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 04 August 2025 are acknowledged. Claims 35-58 are pending.
Applicant’s amendments to the claims overcome each and every objection and 112(b) rejection previously presented. Amendments to the drawings overcome the objection as failing to comply with 37 CFR 1.84(p)(4), but do not overcome the objection for failing to comply with 37 CFR 1.84(p)(5). Therefore, the objection to the drawings is maintained.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, see pages 7-8 of the applicant’s response, filed 04 August 2025, with respect to the rejection of claim 35 under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) has been fully considered and is persuasive. Therefore, the rejection has been withdrawn. However, upon further consideration, a new ground of rejection is made in view of 35 U.S.C. 103 with respect to Lee in view of Heiligenmann (US 20070251549 A1).
The addition of the limitation “wherein the hydroxyl ion generator comprises a water source and a humidification system positioned below a water line of the water source” is sufficient to overcome the previously presented 102(a)(1) rejection. However, Heiligenmann teaches a hydroxyl ion generator with a water source and a humidification system positioned under the water line of the water source (Figure 1 porous member “12” introduces ozone to the water source “4” with an ultrasound nebulizer “5” under the level of water). Therefore, a combination of Lee and Heiligenmann would render the current invention obvious.
Following the above logic, the 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) rejections of claims 36-39, 41, and 48 are withdrawn, but upon further consideration, new grounds of rejections are made in view of 35 U.S.C. 103 with respect to Lee in view of Heiligenmann (US 20070251549 A1).
The 35 U.S.C. 103 rejection of claim 40 is withdrawn, but upon further consideration, a new ground of rejection is made in view of 35 U.S.C. 103 with respect to Lee in view of Heiligenmann.
The 35 U.S.C. 103 rejections of claims 42-44 and 46-47 are withdrawn, but upon further consideration, new ground of rejections are made in view of 35 U.S.C. 103 with respect to Lee and Heiligenmann in view of Eide.
The 35 U.S.C. 103 rejection of claim 45 is withdrawn, but upon further consideration, a new ground of rejection is made in view of 35 U.S.C. 103 with respect to Lee, Heiligenmann, and Eide in view of Fink.
Applicant’s arguments, see pages 7-8 of the applicant’s response, filed 04 August 2025, with respect to the rejection of claim 49 under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) has been fully considered and are persuasive. Therefore, the rejection has been withdrawn. However, upon further consideration, a new ground of rejection is made in view of 35 U.S.C. 103 with respect to Eide in view of Heiligenmann.
The addition of the limitation “wherein the hydroxyl ion generator comprises a water source and a humidification system positioned below a water line of the water source” is sufficient to overcome the previously presented 102(a)(1) rejection. However, Heiligenmann teaches a hydroxyl ion generator with a water source and a humidification system positioned under the water line of the water source (Figure 1 porous member “12” introduces ozone to the water source “4” with an ultrasound nebulizer “5” under the level of water). Therefore, a combination of Eide and Heiligenmann would render the current invention obvious.
Following the above logic, the 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) rejections of claims 50-52 and 58 are withdrawn, but upon further consideration, new grounds of rejections are made in view of 35 U.S.C. 103 with respect to Eide in view of Heiligenmann (US 20070251549 A1).
The 35 U.S.C. 103 rejections of claims 53-55 and 57 are withdrawn, but upon further consideration, new grounds of rejections are made in view of 35 U.S.C. 103 with respect to Eide in view of Heiligenmann.
The 35 U.S.C. 103 rejection of claim 56 is withdrawn, but upon further consideration, a new ground of rejection is made in view of 35 U.S.C. 103 with respect to Eide and Heiligenmann in view of Fink.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to as failing to comply with 37 CFR 1.84(p)(5) because they include the following reference character(s) not mentioned in the description: “420”. Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d), or amendment to the specification to add the reference character(s) in the description in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(b) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
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 35-41, and 48 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lee (KR 20200076163) in view of Heiligenmann (US 20070251549 A1).
Regarding claim 35, Lee teaches an apparatus comprising: a portal comprising orifices positioned on at least one of a first and/or second opposing side panel of the portal (Figure 2 entryway formed by internal sterilization space “113” with opposing side walls of partition walls “114” with orifices “125” and outer walls “115”); and a hydroxyl ion generator in communication with the portal and the plurality orifices (Figure 2 plasma generator “136”, orifices “125”, and internal sterilization space “113” are connected through first flow path “120a”, and plasma lamp creates hydroxyl radicals, paragraph [0026]), wherein the hydroxyl ions are transmitted through the orifices to emit hydroxyl ions in to the area formed by the portal (air shower nozzles are in communication with plasma generation and distribute air and ions sent through the first flow path, paragraphs [0021]-[0022]), but does not teach wherein the hydroxyl generator comprises a water source and a humidification system positioned below a water line of the water source. However, Heiligenmann teaches teach wherein the hydroxyl generator comprises a water source and a humidification system positioned below a water line of the water source (Figure 1 porous member “12” introduces ozone to the water source “4” with an ultrasound nebulizer “5” under the level of water).
Lee and Heiligenmann are considered analogous to the current invention because all are in the field of hydroxy radical sanitation devices. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to combine the sanitation device taught by Lee with the water source and humidification system taught by Heiligenmann because Heiligenmann teaches such a configuration advantageously produces a mist containing the dissolved gas directly from the nebulizing device instead of producing the gas and mist separately (paragraph [0020]).
Regarding claim 36, the combination of Lee and Heiligenmann teaches wherein a first hydroxyl ion generator is in communication with a first side of the portal (Figure 2 first plasma generator “136” is in communication with first flow path “120” with contacts first side of portal “114”, Lee).
Regarding claim 37, the combination of Lee and Heiligenmann teaches wherein a second hydroxyl ion generator is in communication with a second side of the portal (Figure 2 second plasma generator “156” is in communication with second flow path “160” which contacts second side of portal “115”, Lee).
Regarding claim 38, the combination of Lee and Heiligenmann teaches at least one fan in communication with either a first hydroxyl ion generator or a second hydroxyl ion generator (Figure 2 main blower “141” directs air through either the first plasma generator “136” or the second plasma generator “156”, Lee).
Regarding claim 39, the combination of Lee and Heiligenmann teaches a top portion of the portal in communication with the first and second opposing side panels of the portal (Figure 2 plasma generating room “132” disposed in the upper portion of the sterilization space “113” is in contact with walls “114” and “115”, Lee).
Regarding claim 40, the combination of Lee and Heiligenmann teaches wherein the top portion further comprises an orifice (Figure 2 plasma generating room “132” has an outlet “137”, Lee), wherein the hydroxyl ions can be transmitted through the top portion orifice (plasma generated airflow discharged through upper port, paragraph [0024], Lee). While the combination of Lee and Heiligenmann does not explicitly teach wherein the top portion comprises a plurality of orifices, the duplication of parts hold no patentable significance unless a new or unexpected result is produced. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to implement multiple discharge orifices to achieve hydroxyl ion distribution (See MPEP 2144.04 VI (B)).
Regarding claim 41, the combination of Lee and Heiligenmann teaches at least one fan in communication with a first hydroxyl generator (Figure 2 auxiliary fan installed with first plasma generator “136”, Lee) and at least one fan in communication with a second hydroxyl ion generator (Figure 2 main blower 141 directs air through the second plasma generator “156”, Lee).
Regarding claim 48, the combination of Lee and Heiligenmann teaches a method to disinfect a surface (performing sterilization treatment of an entrant, paragraph [0001], Lee) comprising the steps: passing an object or person through the apparatus of claim 35 (person passes through main body detected via sensor, paragraph [0040], Lee), wherein the object or person is subjected to hydroxyl ions in an amount sufficient to reduce or eliminate one or more pathogens on the surface of the object or person (when person is detected air flows through first flow path, paragraph [0011], first plasma generator is in communication with first flow path, paragraph [0021], plasma lamp distributes hydroxyl ions reacts with pollutants and toxic chemical to destroy them, paragraph [0026], Lee).
Claims 42-44 and 46-47 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lee and Heiligenmann in view of Eide (US 10279068 B2).
Regarding claim 42, the combination of Lee and Heiligenmann teaches all aspects of the current invention as discussed above, but does not teach wherein the hydroxyl ion generator comprises a perforated mesh coated with titanium dioxide and UV light generator that provides a spectrum of light from about 320 nm to about 385 nm. However, Eide teaches wherein the hydroxyl ion generator comprises a perforated mesh coated with titanium dioxide (treatment chamber includes active cell panel coated in titanium dioxide, column 20 lines 47-50, and the active cell panel can be mesh, column 24 lines 37-38) and a UV light generator (Figure 1 UV source “40”) that provides a spectrum of light from about 320 nm to about 385 nm (ultraviolet range 10-400 nm, column 1 line 54). While Eide does not explicitly teach a light spectrum of 320-385 nm, in the case of overlapping ranges a prima facie case of obviousness exists (See MPEP 2144.05 I). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to optimize the UV light spectrum to between 320-385 nm to achieve the desired level of hydroxyl radical production (See MPEP 2144.05 II (A)).
Lee, Heiligenmann, and Eide are considered analogous to the current invention because all are in the field of hydroxyl radical sanitation devices. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to combine the sanitation system taught by Lee and Heiligenmann with the hydroxyl ion generator composition taught by Eide because Eide teaches that the inclusion of the above components in the generator advantageously produces an amount of hydroxyl radicals capable of disinfecting the air and surfaces in the surrounding environment (column 6 lines 7-9).
Regarding claim 43, the combination of Lee, Heiligenmann and Eide teaches all aspects of the current invention as discussed above including wherein the water source is a continuous water source (connected to a water source associated with the building or room where the apparatus is installed, column 10 lines 24-26, Eide).
Regarding claim 44, the combination of Lee, Heiligenmann, and Eide teaches all aspects of the current invention as discussed above including wherein the water is stored in a container (water source is a water container, column 10 lines 22-23, Eide).
Regarding claim 46, the combination of Lee, Heiligenmann, and Eide teaches all aspects of the current invention as discussed above including wherein the humidification system is an ultrasonic humidification system (humidification device may be an ultrasonic humidifier, column 20 line 15, Eide).
Regarding claim 47, the combination of Lee and Heiligenmann teaches all aspects of the current invention as discussed above except a conveyer system in communication with the portal, wherein objects can be passed through the portal conveyer system. However, Eide teaches a conveyor system (Figure 2 conveyer “106”), wherein objects can be passed through the portal conveyer system (article moved through treatment chamber on conveyer, column 19 lines 45-50).
Lee, Heiligenmann, and Eide 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 combine the disinfection system taught by Lee and Heiligenmann with the conveyor system taught by Eide because Eide teaches that the conveyor advantageously allows for automated serial decontamination (column 19 lines 50-52).
Claim 45 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lee, Heiligenmann, and Eide as applied to claim 44 above, and further in view of Fink (US 20040156959 A1).
Regarding claim 45, the combination of Lee, Heiligenmann, and Eide teaches all aspects of the current invention as discussed except an attached float to regulate the level of water in the container. However, Fink teaches an attached float to regular the level of water in the container (float valve, paragraph [0068]).
Lee, Heiligenmann, Eide, and Fink are considered analogous to the current invention because all are in the field of hydroxyl radical sanitation devices. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to combine the sanitation system taught by Lee, Heiligenmann, and Eide with the float valve taught by Fink because Fink teaches that it advantageously allows for the regulation of the water reservoir (paragraph [0068]).
Claims 49-55 and 57-58 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Eide in view of Heiligenmann.
Regarding claim 49, Eide teaches an apparatus comprising: a directional air flow apparatus (Figure 1 shows an environment contamination treatment apparatus “10” with unidirectional air flow from intake “12” through output blower “45”); and a hydroxyl ion generator in communication with the directional air flow apparatus (Figure 1 UV radiation “42” interacting with photocatalytic surfaces “36” produces hydroxyl radicals in the treatment chamber of the apparatus “10”), wherein hydroxyl ions are transmitted through the directional air flow apparatus to emit the hydroxyl ions into the surrounding area (Figure 2 mixture of air and hydroxyl radicals “110” exits to surrounding space via outlet passage “112”), but does not teach wherein the hydroxyl generator comprises a water source and a humidification system positioned below a water line of the water source. However, Heiligenmann teaches teach wherein the hydroxyl generator comprises a water source and a humidification system positioned below a water line of the water source (Figure 1 porous member “12” introduces ozone to the water source “4” with an ultrasound nebulizer “5” under the level of water).
Eide and Heiligenmann are considered analogous to the current invention because all are in the field of hydroxy radical sanitation devices. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to combine the sanitation device taught by Eide with the water source and humidification system taught by Heiligenmann because Heiligenmann teaches such a configuration advantageously produces a mist containing the dissolved gas directly from the nebulizing device instead of producing the gas and mist separately (paragraph [0020]).
Regarding claim 50, the combination of Eide and Heiligenmann teaches wherein the directional air flow apparatus is a conduit, ductwork, piping or tubing (apparatus may be incorporated into an HVAC or ventilation system, column 9 lines 14-15, Eide).
Regarding claim 51, the combination of Eide and Heiligenmann teaches wherein the directional air flow apparatus is configured to disperse the hydroxyl ions into an enclosed space (discharging hydroxyl radicals into a defined area or environment, column 4 lines 27-29, Eide).
Regarding claim 52, the combination of Eide and Heiligenmann teaches at least one fan in communication with the hydroxyl ion generator (Figure 1 blower at inlet “14” and outlet “45” sides of hydroxyl ion generation chamber “32”, Eide).
Regarding claim 53, the combination of Eide and Heiligenmann teaches wherein the hydroxyl ion generator comprises a perforated mesh coated with titanium dioxide (treatment chamber includes active cell panel coated in titanium dioxide, column 20 lines 47-50, and the active cell panel can be mesh, column 24 lines 37-38, Eide) and a UV light generator (Figure 1 UV source “40”, Eide) that provides a spectrum of light from about 320 nm to about 385 nm (ultraviolet range 10-400 nm, column 1 line 54, Eide). While Eide does not explicitly teach a light spectrum of 320-385 nm, in the case of overlapping ranges a prima facie case of obviousness exists (See MPEP 2144.05 I). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to optimize the UV light spectrum to between 320-385 nm to achieve the desired level of hydroxyl radical production (See MPEP 2144.05 II (A)).
Regarding claim 54, the combination of Eide and Heiligenmann teaches wherein the water source is a continuous water source (connected to a water source associated with the building or room where the apparatus is installed, column 10 lines 24-26, Eide).
Regarding claim 55, the combination of Eide and Heiligenmann teaches wherein the water is stored in a container (water source is a water container, column 10 lines 22-23, Eide).
Regarding claim 57, the combination of Eide and Heiligenmann teaches where in the humidification system is an ultrasonic humidification system (humidification device may be an ultrasonic humidifier, column 20 line 15, Eide).
Regarding claim 58, the combination of Eide and Heiligenmann teaches a method to disinfect a surface or air space (method to reduce pathogens, abstract, Eide), comprising the steps: treating an enclosed area with the apparatus of claim 49 (apparatus discharging hydroxyl radicals into a defined area or environment, column 4 lines 27-29, Eide), wherein the enclosed area is subjected to hydroxyl ions in an amount sufficient to reduce or eliminate one or more pathogens throughout the air in the enclosed area and/or on the surface of objects within the enclosed area (reduce the level of pathogens in the closed environment, column 7 lines 17-20, and reduce the level of pathogens on the surface of an object, column 17 lines 21-23, Eide).
Claim 56 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Eide and Heiligenmann as applied to claim 55 above, and further in view of Fink.
Regarding claim 56, the combination of Eide and Heiligenmann teaches all aspects of the current invention as discussed above except an attached float to regulate the level of water in the container. However, Fink teaches an attached float to regular the level of water in the container (float valve, paragraph [0068]).
Eide, Heiligenmann, and Fink are considered analogous to the current invention because all are in the field of hydroxyl radical sanitation devices. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to combine the sanitation system taught by Eide and Heiligenmann with the float valve taught by Fink because Fink teaches that it advantageously allows for the regulation of the water reservoir (paragraph [0068]).
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 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