DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claims 1-11 and 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Dejun et al. CN109319947 published 12 Feb. 2019 as translated by EPO (hereafter Dejun) and further in view of Walsh US 2012/0000126 (hereafter Walsh).
Regarding claim 1, Dejun teaches a method for influencing (¶9) one or more entities in a gas flow (5), the method comprising:
manipulating (via spray, ¶22) a platform (9) in situ biologically and/or chemically so as to arrange the platform to be capable of influencing an entity in the gas flow (¶9), the entity being at least one of the following: N2O, CH4, CO2, or a microorganism, a virus (air, ¶22); and
allowing the gas flow to advance through the platform parallel to a surface of the platform so as to influence the one or more entities in the gas flow (¶22, as shown in Fig 1),
wherein the platform comprises micro-organisms (¶22), and the platform is manipulated by a spraying unit by supplying the platform with a liquid (¶22) and comprising growth medium (¶9).
Dejun does not teach having a droplet size of between 10 nm and 2 mm.
Walsh teaches spraying a chemical/biological liquid (¶22) where the droplet size affects gas mixing (¶33, ¶73),
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to optimize the droplet size (size from spray 2) of Dejun, such as to be between 10 nm and 2 mm, in order to affect gas mixing (Walsh ¶33, ¶73).
Regarding claim 2, Dejun in view of Walsh teaches all the limitations of claim 1. Dejun further teaches wherein the liquid is arranged to adjust at least one of the following: chemical composition, physical composition, moisture, or humidity, in and/or on the platform (¶9).
Regarding claim 3, Dejun in view of Walsh teaches all the limitations of claim 1. Dejun further teaches wherein the liquid comprises at least one of the following: inorganic salt, cell extract, sugar, carbohydrate, protein, fatty acid, phospholipid fatty acid, glycerol, alcohol, ABCDE-vitamin, organic acid, trace element, living microbial cells, resting stages of cells, active traces of cells, viruses modifying activity or genetics of microbial cells, or a chemical element allowing epigenetic, genetic, or transcriptional modification of a microbial cell and/or microbial cell activity (¶9).
.
Regarding claim 4, Dejun in view of Walsh teaches all the limitations of claim 1. Dejun further teaches wherein the micro-organisms are being inoculated and/or passively gathered onto and/or into the platform (¶9).
Regarding claim 5, Dejun in view of Walsh teaches all the limitations of claim 1. Dejun further teaches supplying the platform with a chemical agent comprising a sterilization agent (¶25).
Regarding claim 6, Dejun teaches a device (Fig 1) for influencing (¶9) one or more entities in a gas flow (5), the one or more entities being at least one of the following: N2O, CH4, CO2, a micro-organism, or a virus (air, ¶22); and the device comprising:
a platform (9) being arranged to influence the one or more entities (air, ¶22) in the gas flow (5) by allowing the gas flow to advance through the platform or parallel to a surface of the platform (¶22, as shown in Fig 1), and
a manipulating means (2, ¶22) for manipulating the platform in situ biologically and/or chemically,
wherein the platform comprises micro-organisms and/or viruses (¶22), and the manipulating means is a spraying unit (2) arranged to supply the platform with a liquid (¶22) having a droplet size and comprising growth medium (¶9).
Dejun does not teach a liquid having a droplet size of between 10 nm and 2 mm
Walsh teaches spraying a chemical/biological liquid (¶22) where the droplet size affects gas mixing (¶33, ¶73),
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to optimize the droplet size (size from spray 2) of Dejun, such as to be between 10 nm and 2 mm, in order to affect gas mixing (Walsh ¶33, ¶73).
Regarding claim 7, Dejun in view of Walsh teaches all the limitations of claim 6. Dejun further teaches a liquid mixing unit (3) arranged to provide into the liquid at least one of the following: inorganic salt, cell extract, sugar, carbohydrate, protein, fatty acid, phospholipid fatty acid, glycerol, alcohol, ABCD-vitamin, organic acid, trace element, living microbial cells, resting stages of cells, active traces of cells, viruses modifying activity or genetics of microbial cells, chemical element allowing epigenetic, genetic or transcriptional modification of microbial cell and/or its activity (¶9).
Regarding claims 8-10, Dejun in view of Walsh teaches all the limitations of claim 6. Dejun further teaches wherein the spraying unit comprises a microdroplet producer (2).
Regarding claim 11, Dejun in view of Walsh teaches all the limitations of claim 6. Dejun further teaches at least one sensor (¶12, where one of ordinary skill would understand at least one sensor would be used to test for CODcr, DOD5, SS, ammonia nitrogen, and/or TP).
Regarding claim 14, Dejun in view of Walsh teaches all the limitations of claim 6. Dejun further teaches wherein the one or more entities are N2O and/or CH4 (air, ¶22).
Claims 14-17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Woon et al. WO2019168337 published 6 Sep. 2019 and filed 27 Feb. 2019 as translated by EPO (hereafter Woon) and further in view of Linden et al. WO2018056804 published 29 Mar. 2018 (hereafter Linden).
Regarding claims 14-15, Woon teaches teaches a method for influencing (¶3) one or more entities (N2O) in a gas flow (122), the method comprising:
manipulating (via spray, ¶37) a platform (123) in situ biologically and/or chemically so as to arrange the platform to be capable of influencing an entity in the gas flow (¶40), the entity being N2O (¶40); and
allowing the gas flow to advance through the platform parallel to a surface of the platform so as to influence the one or more entities in the gas flow (¶40, as shown in Fig 1),
wherein the platform comprises micro-organisms (¶22), and the platform is manipulated by a spraying unit by supplying the platform with a liquid (¶22) and comprising growth medium (¶9);
wherein the platform comprises N2O consuming microbes that are passively gathered onto and/or into the platform (¶37, ¶24).
Woon does not teach having a droplet size of between 10 nm and 2 mm.
Linden teaches microbial filtration wherein the droplets are smaller than 50 microns (page 6 lines 20-28) and/or between 5 and 50 microns (page 6 line 11) in order to maximally contact the mist with the air (page 6 lines 10-19).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to optimize the droplet size (size from spray 124) of Linden, such as to be between 10 nm and 2 mm and more particularly between 5 and 50 microns, in order to affect the mist/gas contact (Linden page 6 lines 10-19). See MPEP 2144.05 II.
Regarding claims 16-17, Woon teaches teaches a method for influencing (¶3) one or more entities (N2O) in a gas flow (122), the method comprising:
manipulating (via spray, ¶37) a platform (123) in situ biologically and/or chemically so as to arrange the platform to be capable of influencing an entity in the gas flow (¶40), the entity being N2O (¶40); and
allowing the gas flow to advance through the platform parallel to a surface of the platform so as to influence the one or more entities in the gas flow (¶40, as shown in Fig 1),
wherein the platform comprises micro-organisms (¶22), and the platform is manipulated by a spraying unit by supplying the platform with a liquid (¶22) and comprising growth medium (¶9);
wherein the platform comprises a filter (123, ¶33) with a pore size of the filter being large (ceramic carrier, ¶34).
Woon does not teach having a droplet size of between 1 and 10 um.
Linden teaches microbial filtration wherein the droplets are smaller than 50 microns (page 6 lines 20-28) and/or between 5 and 50 microns (page 6 line 11) in order to maximally contact the mist with the air (page 6 lines 10-19).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to optimize the droplet size (size from spray 124) of Linden, such as to be between 1 and 10 um, in order to affect the mist/gas contact (Linden page 6 lines 10-19). See MPEP 2144.05 I and 2144.05 II.
The modification would have resulted in the droplet size being smaller than a pore size of the filter, where the droplet size is in the micron range and the large pores of the ceramic would be larger than 10um.
Response to Arguments
The following is a response to Applicant’s arguments filed 11 Dec. 2025:
Applicant argues that the 112b rejections are overcome by amendment.
Examiner agrees and the rejections are withdrawn.
Applicant argues that Dejun does not describe influencing any of the claimed entities.
Examiner disagrees. Dejun describes influencing the claimed entities (where air contains N2O, CH4, CO2, microorganisms, and viruses) through at least influencing the flow of the air and all the entities that make up the air, where the flow of air goes around each platform and between adjacent platforms.
Applicant argues that Dejun does not describe only the entities oxygen, suspended solids, ammonia nitrogen, and phosphorous.
Examiner disagrees. One of ordinary skill would have known that the term “air” encompasses many entities. For instance, Dejun does not specifically state that air comprises nitrogen, however one or ordinary skill would have know that nitrogen makes up the majority of air.
Applicant argues that it would not have been obvious to combine Walsh with Dejun because Dejun is not concerned with mixing and Walsh is only concerned with light absorption.
Examiner disagrees. Walsh teaches where the liquid biological medium is sprayed, but does not teach the size of the spray droplets. Thus, one of ordinary skill would have looked to other prior art to determine the droplet size. Walsh teaches where the droplet size can be adjusted to match the conditions, and where the conditions include the contents of the air (such as water and CO2). Thus, it would have been obvious to modify the droplet size of Dejun in order to properly match the conditions of the air as taught by Walsh.
Regarding newly amended claim 5, the chemical agent comprising a sterilization agent is taught by Dejun as steam in ¶25.
Applicant argues that Dejun and Walsh do not teach the two stages ultrasound atomizer in claims 9-10.
The arguments are not commensurate in scope with the claims. Claim 8, upon which claims 9-10 depend, states “wherein the spraying unit comprises a microdroplet producer or an atomizer”. Because the prior art teaches a microdroplet producer and because the atomizer is an optional element, the prior art does not need to teach a two staged ultrasound atomizer in order to teach the claim.
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 STEPHEN HOBSON whose telephone number is (571)272-9914. The examiner can normally be reached 9am-5pm.
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, Jennifer Dieterle can be reached at 571-270-7872. 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.
/STEPHEN HOBSON/Examiner, Art Unit 1776