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/Arguments
The Amendment filed 8/26/2025 has been entered. Claims 10-15 remain pending on the application. Applicant’s amendments to the Specification and the Claims have overcome each and every 112(b) rejection to the Claims previously set forth in the Non-Final Office Action mailed 5/19/2025.
Applicant argues:
The Burgin Swiss patent describes a system that as used for the cleaning the engine for cleaning the interior surfaces of large boilers or furnaces. In this system, explosive gases are mixed at the end of a lance and detonated to remove surface contaminants. There is no "liquid spraying mechanism". The Burgin patent only uses gas as opposed to the "decontamination liquid" of the present invention. Additionally, this the Burgin Swiss patent lacks any sensor-based control unit or software-driven control board.
The La Porte publication, on the other hand, was developed for an entirely different purpose. The La Porte publication is an UV sterilization system designed for disinfecting the interior of small devices, such as mobile phones. If the ultraviolet light source fails, and auxiliary light source can reactivate it. The system also includes temperature sensors and a software-controlled circuit to monitor the functionality of the light source. Fundamentally, the La Porte publication describes a low-energy consumer-grade device designed for household disinfection.
The present invention, as now claimed, is fundamentally different from the prior art combination of the Burgin Swiss patent and the La Porte publication. The present invention is certainly more advanced than these rather simple prior art references. The goal of the present invention is to rapidly spray decontamination liquid within seconds in the case of a CBRN (Chemical Biological Radiological Nuclear) attack on military vehicles for critical infrastructure. The system can operate manually or automatically. The present invention utilizes pressurized tubes that are activated by pyrotechnic igniters. The entire process associated with the present invention is managed through a software-integrated control board that communicates with various sensors. The present invention also includes a "backup decontamination tube" in order to ensure redundancy. As such, the purpose, function and result of the present invention is entirely different from the prior art references. Applicant respectfully contends of the person having ordinary skill in the art would not derive the present invention from a reading of the information provided in the Burgin Swiss patent and in the La Porte publication.
Having printed circuit boards in order to enable the functionality of a control unit is a common feature for control units in general, since control units necessarily require some computer-readable medium with software in order to function. In turn, control units are generally used for any device that requires autonomous functionality. The purpose, functionality, and general result of having a control unit with a printed circuit board in La Porte is largely the same as in Burgin for these reasons. Thus, La Porte still counts as analogous art in the field of sterilization via an autonomous device and the reasoning for this modification is readily obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art.
The Zhuo Chinese patent describes a gas control system designed to continuously supply carbon dioxide to cell culture boxes. This system includes a main carbon dioxide cylinder and a backup cylinder. If the pressure in the main cylinder drops below a threshold, a pressure switch triggers an electromagnetic valve to automatically switch the flow to the backup cylinder. At the same time, a warning light will inform the user of the switch. The purpose of the Zhuo Chinese patent is to ensure uninterrupted carbon dioxide flow in the culture environment. The Zhuo Chinese patent was particularly recited in the rejection of claim 2 (now incorporated into independent claim 10).
Applicant respectfully contends that the present invention, as defined by claim 10, is certainly more advanced than the prior art combination of the Burgin Swiss patent, the La Porte publication and the Zhuo Chinese patent. The present invention includes the "secondary decontamination tube" (i.e. a backup). This is not a mere duplication of parts. The present invention operates in CBRN-threatened environments, such as military vehicles or critical infrastructure. As such, it is available in those situations where every second counts. If the first tube fails or is insufficient, the backup tube is immediately activated to ensure a second decontamination cycle. This not only enhances system safety but also prevents mission failure.
In contrast, the system of the Zhuo Chinese patent merely switches to a backup carbon dioxide tank when pressure drops. This involves a delay while only activating a warning light. In the present invention, the transition is automatic, instantaneous and mission-critical. Furthermore, the system of the present invention is managed by software-control card. This offers not only redundancy but a software-backed solution for operational continuity and safety.
There is a prima facie case of obviousness when the duplication of parts is performed for an expected result; in this case, having redundancy would count as an expected result of duplicating a feature. Moreover, Zhuo teaches having a backup cylinder/tube for the same reason as that of the instant invention, which is to provide a backup. The specific differences in automated functionality relate to the backup may be different, but this supposed difference is not recited in the claim language itself. In particular regards to this supposed difference, there is no indication of a delay but rather Zhuo specifically teaches that there is no interruption in the gas supply (pg. 2 last par.: when the pressure of the gas main supply cylinder pressure switch less than the set pressure, the pressure switch to start the electromagnetic valve is switched to the spare supply cartridge supply, so there is no supply interruption problem of carbon dioxide gas).
The Prentice publication was recited in further rejection of original claim 3 (now incorporated into independent claim 10). The Prentice publication describes a multi-stage energy generation system that produces superheated or dry saturated steam by controlled combustion of various fuels. The system includes multiple combustion chambers and water pipes wrapped with heat exchangers. As the fuel bums, a high-purity stream is generated and used for purposes, such as electricity generation. Pressure sensors are included in the combustion chambers in order to maintain safety and efficiency.
In the Official Action, the rejection of original claim 3 was based upon the assumption that the pressure indicator in the present invention could be "easily derived" from the references such as the Burgin Swiss patent and the Prentice publication. This conclusion overlooks the distinct operational function and purpose of the pressure indicator in the present invention.
Specifically, in the Burgin Swiss patent, there is a pressure indicator, but is used prior to the gas discharge. It is used merely to check whether the internal pressure of the tank has reached a predetermined threshold. In other words, the sensor is designed to ensure that the system is ready to detonate. In contrast, the pressure indicator in the present invention is directly integrated into the decontamination tube and serves multiple functions. First, the pressure indicator monitors the pressure prior to operation. Secondly, it provides feedback after discharge regarding the status and adequacy of the tube for future use.
The Prentice publication is in the field of a multi-stage combustion-based steam generation system. The pressure sensors are installed to monitor combustion chamber safety and performance. This is a completely different application than that of the present invention.
None of the prior art references to the Burgin Swiss patent, the La Porte publication, the Zhuo Chinese patent and the Prentice publication includes a pressure monitoring mechanism that is linked to a tube-based, pyrotechnically activated, software-integrated decontamination system as in the present invention. The pressure indicator in the present invention not only enhances safety, but also contributes directly to post-operation analysis and redundancy decision-making (e.g. triggering the backup decontamination tube if required). This is not a mere sensor addition, but a critical component of an integrated mission-controlled architecture. As such, Applicant respectfully contends that the present invention is different in structure, function, and results achieved from the combination of the prior art references.
Burgin already generally teaches that its process is a pressure sensitive process, such that there is a general motivation to monitor the pressure of its process. Prentice provides a motivation to have a pressure sensor in order to monitor the pressure in a combustion chamber for safety and performance; Burgin’s outer gas-receiving tube 7 is basically a combustion chamber since it receives gas and is connected to an igniter 13 (Fig. 1) and thus would have a similar need for a pressure sensor in order to monitor safety and performance.
With respect to the dependent claims, the Tartynov Russian patent was recited in combination with the other prior art references for the rejection of previous dependent claim 4 (now dependent claim 11). The Tartynov Russian patent describes a device that operates with pyrotechnic cartridges to produce cold, pure nitrogen gas. The system contains a combustion chamber with nitrogen-generated pyrotechnic materials. During combustion, high pressures and temperatures generate gas. This is then passed through a filter-cooling system for purification. The device of the Tartynov Russian patent also features a membrane structure that ruptures when the internal pressure reaches a certain level. This allows the gas to be released. The membrane functions has a passive pressure relief valve. Applicant respectfully contends that this membrane is quite different than the membrane described and claimed in previous dependent claim 4 (now dependent claim 11).
Specifically, in the Burgin Swiss patent, the membrane is not used for spraying gas, but merely for balancing internal pressure between compartments. It is not a control element, but a structural component for volume compensation. In the Tartynov Russian patent, the membrane is not actively controlled. It simply bursts when the pressure exceeds a certain threshold. This releases gas in a passive and uncontrolled manner. In contrast, the membrane described in claim 4 (now claim 11) as triggered by the pyrotechnic lighter that is activated by control board. In other words, the membrane in the present invention does not rupture due to a rising pressure, but rather at a precisely-determined moment that is determined according to software-controlled logic in order to allow for synchronized discharge. This distinction is crucial since in CBRN-threatened environments, the timing of decontamination is critical. The present invention is active, controlled and coordinated (not passive or pressure-triggered). As such, the present invention ensures mission-critical synchronization and precision.
Claim 11 simply recites that the membrane opens with the ignition from the pyrotechnic igniter, which is interpreted to mean that the ignition causes the membrane to open, which Tartynov teaches since the ignition causes the pressure to increase and thus open the membrane.
Claim 5 was rejected based upon the combination of the Burgin Swiss patent in view of the La Porte publication and further in view of the Rado publication. The Rado publication describes a vaporizer device designed for home use. The vaporizer device vaporizes essential oils or waxes. As such, it cannot operate in a manual mode or in automatic mode. The manual mode functions as long as the user presses a button. In the automatic mode, the system operates for a preset duration.
It is important to note that the present invention includes both manual operating modes and automatic operating modes. However, the context and purpose of these manual operating modes and automatic modes of the present invention are entirely different than that described in the Rado patent. The present invention is designed for emergency decontamination response to CBRN threats, not for user comfort. As such, the present invention is dealing with a military-space or public-safety-grade system which discharges a liquid under high-pressure and is activated by a pyrotechnic igniter. The mode indicator serves a mission-critical safety and operational control purpose. The ability to know which mode is active is essential since the system operates under pressure and uses pyrotechnic cartridges. In contrast, the mode indicator in the Rado publication is merely for user convenience. In other words, it helps to set the vaporization time. As such, Applicant respectfully contends that dependent claim 12 (reflecting limitations of dependent claim 5) is patentably distinguishable from the prior art combination.
The reason for making modifications to the primary art does not need to be the exact same as the reason for having the corresponding feature in the instant invention. In this case, the shared reason is that the indicator lights are to indicate the modes for the user’s convenience, and mission-critical safety and operational control purpose would fall into such a category. Setting the vaporization time would also be a matter of operational control purpose. The context of use for the instant invention is at best, intended use, and so long as the apparatus of the prior art is capable of performing the intended use, the prior art would read on the instant claim limitations. In this case, the prior art device would be perfectly capable of being used in a public-safety-grade system to clean a space.
Dependent claim 6 was rejected based upon the combination of the Burgin Swiss patent in view of the La Porte publication and the Liu Chinese patent. The Liu Chinese patent describes a device that sterilizes using pressurized steam. The system has its own steam generator which heats water via a gas burner located therebelow. Steam is then delivered to a sterilization chamber. The device includes an external analog pressure gauge (manometer) which allows users to monitor pressure manually. There is also a basic control box. There is no advanced software integration or mode-switching logic. In the Official Action, it was argued that the pressure gauge of the Liu Chinese patent showed the pressure indicator of the present invention. Applicant respectfully disagrees.
In the present invention, as defined by independent claim 13 (including the limitations of previous dependent claim 6), the pressure indicator is not merely a gauge, it is fully integrated into the control board. It works with embedded software to not only show real-time pressure data, but also to provide critical operational information such as the manual/automatic mode, the tube filled status, error messages, and more. The system can even automatically deactivate under certain conditions because of its smart logic.
In contrast, the pressure gauge of the Liu Chinese patent is a passive analog element. It simply displays the current pressure and has no interaction with the system's control mechanism. It does not contribute to operational decision-making. It does not interface with a software system, nor does it does it enhance safety through active feedback. As such, Applicant respectfully contends that the combination of the Liu Chinese patent, along with the other prior art references, fails to show the structure, function, and results achieved by the present invention, as defined by dependent claim 13 herein.
Burgin already has a pressure sensor connected to its controller and as such, any modification to add a pressure display element would also connect to the controller and its software in order to receive active feedback information from the pressure sensor, unless the pressure sensor is disconnected from the controller first and then reconnected to the display element, which would not be obvious. Liu teaches a pressure display element and a control box, but does not teach that the pressure display element is a passive analog element. Additionally, Burgin’s process is pressure sensitive, providing a motivation to display the pressure to a user in order to make sure the process is functioning correctly. Therefore, the modification by Liu to add a pressure gauge that connects to the controller would still be obvious and read on the claim limitation. Whether or not the pressure display element contributes to operational decision-making is irrelevant since the pressure sensor itself is what contributes to operational decision-making via the controller and the display element is simply for the user. Neither does the claim recite that the pressure indicator must contribute to operational decision-making.
Claim 8 was rejected based upon the combination of the Burgin Swiss patent in view of the La Porte publication, and further in view of the Yang international publication. Claim 8 is now presented in dependent claim 15 herein. The Yang international publication describes a portable UV sterilization device that is designed as a case or box that sterilizes small personal items (such as mobile phones or watches) using UV-C light. The device includes two main parts, one part holds the item to be sterilized and the other part houses the UV-C LED light source. There is also an expandable/flexible structure connecting these component compartments. The device includes a power button which also serves as a status indicator. Through this button, users can power the device on-or-off and receive status updates, such as operational mode or battery condition via an LED light. Applicant respectfully contends that the power status/power indicator in the present invention is not a simple LED or passive indicator. It is an intelligent control interface that is tightly integrated with the system's embedded software. It not only shows the operational status, but also manages critical functions such as switching between manual and automatic modes, starting and stopping of the entire system, and providing diagnostics and feedback relative to high-pressure, pyrotechnically-activated operation. This power/status component is part of an active control architecture which serves a mission-critical role in CBRN decontamination scenarios. In contrast, the indicator in the Yang international publication is merely a passive LED that provides visual feedback only. It has no embedded intelligence, no decision-making capability and does not interact with control logic to manage hazardous operations. On this basis, Applicant respectfully contends that dependent claim 15 herein is patentably distinguishable from the prior art combination.
Claim 15 currently does not recite any of the features that Applicant uses to distinguish the instant invention’s power indicator over that of La Porte’s. It merely recites a power indicator that indicates an operation status of the system, which La Porte teaches.
Based upon the foregoing analysis, Applicant contends that independent claim 16 is now in proper condition for allowance. Additionally, those claims which are dependent upon independent claim 16 should also be in condition for allowance. Reconsideration of the rejections and allowance of the claims at an early date is earnestly solicited. Since no new claims have been added above those originally paid for, no additional fee is required.
Independent claim 16 is not found in the amended claim set filed 8/26/2025.
Claim Objections
Claim 11 is objected to because of the following informalities:
In line 4, “discharging of the liquid” should be amended to “capable of discharging the liquid” or “discharging the liquid”. Appropriate correction is required.
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 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.
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 10 and 14 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Burgin (CH 709242 A1) in view of La Porte (US 20210128762 A1) and Zhuo (CN 2212591 Y) and Prentice (US 20060053791 A1).
Regarding claim 10, Burgin teaches A system that is activatable for instantaneous cleaning of a cylindrical pressure tube when encountering a chemical, biological, radiological, or nuclear (CBRN) threat, the system comprising:
- decontamination liquid adapted to clean the CBRN threat (abstract: The invention relates to a method and a cleaning device (1) for removing deposits in interior spaces (54) of containers; pg. 6 par. 2: On the other hand, the gaseous component in the pressure vessel may be underpressure in liquid form or partially in liquid form);
a decontamination tube that discharges said decontamination liquid (Fig. 1: gas collecting tube 7; pg. 11 par. 2: At the cleaning-side end section 4, the supply channel 11 has outlet openings 31 for the explosive mixture. Furthermore, a container casing 29 is attached to the cleaning-side end section 4. The container shell 29 can be filled via the supply channel 11 and the outlet openings 31 with the explosive gaseous mixture provided in the cleaning lance 2; NOTE since the explosive mixture passes through openings 31, the tube must be capable of discharging the decontamination gas);
a pyrotechnic igniter for igniting a pyrotechnic in order to ignite said decontamination tube (Fig. 1: ignition device 13; pg. 7 par. 6: by electrically triggered spark ignition, by auxiliary flames or by pyrotechnic ignition).
a control unit that provides a manual operation or an automatic operation of the system, said control unit being cooperative with said decontamination tube and with said pyrotechnic igniter (pg. 7 par. 5: The explosive, gaseous mixture is ignited in particular by means of the control device via the ignition device); but does not teach and
a control card interactive with and positioned on said control unit, said control card having a printed circuit board with embedded software so as to control said control unit.
La Porte teaches a sterilization chamber (abstract: A sanitization device comprises primary emitters configured to emit sanitizing electro-optical (EO) radiation into an interior compartment; Fig. 3). La Porte teaches wherein a controller can be implemented as software on hardware in the form of printed circuit boards (par. 23: Portions of the control componentry 112 may be embodied as computer-readable instructions stored on non-transitory storage (not shown in FIG. 1A to avoid obscuring details of the illustrated embodiments). Alternatively, or in addition, portions of the control componentry 112 may be embodied as hardware components, as disclosed herein such as circuitry, an Application-Specific Integrated Circuit (ASIC), a package, a die, a chip, a system-on-chip (Soc), a printed circuit board (PCB), and/or the like).
It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the control device of Burgin to comprise a PCB with software on it, as taught by La Porte, in order to materially implement the control componentry.
Burgin modified by La Porte does not teach a redundant decontamination tube connected to said control unit so as to provide a secondary cleaning of the cylindrical pressure tube.
However, absent a showing of significant or unexpected results, the duplication of the decontamination tube and other parts of the system that connect with the decontamination tube is prima facie obviousness and does not further modify the operation of the invention, and further does not add patentable significance. The Manual of Patent Examining Procedures discloses that in In re Harza, 274, F.2d 669, 124 USPQ 378 (CCPA 1960), a mere duplication of parts for a multiplied effect has no patentable significance unless a new and unexpected result is produced. In this case, the expected result is providing greater reliability and/or providing greater sterilization, such that the duplication of the decontamination tube and other components that connect with it does not create a patentable distinction over the reference of Burgin.
Furthermore, there is prior art that teaches having a redundant gas vessel. Zhuo teaches a gas supply device (abstract: The utility model relates to a carbon dioxide gas supply control device of the cell culturing tank, and it can realize uninterrupted gas supply and full use of gas in the gas cylinder). Zhuo teaches having a backup gas cartridge and an indicator for indicating that the backup gas cartridge is in use (abstract: a spare supply cartridge… with a warning light indicating backup supply cartridge gas supply state). This would be useful for allowing replacement of parts (pg. 3 par. 1: and a warning lamp to display the main supply tube and spare supply cartridge, visually striking, can remind the worker timely changing the supply cylinders).
Therefore, it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the device of Burgin modified by La Porte to have a duplicate decontamination tube and parts connected to the decontamination tube along with a warning light indicating whether the duplicate tube is being used, with a reasonable expectation that the backup tube provides increased reliability in case the main tube does not function, and the warning light notifies a user to attend to the nonfunctioning tube.
but does not teach a pressure indicator in said decontamination tube, said pressure indicator sensing pressure in said decontamination tube, said pressure indicator being in communication with said control unit so as to provide pressure information prior to the discharge from said decontamination tube and to provide feedback following discharge.
Burgin already teaches a pressure sensor located in its pressure vessel 21 that indicates the pressure to the controller in order to make sure that the desired pressure is achieved before releasing the cleaning gas (pg. 3 2nd last par.: The control device, which is designed to control the at least one metering device as a function of pressure readings in the pressure vessel detected by at least one pressure sensor, such that the control device is capable of introducing the at least one gaseous component from the at least one pressure vessel into the pressure vessel End cleaning device when the measured pressure in the pressure vessel corresponds to a desired residual pressure, which is in an overpressure range, or - Include a mechanical means for reducing the storage space in the pressure vessel during the introduction of the at least one gaseous component in the cleaning device).
Prentice teaches an apparatus for generating a gaseous substance (abstract: The invention provides processes and apparatuses for safely, rapidly, cost-effectively and efficiently producing a superheated steam product or dry saturated steam product) involving ignition of a gas by a pyrotechnic igniter (Fig. 1: combustion chambers; par. 473: Igniters that may be employed in the processes and apparatuses of the invention, with or without the use of catalysts, and that may be built into, mounted to or otherwise attached to, the apparatuses of the invention, include, but are not limited to: (a) pyrotechnic igniters (electrically initiated slow-burning pyrotechnic torches that typically have a burn duration in the range of from about 2 to about 10 seconds)). Prentice teaches a pressure sensor for regulating the pressure in the combustion chambers (par. 568: pressure sensing means (for regulating the pressures in each of the combustion chambers and/or areas, and in other locations of the apparatuses). The gas collecting tube 7 is likened to the combustion chambers of Prentice since gases are ignited in the gas collecting tube 7. Therefore, there is the same motivation to have a pressure sensor there in order to regulate the pressure, similar to Burgin’s preexisting motivation of having a pressure sensor connected to the controller to ensure that a desired pressure is met. The pressure within the gas collecting tube 7 may be important because sufficient pressure needs to be generated to spray the gas into an area for disinfection. The pressure sensing means would necessarily need to continuously provide pressure information to the controller in order to regulate pressure, which would read on to provide pressure information prior to the discharge from said decontamination tube and to provide feedback following discharge.
It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the gas collecting tube of Burgin to have a pressure sensor connected to the controller that continuously feeds pressure information to the controller, as taught by Prentice, in order to regulate the pressure in a combustion chamber and ensure that there is sufficient pressure of the dispensed sterilization gas.
Regarding claim 14, Burgin modified by La Porte, Zhuo, and Prentice teaches the system according to Claim 10, as set forth above, and teaches further comprising a redundant tube indicator that provides an indication of a use of said redundant decontamination tube (see Zhuo modification in claim 10 rejection).
Claim 11 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Burgin modified by La Porte, Zhuo, and Prentice in view of Tartynov (RU 2459149 C2).
Regarding claim 11, Burgin modified by La Porte, Zhuo, and Prentice teaches the system according to Claim 10, as set forth above, but does not teach comprising a decontamination tube pressure membrane that opens with the ignition from said pyrotechnic lighter, said decontamination tube pressure membrane retaining pressure in the cylindrical tube and discharging of the liquid in the decontamination tube.
Burgin already teaches a pressure membrane for regulating the pressure in its pressure vessels (pg. 8 par. 3: The balance memory forms a gas receiving space of variable size. In the balance memory is a compensation gas, z. As nitrogen, included. When filling the storage space with the gaseous component of the displacement element shifts due to the increasing pressure in the storage space under enlargement of the storage space and under reduction of the compensation memory. The equalizing gas in the balance memory is compressed accordingly, whereby the pressure in the balance memory is increased; pg 8 par. 7: The displacement element may be a flexible membrane between the storage space and the balance memory. The membrane can be stretchable).
Tartynov teaches a nitrogen generator involving pyrotechnic ignition (abstract: cold pure nitrogen generator includes pyrocartridge… Channel cartridges of nitrogen-generating pyrotechnic composition are fixed on the edges by means of additional ignition pellets). Tartynov teaches a membrane in the nozzle of its combustion chamber for pressure regulation and increased stability (pg. 4 par. 9: A membrane installed in the outlet nozzle of the combustion chamber overlaps its flow area, which is necessary for reaching the calculated gas-dynamic regime of combustion of a nitrogen-generating charge and creating an initial pressure pulse of the working fluid supplied for cooling, cleaning, and entering the pressurized tank; pg. 4 2nd last par.: Equipping the filter-cooler outlet with a throttling hole and blocking the combustion chamber nozzle with a calibrated membrane provide automatic control of the generated nitrogen flow depending on the pressure change, which stabilizes the gas-dynamic mode of the generator and the parameters of the boost of the technological capacity). The membrane is capable of opening with the pyrotechnic igniter and discharging the gas (pg. 6 par. 5: When filling the combustion chamber 2 with nitrogen, an excess pressure increases, which breaks through the membrane 12, and nitrogen flows dynamically into the receiver 13, where it expands and the pressure equalizes). The gas collecting tube 7 of Burgin is analogous to the combustion chamber of Tartynov, and portion of the tube immediately preceding the outlet openings 31 of Burgin is likened to the nozzle of Tartynov:
PNG
media_image1.png
728
1123
media_image1.png
Greyscale
It is also noted that Tartynov similarly teaches generating a gas for supply to another space, which is analogous to the container 29 of Burgin (pg. 5 3rd par. from bottom: The housing 1 is closed from the bottom with a screw cap 20 having an outlet pipe 21 for communication with the pipeline for supplying cold pure nitrogen to the boost tank).
It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the end of the decontamination tube of Burgin modified by La Porte, Zhuo, and Prentice to have a calibrated membrane, as taught by Tartynov, in order to regulate the pressure within a combustion chamber and to generate an initial pressure pulse of the gas.
Claim 12 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Burgin modified by La Porte, Zhuo, and Prentice in view of Rado (US 20150257443 A1).
Regarding claim 12, Burgin modified by La Porte teaches the system according to Claim 10, as set forth above, but does not teach comprising:
an automatic mode indicator;
and a manual mode indicator, wherein said automatic mode indicator and said manual mode indicator show an operating mode of said control unit.
Rado teaches an apparatus for generating a gas using heat (abstract: A vaporizer assembly is shaped and configured to fit partially into a downstem of a water pipe. The vaporizer assembly includes a housing including an upper portion and a lower portion. The lower portion has a smaller diameter, and fits in the downstem. The upper portion of the vaporizer assembly includes a bowl or dish, and a heat source is enclosed within the housing and positioned and configured to selectively heat the bowl or dish. A body of the vaporizer adjacent the bowl includes vapor passages. One or more passages are also formed in the lower portion. Thus, essential oils or waxes placed in the bowl can be vaporized by the heat. The generated vapor may flow from the bowl into and through the vapor passages and lower portion passage and into the waterpipe's downstem).
Rado teaches an automatic mode wherein the gas is generated using supplied heat for a set amount of time and a manual mode wherein the gas is generated for the user’s desired duration (par. 68: In the illustrated embodiment, the electronic componentry 244 controls power delivery in accordance with one of two operational modes, which are herein referred to as a manual mode and an automatic mode. In the manual mode, depressing the button 250 triggers power delivery to the heating element 212, and power is delivered until the button is released. Thus, in manual mode, the user directly controls the length of time the heating element 212 is energized by holding the button 250 in the depressed position). Furthermore, Rado teaches wherein indicator lights indicate that the device is in automatic or manual mode (par. 71: Also, upon a change in mode, a visual indicator is provided to signal the change in mode and to signal which mode is set. For example, 3 blinks of the lamp indicate that the vaporizer has been set to the manual mode, and 6 blinks of the lamp indicate that it has been set to the automatic mode). These features offer the advantage of providing greater convenience to a user and allows the user to customize how much gas they want to administer. The controller controls the modes (par. 14: In further embodiments, the controller is configured so that a user can select between the plurality of control modes by actuating the actuator button according to a preset pattern). Thus, the indicators must necessarily be located on the controller in the sense that they are connected to the controller.
It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the device of Burgin modified by La Porte, Zhuo, and Prentice to have a manual mode and an automatic mode, each indicated by a visual indicator and controlled by the controller, as taught by Rado, in order to provide greater convenience to a user and allow a user to control how much gas they want to output.
Claim 13 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Burgin modified by La Porte, Zhuo, and Prentice in view of Liu (CN 2341642 Y).
Regarding claim 13, Burgin modified by La Porte, Zhuo, and Prentice teaches the system according to Claim 10, as set forth above, but does not teach further comprising: a pressure status indicator that tracks a pressure status from said control unit.
Burgin teaches a pressure sensor connected to the controller (pg. 3 2nd last par.: The control device, which is designed to control the at least one metering device as a function of pressure readings in the pressure vessel detected by at least one pressure sensor) and teaches regulating the pressure within the pressure vessel (pg. 8 par. 3: The balance memory forms a gas receiving space of variable size. In the balance memory is a compensation gas). Therefore there is a motivation to provide the user with knowledge of the pressure within the pressure vessel to ensure the correct functionality of the device.
Liu teaches a steam generator for sterilization (abstract: A source of pressure steam sterilizer, comprising a machine frame, the machine frame is provided with a cabinet body and a cabinet door of the sterilizing chamber is set with steam generator on the machine frame, the lower part of the steam generator with burner, a steam generator connected with the cabinet body via a steam pipe, wherein , sterilizer contained steam generator) involving a combustion chamber and pyrotechnic ignition connected to a controller (pg. 3 par. 1: pyrotechnic pipes 8… combustion chamber 8… ignition or spark control burner 28… control box 10). Liu teaches a pressure gauge for displaying the pressure (Fig. 1: pressure gauge 19).
It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the device of Burgin modified by La Porte to have a pressure gauge on its exterior, connected to the controller so that it receives the transferred reading from the pressure sensor, as taught by Liu, in order to allow the user to more easily maintain the correct functionality of the device.
Claim 15 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Burgin modified by La Porte in view of Yang (WO 2020264225 A1).
Regarding claim 15, Burgin modified by La Porte teaches the system according to Claim 10, as set forth above, but does not teach further comprising a power indicator that indicates the operation status of the system.
Yang teaches a UV sterilizer (abstract: A portable sanitizing apparatus, such as a case, includes a first case portion arranged to receive an object to be sanitized, and a second case portion connected to the first case portion and including at least one UV light source configured to emit UV electromagnetic radiation).
Yang teaches a power button that also serves as a status indicator (par. 59: In one non-limiting example, the indicator light 48 could be flashing blue when the LEDs 38 are operating and the sanitizing cycle is in progress, solid blue or turned off when the sanitizing cycle is complete, red when the battery 36 is low, flashing green when the battery 36 is charging, and solid green when the battery 36 is fully charged; par. 80: a flap 282 extending from the sidewall structure 218 may function as a combined power button, mode selector, and indicator light). This functions to allow the user to enable operation of the device and let the user know when the sterilization is complete, which is relevant because Burgin also teaches a sterilization device.
It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the device of Burgin modified by La Porte to have a power button that is also an indicator light, as taught by Yang, in order to allow the user to enable a sterilization operation of the device and let the user know when sterilization is complete.
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 CHANGRU CHEN whose telephone number is (571)272-1201. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 7:30-5:30.
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, Elizabeth A. Robinson can be reached on (571) 272-7129. 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.
/C.C./Examiner, Art Unit 1796
/ELIZABETH A ROBINSON/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1796