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 § 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.
Claims 7-11 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 7 recites the limitation "the control processor” in line 1. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Appropriate correction/clarification is required.
Due to the dependency to the parent claim, claims 8-10 are rejected.
Claim 11 recites the limitation of “a sanitizing system that uses ionized hydrogen peroxide as a sterilization agent”. This limitation merely states a functional characteristic without providing any indication about how the functional characteristic is provided. The recited functional characteristic does not follow from (is not an inherent property of) the structure recited in the claim, so it is unclear whether the claim requires some other structure to be added to the apparatus to achieve the functional characteristic or the functional characteristic is due to a manner of operating the device.
Furthermore, it is known in the art that there are multiple ways to generate hydrogen peroxide as a sterilization agent. Therefore, it is not clear which of those ways are encompassed by the claim. Thus, one having ordinary skill in the art would not be able to draw a clear boundary between what is and is not covered by the claim (see MPEP 2173.05(g) for more information).
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 1-3, 6 and 11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lucio (PG-PUB US 2019/0336627) in view of Silver (PG-PUB US 2004/0003511, cited in IDS).
Regarding claim 1, Lucio discloses a disinfection apparatus (ABSTRACT). The apparatus comprises
(1) a housing 34 for disinfecting CPAP component, including a mask 24 (i.e., a sterilization chamber, Figures 1-5, paragraphs [0034] & [0038]);
(2) a tray 42 for supporting/holding the mask 24 within the housing 34 (i.e., an articulating mask support …, Figures 3-5, paragraph [0039]);
(3) a fan 56 for circulating flow through a hose 22 coupled to the mask 24 (i.e., a fan …, Figure 6, paragraph [0047]); and
(4) one or more UV lights 54 for generating hydrogen peroxide and hydroxyl radicals for disinfection (i.e., a sterilization agent generator …, Figures 4-5, paragraphs [0041] - [0044]).
It should be noted that “an articulating mask support” does not recite any structural limitation and will be interpreted as “a structure/unit for supporting/holding a mask”. Lucio teaches that the tray 42 is for supporting mask 24, reading on “an articulating mask support”.
Lucio teaches that a fan 56 is provided within the housing 34 for circulating flow through a hose 22 coupled to the mask 24 (Figure 6, paragraph [0047]), but does not teach a bi-direction fan system. However, Silver discloses a disinfection apparatus (ABSTRCT). Silver teaches that the apparatus comprises a pair of reversible fans 32 and 34 for circulating disinfection agent/ozone generated from an ozone generator 36 to ensure the disinfecting agent to contact all articles to be sanitized (Figure 1, paragraphs [0015], [0030], & [0032]).
Therefore, it would be obvious for one having ordinary skill in the art to utilize a pair of reversible fans as suggested by Silver in order to thoroughly circulate the disinfecting agent for sufficient treatment within the device of Lucio.
Regarding claim 2, Lucio teaches that a control unit 26 is provided for operating the various components of the device (paragraph [0036]).
Regarding claims 3 and 11, Lucio teaches that the UV light 54 along with titanium oxide generates hydrogen peroxide and hydroxyl radicals (paragraph [0042]).
Regarding claim 6, Lucio teaches that more UV lights 54 may be used for thorough treatment (paragraph [0045]).
Claims 4-5 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lucio (PG-PUB US 2019/0336627) and Silver (PG-PUB US 2004/0003511) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Scherer et al (WO 2019/185809, cited in IDS).
Regarding claim 4, Lucio teaches that a tray 42 is provided for supporting the mask 24 (Figures 3-5, paragraph [0039]), but Lucio/Silver does not teach the mask support functionally being similar to a form of a human head. However, Scherer et al disclose a disinfection apparatus for a mask (ABSTRACT). Scherer teaches that the apparatus comprises a mask holder 26 in a chamber 150 for holding/supporting a mask 114 thereupon to stretch the mask, wherein the holder 126 has a head shape (Figures 1 - 3, paragraphs [0133] –[0136]). Therefore, it would be obvious for one having ordinary skill in the art to utilize a head-shaped holder as suggested by Scherer in order to stretch the mask thereupon for thorough contacting the cleaning/disinfecting agent within the device of Lucio/Silver.
Furthermore, the claimed limitations are obvious because all the claimed elements were known in the prior art and one skilled in the art could have combined the elements as claimed by known methods with no change in their respective functions, and the combination yielded nothing more than predictable results (MPEP 2143A).
Regarding claim 5, Scherer teaches that the holder 126 includes a front sealing surface 128 and a back portion having at least a connection element 140, wherein the mask 114 is attached to the holder 126 through at least one fixation 132 (Figures 1-2, paragraphs [0132] – [0135]).
Furthermore, it has been held that constructing a formerly integral structure in various elements involves only routine skill in the art. Nerwin v, Erlichman, 168 USPQ177, 179. Therefore, it is within ordinary skill in the art to make the holder separatable and movable between the front surface and the back port.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 7-10 would be allowable if rewritten to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 2nd paragraph, set forth in this Office action and to include all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Conclusion
Claims 1-11 are rejected.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to XIUYU TAI whose telephone number is (571)270-1855. The examiner can normally be reached Mon.-Fri. 9:00-5:00.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Luan Van can be reached at 571-272-8521. 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.
/XIUYU TAI/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1795