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
1. The amendment filed 17 November 2025 has been received and considered for examination. Claims 1-10 are presently pending, with claims 1-6 withdrawn from consideration and claims 7-10 being examined herein.
2. All rejections and objections from the previous Office action are withdrawn in view of Applicant’s amendment.
3. New grounds of rejection under 35 U.S.C. 103 are necessitated by the amendments, as detailed below.
Claim Objections
4. Claim 10 is objected to because of the following informalities: “wherein fungi, or mold in the indoor air are removed” should read --wherein mold or fungi in the indoor air are removed--, for clarity. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
5. 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.
6. Claims 7 and 8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Stiehler et al (EP 1925478 B1, references made to English Machine Translation).
7. Regarding claim 7, Stiehler discloses a process for sanitizing indoor air (method for disinfection of an area of the air conditioning system, Abstract), comprising the following steps:
(i) providing an apparatus (disinfection device, par 0055, FIG. 4) for countercurrent exchange indoors (corresponding disinfection can also be provided for room air conditioning systems, par 0052), wherein the apparatus comprises:
a conduit (FIG. 4), comprising:
a side wall (FIG. 4);
an inner space (FIG. 4);
an air outlet (air flow L into a space to be air conditioned, par 0055, FIG. 4) disposed on a first end of the conduit (FIG. 4);
a liquid miniaturization device (nozzle where it is sprayed onto the evaporator in a finely atomized manner, par 0022) disposed in the inner space of the conduit near the air outlet (FIG. 4, nozzle 23), wherein the liquid miniaturization device is used to spray a liquid in a liquid direction (FIG. 4, nozzle is arranged in front of filter…spraying disinfectant into the air stream, pars 0013-0014);
an air intake (air flow L sucked in by a fan 2 first passes through pre-filter 3’, par 0055) disposed on the side wall near a second end of the conduit (FIG. 4); and
a reservoir portion (disinfectant reservoir 21/22’’, pars 0055 and 0058-0059) disposed in the inner space near the second end of the conduit (FIG. 4, disinfectant source 22’’) for storing the liquid (disinfectants mentioned as examples can be stored in a reservoir and refilled as needed, par 0019), wherein the reservoir portion and the liquid miniaturization device are opposite to each other in the liquid direction (FIG. 4, disinfectant reservoir 22” and nozzle 23 are at opposite ends of liquid flow area in liquid flow direction);
a pneumatic conveyor (fan/blower 2, par 0055) connected with the air intake for introducing air into the conduit along an air flow direction (FIG. 4, air flow L sucked in by a fan 2 first passes through pre-filter 3’, par 0055); and
a pumping device connected with the reservoir portion by a first tube (disinfectant 22''' is sucked out through a suction line 22' by means of a piston diaphragm pump located in a nozzle arrangement, par 0055);
(ii) adding the liquid into the reservoir portion, wherein the liquid is a sterilization liquid or a disinfection liquid (introduction of a liquid disinfectant can also be carried out in such a way that the disinfectant is stored in a collecting container, pars 0045 and 0059; hydrogen peroxide or other, particularly water-soluble disinfectants 22'" can be used, pars 0055-0058);
(iii) activating the pneumatic conveyor to introduce air into the conduit through the air intake (air flow L sucked in by a fan 2 first passes through a pre-filter 3', par 0055);
(iv) activating the pumping device in order to transport the liquid to the liquid miniaturization device (disinfectant 22''' is sucked out of the electrolysis cell 22" through a suction line 22' by means of a piston-diaphragm pump located in a nozzle arrangement serving for atomization, par 0055); and
(v) activating the liquid miniaturization device to spray the liquid (disinfectant is fed to the nozzle arrangement, where it exits through a nozzle 23 in a finely atomized form, par 0055) enabling a countercurrent exchange with the introduced air (sprayed onto one side of the evaporator 4, par 0055, FIG. 4), wherein the introduced air exits the conduit through the air outlet (air flow L into a space to be air conditioned, par 0055, FIG. 4).
Although the FIG. 4 embodiment of Stiehler operates such that wherein the air conveyed by the pneumatic conveyor enters between the reservoir portion and the liquid miniaturization device in the liquid direction (FIG. 4, conveyed air from intake meets liquid flow path at evaporator 4, par 0055), Stiehler does not explicitly teach that the pneumatic conveyor is disposed between the reservoir portion and the liquid miniaturization device in the liquid direction.
However, Stiehler teaches for another embodiment that a bypass 6 can allow air coming from the fan 2 to bypass the evaporator (par 0036), which would allow direct feeding of the intake air into counterflow exchange with the liquid. As the inclusion of this bypass introduces air from another air intake disposed on the sidewall, it would be a matter of design choice whether to place the fan i.e. pneumatic conveyor at the second end of the device or closer to this bypass outlet, more nearly between the reservoir portion and the liquid miniaturization device. Besides, the Stiehler reference is silent regarding the dimensions of the FIG. 4 device, and it would be a matter of design choice to rearrange the parts such that the reservoir 22” is at a greater distance from the evaporator 4 and the fan is closer to the evaporator 4 than what is shown, making the fan more nearly between the reservoir portion and the liquid miniaturization device in the direction of liquid flow.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to rearrange the device of Stiehler such that the pneumatic conveyor is disposed between the reservoir portion and the liquid miniaturization device in the liquid direction. Specifically, by placing the fan near the air entrance from the evaporator bypass, Stiehler teaches that air is allowed to bypass the evaporator at a force great enough to overcome the flow of disinfectant spray from the nozzles (pars 0036 and 0047).
Examiner notes that under the principles of inherency, if a prior art device, in its normal and usual operation, would necessarily perform the method claimed, then the method claimed will be considered to be anticipated by the prior art device. See MPEP 2112.02(I). The disclosure of Stiehler describes the normal, steady state operation of the device, but this operation would necessarily require the steps of filling the reservoir with disinfection liquid and activating the pneumatic conveyor, pumping device, and liquid miniaturization device.
[AltContent: textbox (Stiehler FIG. 4)]
PNG
media_image1.png
466
687
media_image1.png
Greyscale
8. Regarding claim 8, Stiehler discloses the process of claim 7, wherein steps (iii), (iv), and (v) can be performed in sequence or simultaneously (disinfection of the evaporator 4 can be carried out permanently, par 0061).
9. Claim 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Stiehler et al (EP 1925478 B1) as applied to claim 7 above, and further in view of Huang et al (US 20060280664 A1).
Regarding claim 9, Stiehler teaches the process of claim 7, wherein the disinfection liquid is selected from hydrogen peroxide or other, particularly water-soluble disinfectants (pars 0055-0058). Stiehler does not teach wherein the disinfection liquid contains hypochlorous acid.
Huang teaches an atomization device for generating a hypochlorous acid containing liquid and distributing it into an airflow for sterilization (Abstract, par 0013). Further, electrodes are provided for generating hypochlorous acid from a water-based solution with chlorine (pars 0013-0014), analogous to the electrolytic reservoir configuration of Stiehler to generate active disinfectant species (Stiehler par 0055).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to use for the disinfection liquid in the method of Stiehler a hypochlorous acid solution as taught by Huang. Doing so would predictably provide a similar sterilization function (Huang Abstract), atomizing into the working environment in a similar manner as taught by Huang.
10. Claim 10 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Stiehler et al (EP 1925478 B1) as applied to claim 7 above, and further in view of Frische et al (US 20170304475 A1).
Regarding claim 10, Stiehler teaches the process of claim 7, wherein spraying of the liquid disinfectant in the liquid phase combats the problem of colonization of the evaporator with microorganisms on site (par 0010). Stiehler does not expressly teach that the disinfectant spraying would ensure wherein fungi or mold in the indoor air is removed or minimized after step (v).
Frische teaches an analogous disinfecting aerosol device (pars 0004-0012) that uses an aqueous disinfecting composition such as hypochlorous acid (pars 0077-0078) to effectively kill airborne microorganisms including fungi (par 0077).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to employ as the disinfection liquid in the method of Stiehler a hypochlorous acid solution as taught by Frische, as doing so would predictably have the same effectiveness at killing fungi as well as the other microorganisms described (Frische par 0077).
Response to Arguments
11. Applicant’s arguments, see Remarks filed 17 November 2025, with respect to the rejections of claims 7-8 and 10 under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) have been fully considered and are persuasive: the FIG. 4 embodiment of Stiehler does not anticipate the newly recited structure(s) of the apparatus provided in step (i). Therefore, the rejections have been withdrawn. However, upon further consideration, new grounds of rejection under are made under 35 U.S.C. 103 over Stiehler with respect to claims 7-8, over Stiehler in view of Huang with respect to claim 9, and over Stiehler in view of Frische with respect to claim 10, all as necessitated by the amendments.
12. With respect to Applicant’s arguments toward the novelty of the geometric arrangement of the present device, Examiner wishes to clarify that the arrangement of Stiehler does read upon wherein the as these features are at opposite ends of the liquid flow path (see FIG. 4). Stiehler also teaches an alternative embodiment including an airflow bypass around the evaporator which avoids the drawbacks that Applicant argues on Remarks page 18, providing an airflow pattern that is similar to the present application FIG. 2. Applicant’s assertion that the effects of gravity are critical to the beneficial function of the invention is negated by the fact that such a vertical orientation is not a feature of the claims. Further, Applicant’s argument that this invention satisfies a long-felt need is unpersuasive, as establishing long-felt need requires objective evidence that an art recognized problem existed in the art for a long period of time without solution. See MPEP 716.04. The need for mold and fungi mitigation has existed for eons, but that is more due to these species’ persistence than to a shortage of inventive solutions (see e.g., US 20170304475 A1 to Frische et al.).
Conclusion
13. The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Conrad (US 20180172291 A1) teaches an analogous air treatment device that applies water droplets mixed with disinfectant to an airflow (see FIG. 28, misting portion 168 may include treatment applicator which may produce disinfecting agent such as hydrogen peroxide or ozone, par 0317).
14. 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.
15. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Eric Talbert whose telephone number is (703)756-5538. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri 8:00-5:00 Eastern Time.
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.
/ERIC TALBERT/Examiner, Art Unit 1758
/SEAN E CONLEY/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1799