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 .
Election/Restrictions
Applicant's election with traverse of Group I, claims 30-44, in the reply filed on 09/05/2025 is acknowledged. The traversal is on the ground(s) that claims 30 and 45 share technical features over Gohier (FR 2952540 A1) as Gohier does not teach an exit port “configured to deliver the vapor[ized] [decontaminant] into a flow of a non-heated carrier gas, wherein the carrier gas is at a temperature substantially ambient to that of the enclosed space.” This is not found persuasive because the air (understood to be the carrier gas) introduced into the heated enclosure (Fig. 3, enclosure 4) comes from the external environment (page 5, para 2). Therefore, despite the enclosure being heated to a temperature of 150 degrees Celsius (page 4, para 1), the hydrogen peroxide vapor is delivered into an externally sourced air flow (page 4, para 3) which is understood to be at an ambient temperature (page 5, para 2).
Regarding Applicant’s argument that Gohier does not teach the limitation “…the introduction of vaporized decontaminant into the enclosed space until the atmosphere within the enclosed space is saturated with vapor such that the dew point of the decontaminant is reached and micro-condensation of the decontaminant occurs on surfaces within the enclosed space so as to effect decontamination of the surfaces,” this limitation was not a shared technical feature cited in the restriction issued on 7/7/20205 as the limitation was not recited in independent claim 30.
The requirement is still deemed proper and is therefore made FINAL.
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Claim Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitation(s) is/are: “heating element that is configured to deliver sufficient thermal energy…” in claim 1.
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof. Specifically, the limitation will be understood to be a cartridge heater as disclosed in the specification (page 10, para 3) and all equivalent structures.
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claim(s) 37 and 40 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claim 37 recites the limitation "each distribution outlet" in line 3. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. For the purpose of examination, it is interpreted that the separator panels are configured to separate the vapor emanating from some component. To cure the antecedent basis issue, the Examiner recommends amending the claims so that claim 36 is dependent on claim 34.
Claim 40 recites the limitation “the ducting”" in line 2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Examiner believes “the ducting” is referring to the limitation of “ducting to direct the flow of the carrier gas” in claim 36 and will be examined as such. To cure the antecedent basis issue, the Examiner recommends amending the claims so that claim 36 is dependent on claim 34.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 30-34, 36, 38, 40, 42, and 44 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Gohier (FR2952540) (references herein made with respect to English Machine Translation) (cited in Applicant’s IDS dated 11/21/2022).
Regarding claim 30, Gohier teaches an apparatus for vapor decontamination of an enclosed space (Fig. 4, decontamination device 1) comprising:
a reservoir comprising a supply of a liquid decontaminant (Fig. 4, 16);
a vaporizer unit in fluid communication with the reservoir (Fig. 4, chamber 5 = vaporizer unit) the vaporizer unit comprising,
a body (Fig. 3, body 50) that defines a lumen (Fig. 3, cannula 12) that passes along a length of the body, the lumen comprising a first end and a second end (Fig. 3), wherein the first end receives liquid decontaminant from the reservoir (Fig. 4, top end of cannula receives liquid decontaminant from reservoir 16), and
a heating element (Fig. 3, 13) that is configured to deliver sufficient thermal energy to effect vaporization through rapid boiling of the liquid decontaminant within the lumen (page 4, para 1 and 3) so that it exits the lumen via an exit port at the second end of the lumen as a vapor (Fig. 3, vapor generated by heating element is mixed with air from fans 6 and exits from port 21 in body in the direction of arrow F, page 4, para 3);
wherein the exit port is configured to deliver the vapor into a flow of a non-heated carrier gas, wherein the carrier gas is at a temperature substantially ambient to that of the enclosed space (Fig. 3, exit port page 120 delivers vapor into carrier gas, page 4, para 3; carrier gas is sourced from external environment and is understood to be ambient air, page 5, para 2), thereby facilitating distribution of the decontaminant vapor within the enclosed space (Fig. 4, page 4, para 3; page 5, para 3).
Regarding claim 31, Gohier teaches the apparatus of claim 30, wherein the vaporizer unit comprises a distribution header in fluid communication with the exit port of the lumen (Fig. 3, vaporizer unit 5 comprises sleeve 9 = distribution header in fluid communication with cylindrical body 50 and outlet of lumen 12 ), the distribution header comprising, a chamber for receiving the vapor (Fig. 3, interior 53 receives vapor), and one or more distribution outlets; such that the decontaminant vapor is delivered into the carrier gas via the distribution outlets (Fig. 3, decontaminant vapor is delivered into carrier gas via distribution outlet 51, page 4, para 1-3).
Regarding claim 32, Gohier teaches the apparatus of claim 31, wherein the distribution header defines a volume greater than that of the lumen (Fig. 3, volume of sleeve 9 greater than volume of lumen 12).
Regarding claim 33, Gohier teaches the apparatus of claim 31, wherein the chamber of the distribution header is heated (Fig. 3, chamber 53 of distribution header 9 is heater, page 4, para 1).
Regarding claim 34, Gohier teaches the apparatus of claim 31, wherein the one or more distribution outlets are located on a face of the distribution header that is arranged at an angle to the flow of the carrier gas (Fig. 3, distribution outlet 51 is located on a face of distribution header 9 and is perpendicular to the flow of carrier gas represented by F).
Regarding claim 36, Gohier teaches the apparatus of claim 30, wherein the apparatus comprises ducting to direct the flow of the carrier gas (Fig. 4, duct 3 directs flow of air to vaporizer 5, page 4, para 3).
Regarding claim 38, Gohier teaches the apparatus of claim 30, wherein the apparatus further comprises: an impeller that provides the flow of carrier gas (Fig. 4, fan 6 understood to be impeller which provides flow of air = carrier gas, page 4, para 3).
Regarding claim 40, Gohier teaches the apparatus of claim 38, wherein the impeller is located within the ducting (Fig. 4, fan 6 can be located within duct 3, page 3, para 2).
Regarding claim 42, Gohier teaches the apparatus of claim 30, wherein the apparatus further comprises a transport mechanism for transporting the liquid decontaminant to the vaporizer unit, wherein the transport mechanism comprises a pump (Fig. 4, pump 17 = transport mechanism as it provides hydrogen peroxide to vaporizer unit 5, page 4, para 2).
Regarding claim 44, Gohier teaches the apparatus of claim 30, wherein the liquid decontaminant comprises an aqueous solution of hydrogen peroxide (page 4, para 2).
Claim(s) 30, 36, 38-40, 42, and 44 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Penman Jr. (US 20140255012 A1) (hereinafter “Penman”).
Regarding claim 30, Penman teaches an apparatus for vapor decontamination of an enclosed space (Fig. 1, apparatus 10, [0005]) comprising:
a reservoir comprising a supply of a liquid decontaminant (Fig. 2, 128, [0035]);
a vaporizer unit in fluid communication with the reservoir (Fig. 2, injection assembly 122 + housing 102 = vaporizer unit) the vaporizer unit comprising,
a body (Fig. 2, housing 102) that defines a lumen that passes along a length of the (Fig. 2, vaporization chamber 102a = lumen with a first end and second end), the lumen comprising a first end and a second end (Fig. 2, vaporization chamber 102b = lumen with a first end and second end), wherein the first end receives liquid decontaminant from the reservoir (Fig. 2, first end of 102a receives liquid decontaminant from 128 via injection needles 124, [0035]), and
a heating element (Fig. 2, 112) that is configured to deliver sufficient thermal energy to effect vaporization through rapid boiling of the liquid decontaminant within the lumen so that it exits the lumen via an exit port at the second end of the lumen as a vapor (heating element 112 heats liquid decontaminant so that it exits lumen 102a as a vapor [0032-0035], [0043]);
wherein the exit port is configured to deliver the vapor into a flow of a non-heated carrier gas, wherein the carrier gas is at a temperature substantially ambient to that of the enclosed space (Fig. 2, peroxide vapor is delivered to ambient air flow stream A which is sourced from the environment [0042-0043]), thereby facilitating distribution of the decontaminant vapor within the enclosed space.
Regarding claim 36, Penman teaches the apparatus of claim 30, wherein the apparatus comprises ducting to direct the flow of the carrier gas (Fig. 2, ducting = main flow assembly 20).
Regarding claim 38, Penman teaches the apparatus of claim 30, wherein the apparatus further comprises: an impeller that provides the flow of carrier gas (Fig. 2, fan 42 provides flow of carrier gas A and B).
Regarding claim 39, Penman teaches the apparatus of claim 38, wherein the impeller is located below the vaporizer unit (Fig. 2, fan 42 is below vaporizer unit which comprises injection assembly 122 + housing 102).
Regarding claim 40, Penman teaches the apparatus of claim 38, wherein the impeller is located within the ducting (Fig. 2, fan 42 located within ducting 20).
Regarding claim 42, Penman teaches the apparatus of claim 30, wherein the apparatus further comprises a transport mechanism for transporting the liquid decontaminant to the vaporizer unit, wherein the transport mechanism comprises a pump (Fig. 2, pump 132).
Regarding claim 44, Penman teaches the apparatus of claim 30, wherein the liquid decontaminant comprises an aqueous solution of hydrogen peroxide [0021].
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.
Claim(s) 35 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Penman Jr. (US 20140255012 A1) (hereinafter “Penman”) in view of Jacobs et al. (US 20030235511 A1).
Regarding claim 35, Penman teaches the apparatus of claim 30 but does not teach wherein the vaporizer unit comprises a vapor sieve that separates the lumen into a first chamber and a second chamber, wherein the vapor sieve is configured to prevent the passage of liquid decontaminant from the first chamber to the second chamber.
One having ordinary skill in the art would be concerned with the hydrogen peroxide vapor within the lumen (Fig. 2, 102a) condensing at the exit port due to vapor mixing with the ambient air stream B [0043] and corroding the interior of the ducting (Fig. 2, 20), motivating one to turn towards Jacobs. Jacobs teaches a sterilization device [0005] configured to sterilize a chamber (Fig. 19, 376) by vaporizing a liquid sterilant solution of peroxide [0085]. Jacobs teaches wherein the peroxide solution may be separated from the chamber via a semi-permeable membrane such that vaporous peroxide may pass through the membrane and into the chamber but not liquid peroxide [0085].
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the lumen as taught by Penman to include the semi-permeable membrane as taught by Jacobs to prevent liquid peroxide from leaving the exit port of the lumen and this involves the combination of elements to yield a predictable result with a reasonable expectation of success. See MPEP 2143(I)(A).
Claim(s) 37 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Penman Jr. (US 20140255012 A1) (hereinafter “Penman”) in view of Kawasaki et al. (US 20220378964 A1) (eligible as prior art under 102(a)(2) with an effective filing date of 11/15/2019).
Regarding claim 37, Penman teaches the apparatus of claim 36 including ducting (Fig. 2, 20) but does not include wherein the ducting comprises separator panels configured to separate the vapor emanating from some component.
One having ordinary skill in the art would seek to optimize the particle size of the vapor leaving the vaporizing unit such that the sterilant is evenly dispersed within the ducting and enclosed space, motivating one to turn towards Kawasaki. Kawasaki teaches a system for disinfecting an enclosed space using hydrogen peroxide [0009] comprising a mist discharge port (Fig. 1, X1) coupled to a mist generation means (Fig. 1, M11) and an enclosed space, wherein the discharge port emanates vaporized hydrogen peroxide to the interior of an enclosed space [0012]. Kawasaki further teaches a mist dispersion device (Fig. 1, D1) located below the discharge port [0086] to diffuse sterilant within the room, wherein the mist dispersion device comprises an ultrasonic vibration plate (Fig. 4, D1a) that provides acoustic pressure to the vaporized sterilant [0100] to refine it to an optimal particle size for sterilization [0114].
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the ducting as taught by Penman with the mist dispersion devices as taught by Kawasaki because Kawasaki teaches the mist dispersion devices to optimize the particle size of the vaporized sterilant [00114] via acoustic plates [0100] and this involves the combination of elements to yield a predictable result with a reasonable expectation of success. See MPEP 2143(I)(A) and 2143(I)(G).
Claim(s) 41 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Gohier (FR2952540) (references herein made with respect to English Machine Translation) in view of McVey et al. (US 20020114727 A1).
Regarding claim 41, Gohier teaches the apparatus of claim 30, wherein the apparatus comprises a housing (Fig. 3, 14) configured to receive a heating element, such as an electrical resistance heater (page 4, para 1) but does not explicitly teach wherein the heating element is a cartridge heater.
One having ordinary skill in the art would recognize that cartridge heaters are a species of electrical resistance heaters and that the housing taught by Gohier (Fig. 3, 14) could receive a variety of electrical resistance heater types to adequately vaporize the liquid hydrogen peroxide sterilant within the vaporizer. The ordinarily skilled artesian would turn to McVey, who teaches a flash vaporizer (Fig. 1, 34) configured to vaporize hydrogen peroxide with a cartridge heater [0042] to sterilize an enclosure [0002].
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to substitute the generic electrical resistance heater as taught by Gohier with the cartridge heater as taught by McVey because McVey teaches the cartridge heater to also vaporize aqueous hydrogen peroxide to sterilize an enclosure [0042] and this involves the substitution of equivalents known for the same purposes. See MPEP 2144.06(II).
Claim(s) 43 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Gohier (FR2952540) (references herein made with respect to English Machine Translation).
Regarding claim 43, Gohier teaches he apparatus of claim 30, wherein the vaporizer (Fig. 4, 5) is configured to provide vaporized hydrogen peroxide to disinfect an enclosure (Fig. 4, 4) wherein the enclosure can comprise multiple inlet and outlet tubes (page 3, para 2) but does not teach wherein the apparatus comprises a plurality of vaporizer units.
One having ordinary skill in the art would be concerned with how to provide hydrogen peroxide vapor to the enclosure when the vaporizer is inoperable due to failure or when maintenance is being performed on the vaporizer. The same artesian of ordinary skill would be motivated to include of supporting an additional sterilization loop coupled to the additional inlet and outlet tubes described by Gohier (page 3, para 2) comprising a backup vaporizer to provide hydrogen peroxide to the enclosure while the primary vaporizer is offline.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the apparatus as taught by Gohier to include a second vaporizer unit and sterilizing loop in fluid communication with the enclosure to ensure sterilant is constantly being supplied to the enclosure during maintenance or shutdown of the primary vaporizer and this involves the duplication of parts which has already been found to be obvious (MPEP 2144.04 (V)(B)).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
US 20210330826 A1 teaches a system for disinfecting a space comprising a vaporization unit dispensing sterilant vapor into a carrier gas.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Nebyate Seged whose telephone number is (703)756-4611. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8-5:00 pm (EST).
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Maris Kessel can be reached at (571) 270-7698. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/N.S.S./Examiner, Art Unit 1758
/MARIS R KESSEL/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1758
Prosecution Insights