or a second concentration of the second decontamination agent (controller is connected with one or more monitors to monitor conditions in the treatment chamber and the controller controls the relative concentrations of hydrogen peroxide and ammonia based on the monitored conditions, paragraph [0043]).
Baker and McVey are considered analogous to the current invention because all are in the field of vapor decontamination systems. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to combine the decontamination system taught by Baker with the additional decontamination agent, vaporizer, and monitors taught by McVey because McVey teaches the addition of ammonia gas to hydrogen peroxide vapor improves the deactivation rate of biotoxins (paragraph [0052]).
Regarding claim 2, the combination of Baker and McVey teaches a controllable dehumidifier in fluid communication with the humidity control unit to dehumidify the ambient air source to a selected humidity level (dehumidify the chamber to increase moisture absorption capacity using mechanical refrigeration or heat, paragraphs [0045]-[0047], Baker); an inlet filtration unit in fluid communication with the controllable dehumidifier unit to filter the ambient air (employing a HEPA filter when introducing air into the chamber, paragraphs [0035]-[0036], Baker); and a controllable blower motor in fluid communication with the controllable dehumidifier unit to controllably draw the ambient air into the controllable dehumidifier unit and force the ambient air into the humidity control unit (air flow is generated by a fan in the chamber, paragraph [0057], Baker).
Regarding claim 4, the combination of Baker and McVey teaches user interface circuitry to enable a user to operate the system (manual control interface, paragraph [0066], Baker); and power supply circuitry to supply power to at least the humidity control unit, controllable vaporizer unit, and the controller circuitry (power source connected to perform vaporized hydrogen peroxide cleaning, paragraph [0090], Baker).
Regarding claim 5, the combination of Baker and McVey teaches a controllable pressure relief valve to maintain a selected pressure within the decontamination chamber (solenoid valve relieves pressure from atomizer, paragraph [0067], Baker); and an exhaust port filtration unit to filter air exiting the decontamination chamber through the controllable pressure relief valve (Figure 3H filter cloth “87” on air outlet, Baker).
Regarding claim 7, the combination of Baker and McVey teaches wherein the humidity control unit, controllable vaporizer unit, and the controller circuitry are packaged into a closed structure (Figure 5A vaporized hydrogen peroxide cleaning module “200”, Baker), and wherein the closed structure is portable (handle allows module to be carried and placed, paragraph [0092], Baker).
Regarding claim 14, Baker teaches a decontamination system (vaporized hydrogen peroxide cleaning module, paragraph [0092]), comprising: a decontamination chamber for sealably holding one or more items for decontamination (annular gasket sealing gasket provides seal between door and container, paragraph [0065], and one or more items placed in interior chamber of container, paragraph [0030]); and a decontamination unit comprising: a controllable humidity control unit to control humidity of air within a decontamination chamber (humidity control device, paragraph [0029]); a first decontamination agent reservoir to hold a first decontamination agent (container of liquid hydrogen peroxide, paragraph [0066]); a controllable vaporizer unit to controllably vaporize the first decontamination agent, the second decontamination agent, or both the first decontamination agent and the second decontamination agent (injecting vaporized hydrogen peroxide from an atomizer, paragraph [0051]); and controller circuitry to control the humidity control unit to maintain a selected humidity within the decontamination chamber (control assembly which is connected to the humidity control unit, paragraph [0066]), and to control the controllable vaporizer unit to provide a selected flow rate of the first decontamination agent, the second decontamination agent, or both the first decontamination agent and the second decontamination agent into the decontamination chamber (flow control devices coupled to the control assembly, paragraph [0075]); wherein the first decontamination agent is H2O2 (introducing hydrogen peroxide into the chamber, paragraph [0040]), and the controller circuitry configured to operate in a condensing H2O2 mode during which H2O2 is injected into the decontamination chamber, via the controllable vaporizer, until the decontamination chamber and any contents within the decontamination chamber reach a saturation point of H2O2, at which time H2O2 condenses onto all surfaces of the decontamination chamber and any contents therein (wet cycle technique by fogging air with H2O2 until saturation point is reached and condensation occurs, paragraph [0050]), but does not teach a second decontamination agent reservoir to hold a second decontamination agent, a second controllable vaporizer unit to controllably vaporize the second decontamination agent and a first sensor configured to sense a first presence and/or a first concentration of the first decontamination agent and a second sensor configured to sense a second presence and/or a second concentration of the second decontamination agent and controller circuitry to control second controllable vaporizer unit. However, McVey teaches a second decontamination agent reservoir to hold a second decontamination agent (Figure 1 hydrogen peroxide source “22” and ammonia gas source “32”), a second controllable vaporizer unit to controllably vaporize the second decontamination agent (Figure 3 atomizer “50” for ammonia source “32” and alternatively the alkaline solution can be vaporized, paragraph [0049]) and a first sensor configured to sense a first presence and/or a first concentration of the first decontamination agent and a second sensor configured to sense a second presence and/or a second concentration of the second decontamination agent (controller is connected with one or more monitors to monitor conditions in the treatment chamber and the controller controls the relative concentrations of hydrogen peroxide and ammonia based on the monitored conditions, paragraph [0043]) and controller circuitry to control second controllable vaporizer unit (controller controls the concentrations of hydrogen peroxide and ammonia, paragraph [0043])..
Baker and McVey are considered analogous to the current invention because all are in the field of vapor decontamination systems. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to combine the decontamination system taught by Baker with the additional decontamination agent, vaporizer, and monitors taught by McVey because McVey teaches the addition of ammonia gas to hydrogen peroxide vapor improves the deactivation rate of biotoxins (paragraph [0052]).
Regarding claim 15, the combination of Baker and McVey teaches a controllable dehumidifier in fluid communication with the humidity control unit to dehumidify the ambient air source to a selected humidity level dehumidify the chamber to increase moisture absorption capacity using mechanical refrigeration or heat, paragraphs [0045]-[0047], Baker); an inlet filtration unit in fluid communication with the controllable dehumidifier unit to filter the ambient air (employing a HEPA filter when introducing air into the chamber, paragraphs [0035]-[0036], Baker); and a controllable blower motor in fluid communication with the controllable dehumidifier unit to controllably draw the ambient air into the controllable dehumidifier unit and force the ambient air into the humidity control unit (air flow is generated by a fan in the chamber, paragraph [0057], Baker).
Regarding claim 17, the combination of Baker and McVey teaches user interface circuitry to enable a user to operate the system (manual control interface, paragraph [0066], Baker); and power supply circuitry to supply power to at least the humidity control unit, controllable vaporizer unit, and the controller circuitry (power source connected to perform vaporized hydrogen peroxide cleaning, paragraph [0090], Baker).
Regarding claim 18, the combination of Baker and McVey teaches a controllable pressure relief valve to maintain a selected pressure within the decontamination chamber (solenoid valve relieves pressure from atomizer, paragraph [0067], Baker); and an exhaust port filtration unit to filter air exiting the decontamination chamber through the controllable pressure relief valve (Figure 3H filter cloth “87” on air outlet, Baker).
Regarding claim 21, the combination of Baker and McVey teaches all aspects of the current invention as discussed above including a first controllable pump coupled to the first decontamination agent reservoir wherein: the first controllable pump configured to control the flow of the first decontamination agent into the decontamination chamber (system includes a pump in fluid communication between hydrogen peroxide container and chamber, paragraph [0081]), but does not teach a second controllable pump coupled to the second decontamination agent reservoir wherein the second controllable pump configured to control the flow of the second decontamination agent into the decontamination chamber. However, McVey further teaches teach a second controllable pump coupled to the second decontamination agent reservoir wherein the second controllable pump configured to control the flow of the second decontamination agent into the decontamination chamber (control means for controls the rate of supplying the ammonia gas, paragraph [0041]).
Baker and McVey are considered analogous to the current invention as discussed above. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to further modify the decontamination system taught by Baker and McVey with the additional flow control taught by McVey because McVey teaches the control means advantageously allows for the control the ratio of hydrogen peroxide mixed with ammonia gas (paragraph [0043]).
Regarding claim 22, the combination of Baker and McVey teaches all aspects of the current invention including a controllable mixing valve, the mixing valve configured to control a mixture of the first decontamination agent and the second decontamination agent and/or control a flow volume of the first decontamination agent, the second decontamination agent, or both the first decontamination agent and the second decontamination agent (regulator valve controls the amount of ammonia vapor supplied, paragraph [0041]).
Regarding claim 24, the combination of Baker and McVey teaches all aspects of the current invention including wherein the controllable vaporizer unit configured to vaporize one or more decontamination agents by mixing heated air from an air heater unit with the one or more decontamination agents to form suspended droplets of decontamination agents (fan directs air through the atomizer to inject vaporized hydrogen peroxide into the air, paragraph [0072], and temperature control device to adjust the temperature of the air, paragraph [0029], Baker).
Regarding claim 25, the combination of Baker and McVey teaches all aspects of the current invention including wherein the first decontamination agent and the second decontamination agent each include at least one of high concentration peroxide, low concentration peroxide, 4% aqueous ammonium hydroxide, and/or anhydrous ammonia (hydrogen peroxide in a concentration from 25% to 45%, paragraph [0066], Baker, and ammonia gas, abstract, McVey).
Claim 23 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Baker and McVey in view of Zhang (CN 109550180 A).
Regarding claim 23, the combination of Baker and McVey teaches a first and second controllable pump (see rejection of claim 1). However, neither teaches wherein the pump is configured to reverse a flow of the decontamination agent back into the decontamination agent reservoir. However, Zhang teaches wherein the pump is configured to reverse a flow of the decontamination agent back into the decontamination agent reservoir (reagent pump flows back into the first reagent container, paragraph [0018]).
Baker, McVey, and Zhang are considered analogous to the current invention because all are in the field of vapor decontamination systems. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to combine the decontamination system taught by Baker and McVey with the reversable pumps taught by Zhang because Zhang teaches the reverse operation of the pump is advantageously part of the sequence to purify any residual reagent from the disinfection space (paragraphs [0018]-[0019]). Zhang teaches this purification reduces secondary pollution and corrosion (paragraph [0030]).
Conclusion
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 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 KAYLA ROSE SARANTAKOS whose telephone number is (703)756-5524. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri 7:00-4:00.
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, Michael Marcheschi can be reached at (571) 272-1374. 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.
/K.R.S./Examiner, Art Unit 1799
/DONALD R SPAMER/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1799
Prosecution Insights