DETAILED ACTION
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
Claims 18-20 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to nonelected inventions, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Election was made without traverse in the reply filed on 01/14/2026.
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 4 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.
It is unclear whether the limitation “the one or more positive pressure sources comprises one or more blowers, one or more compressed air supplies, one or more fans” intends to limit the positive pressure source to include one of each of the list, or if only one of those listed is required to satisfy the limitation. For purposes of examination, the claim will be interpreted as to only require one of those listed to satisfy the limitation.
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.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 1, 5, 7, 9, and 11-13 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Schwartz (US 20140369887 A1).
Regarding claim 1, Schwartz (US 20140369887 A1) teaches a special effect system (Figure 2), comprising:
fog generation equipment configured to generate fog (Figure 2 Paragraph 15, reservoir 12 and a fog chamber 14) and comprising:
one or more positive pressure sources (Paragraph 24, pressure controller pushes the fog F through outlet 32); and
one or more negative pressure sources (Paragraph 24, pressure controller draws the fog F through the outlet 32; Paragraph 35, pressure controller produces a vacuum within the decontamination chamber);
a show element comprising one or more compartments (Figure 2 Paragraph 36, chemical chamber 14 and decontamination chamber 16); and
a controller communicatively coupled to the fog generation equipment (Figure 2 Paragraph 20, system controller 20 provides control signals to and/or receives control signals from the reservoir 12, chemical chamber 14, decontamination chamber 16, pressure control assembly 18, and fluid control valve 24), wherein the controller is configured to perform operations comprising:
applying negative pressure from the one or more negative pressure sources to the one or more compartments for a period of time (Paragraph 19-20, pressure controller develops a pressure differential between the chemical chamber 14 and the decontamination chamber 16 wherein the pressure controller 18 evacuates the decontamination chamber 16 to produce a vacuum);
permitting the fog from the fog generation equipment to enter the one or more compartments after the period of negative pressure (Paragraph 20, system controller 20 opens the fluid control valve 24 such as to allow the fog inside of chemical chamber 14 to be transferred into the decontamination chamber 16); and
applying a positive pressure from the one or more positive pressure sources to cause the fog to exit the one or more compartments to trigger a combustion effect (Paragraph 24, decontamination chamber 16 includes as assembly to force the fog F through the outlet 32 to remove the fog F from the interior of the decontamination chamber which includes pushing the fog or positive pressure).
Regarding claim 5, Schwartz teaches the special effect system of claim 1, wherein
the one or more compartments comprises one or more outlets configured to release the fog during the combustion effect (Paragraph 24, decontamination chamber 16 includes as assembly to force the fog F through the outlet 32 to remove the fog F from the interior of the decontamination chamber which includes pushing the fog or positive pressure).
Regarding claim 7, Schwartz teaches the special effect system of claim 1, wherein
the controller is configured to perform operations comprising:
receiving a deactivation signal (Figure 2 Paragraph 20, system controller 20 provides control signals to and/or receives control signals from the reservoir 12, chemical chamber 14, decontamination chamber 16, pressure control assembly 18, and fluid control valve 24; Paragraph 20, when the pressure inside of the decontamination chamber 16 reaches the desired or preprogrammed level); and
instructing a negative pressure damper of a plurality of dampers to open to apply the negative pressure from the one or more negative pressure sources to the one or more compartments for the period of time (Paragraph 20, system controller 20 opens the fluid control valve 24 such as to allow the fluid inside of the chamber 14 to be transferred into the decontamination chamber 16 for a programmed amount of time; negative pressure from the vacuum source is applied to the fluid in the chamber 14 by opening the fluid control valve 24).
Regarding claim 9, Schwartz teaches the special effect system of claim 1, wherein
the fog generation equipment comprises one or more vacuum generation devices configured to apply the negative pressure to the one or more compartments (Paragraph 19, pressure controller 18 may evacuate the decontamination chamber 16 to produce a vacuum).
Regarding claim 11, Schwartz teaches the special effect system of claim 1, wherein
the fog generation equipment is configured to generate the fog (Paragraph 18, fog is generated into the decontamination chamber 16).
Regarding claim 12, Schwartz (US 20140369887 A1) teaches a special effect method (Figure 2), the method comprising:
instructing, via a controller, a fog generation machine to generate fog (Paragraph 18, fog is generated into the decontamination chamber 16 wherein amount generated is controlled by the controller 20);
instructing, via the controller, to apply a negative pressure for a period of time from one or more vacuum blowers to one or more compartments to empty the one or more compartments (Figure 2 Paragraph 20, system controller 20 provides control signals to and/or receives control signals from the reservoir 12, chemical chamber 14, decontamination chamber 16, pressure control assembly 18, and fluid control valve 24; Paragraph 19-20, pressure controller develops a pressure differential between the chemical chamber 14 and the decontamination chamber 16 wherein the pressure controller 18 evacuates the decontamination chamber 16 to produce a vacuum);
allowing the fog from the fog generation machine to fill the one or more compartments after the period of time (Paragraph 20, system controller 20 opens the fluid control valve 24 such as to allow the fog inside of chemical chamber 14 to be transferred into the decontamination chamber 16); and
instructing, via the controller, to apply a positive pressure from one or more compressed air supplies to the one or more compartments to generate a combustion effect (Paragraph 24, decontamination chamber 16 includes as assembly to force the fog F through the outlet 32 to remove the fog F from the interior of the decontamination chamber which includes pushing the fog or positive pressure).
Regarding claim 13, Schwartz teaches the method of claim 12, comprising,
instructing, via the controller, a negative pressure damper to open for the negative pressure to be applied to the one or more compartments (Paragraph 20, system controller 20 opens the fluid control valve 24 such as to allow the fluid inside of the chamber 14 to be transferred into the decontamination chamber 16 for a programmed amount of time; negative pressure from the vacuum source is applied to the fluid in the chamber 14 by opening the fluid control valve 24).
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.
Claim(s) 14-16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Schwartz (US 20140369887 A1).
Regarding claim 14, Schwartz teaches the method of claim 13, comprising,
instructing, via the controller, the negative pressure damper to close (Paragraph 20, system controller 20 opens the fluid control valve 24 such as to allow the fluid inside of the chamber 14 to be transferred into the decontamination chamber 16 for a programmed amount of time; Paragraph 20, fluid control valve 24 is then closed to prevent fluid flow between the chemical chamber 14 and the decontamination chamber 16) in response to receiving an activation signal (Paragraph 5, the system controller 20 provides control signals to and/or receives control signals from the reservoir 12, chemical chamber 14, decontamination chamber 16, pressure control assembly 18, and fluid control valve 24; Paragraph 20, controller determines an amount of time has passed or has detected pressure in the chamber is within acceptable range; while Schwartz doesn’t explicitly teach that said activation signal is received, it would be obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art to implement it as so since the controller responds to detected pressure and/or time as well as being known to be capable of receiving signals from the various components); and
instructing, via the controller, a positive pressure damper to open to allow the fog from the fog generation machine to enter the one or more compartments (Paragraphs 42-43, process is repeated for the fluid control valve 42 wherein fluid control valve 42 is opened and the gas is blown in to the endoscope channel; Paragraph 20, force air assembly in the chemical chamber 14 is used to blow the fog into the decontamination chamber).
The Office notes that using a positive pressure forced air apparatus within a chemical chamber to blow fog into a decontamination chamber is well known in the art as evidenced by Levi (US 20080290189 A1).
Regarding claim 15, Schwartz teaches the method of claim 14, wherein
the fog is configured to travel through one or more fluid conduits before entering the one or more compartments (Figure 2, reservoir 12 is in fluid communication with chemical chamber 14 via a nozzle 22; Figure 2 Paragraph 15, fluid control valve 24 connects the fog chamber 14 with the decontamination chamber 16).
The Office further notes that using tubing to connect with a fog generator to connect to compartments is known in the art as evidenced by Levi (US 20080290189 A1).
Regarding claim 16, Schwartz teaches the method of claim 14, comprising:
instructing, via the controller, the positive pressure damper to close (Paragraphs 42-43, process is repeated for the fluid control valve 42 wherein fluid control valve 42 is opened and the gas is blown in to the endoscope channel; Paragraph 20, force air assembly in the chemical chamber 14 is used to blow the fog into the decontamination chamber; Paragraph 32, controller closes the fluid control valve 42 after determining a predetermined time has passed) in response to receiving a deactivation signal (Paragraph 32, controller closes the fluid control valve 42 after determining a predetermined time has passed; while Schwartz doesn’t explicitly teach that said deactivation signal is received, it would be obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art to implement it as so since the controller responds to a detected value as well as being known to be capable of receiving signals from the various components); and
instructing, via the controller, the negative pressure damper to open to apply the negative pressure for the period of time (Paragraphs 20 and 45, system controller 20 opens the fluid control valve 24 such as to allow the fluid inside of the chamber 14 to be transferred into the decontamination chamber 16 for a programmed amount of time; negative pressure from the vacuum source is applied to the fluid in the chamber 14 by opening the fluid control valve 24).
The Office notes that using a positive pressure forced air apparatus within a chemical chamber to blow fog into a decontamination chamber is well known in the art as evidenced by Levi (US 20080290189 A1).
Claim(s) 2-4, 6, 8-9, and 17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Schwartz (US 20140369887 A1) as applied to claims 1 and 16 above, and further in view of Levi (US 20080290189 A1).
Regarding claim 2, Schwartz teaches the special effect system of claim 1.
Schwatz fails to explicitly teach:
the one or more compartments comprises a center compartment configured for a primary combustion effect and a body compartment configured for a secondary combustion effect.
Levi (US 20080290189 A1) teaches an ultrasound fog generator, wherein:
the one or more compartments comprises a center compartment configured for a primary combustion effect and a body compartment configured for a secondary combustion effect (Figure 4 Paragraph 74, manifold 38 and tubing 40 for distributing the fog to different destinations including bins or storage areas of pharmaceuticals; Figure 5 Paragraph 75, several outputs 52 for expelling fog to multiple rack of items from several outlets; Paragraph 18, MCT produces fog containing sterilizing agents into rooms, chambers, or closets).
It would have thus been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Schwatz with Levi and included multiple chambers. This would have been done to allow the single source to provide fog to multiple chambers simultaneously (Levi Paragraph 74).
The Office further notes that the MPEP teaches that mere duplication of parts has no patentable significance unless a new and unexpected result is produced. MPEP §2144.04.VI.B. In this case, having multiple compartments has no patentable significance unless a new and unexpected result is produced.
Regarding claim 3, Schwartz as modified teaches the special effect system of claim 2, wherein:
the center compartment comprises one or more outlets configured to release the fog for the primary combustion effect (Paragraph 24, decontamination chamber 16 includes as assembly to force the fog F through the outlet 32 to remove the fog F from the interior of the decontamination chamber which includes pushing the fog or positive pressure)
Levi further teaches:
the body compartment comprises additional outlets configured to release fog for the secondary combustion effect (Figure 4 Paragraph 74, manifold 38 and tubing 40 for distributing the fog to different destinations including bins or storage areas of pharmaceuticals; Figure 5 Paragraph 75, several outputs 52 for expelling fog to multiple rack of items from several outlets; Paragraph 18, MCT produces fog containing sterilizing agents into rooms, chambers, or closets).
It would have been obvious for the same motivation as claim 2.
The Office further notes that the MPEP teaches that mere duplication of parts has no patentable significance unless a new and unexpected result is produced. MPEP §2144.04.VI.B. In this case, having multiple outlets has no patentable significance unless a new and unexpected result is produced.
Regarding claim 4, Schwartz teaches the special effect system of claim 1.
Schwartz fails to teach:
the one or more positive pressure sources comprises one or more blowers, one or more compressed air supplies, one or more fans.
Levi (US 20080290189 A1) teaches an ultrasound fog generator, wherein:
the one or more positive pressure sources comprises one or more blowers, one or more compressed air supplies, one or more fans (Paragraph 64, driver 22 may include a blower or fan; Paragraph 18, producing fog for sterilizing).
It would have thus been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Schwatz with Levi and used fans or blowers as the positive pressure source. This would have been done to push the fog out last the exit opening (Levi Paragraph 41).
See 112b rejection above.
Regarding claim 8, Schwartz teaches the special effect system of claim 7, wherein
the controller is configured to perform operations comprising:
receiving an activation signal (Paragraph 5, the system controller 20 provides control signals to and/or receives control signals from the reservoir 12, chemical chamber 14, decontamination chamber 16, pressure control assembly 18, and fluid control valve 24; Paragraph 20, controller determines an amount of time has passed or has detected pressure in the chamber is within acceptable range);
instructing the negative pressure damper of the plurality of dampers to close after the period of time (Paragraph 20, system controller 20 opens the fluid control valve 24 such as to allow the fluid inside of the chamber 14 to be transferred into the decontamination chamber 16 for a programmed amount of time; Paragraph 20, fluid control valve 24 is then closed to prevent fluid flow between the chemical chamber 14 and the decontamination chamber 16); and
instructing a positive pressure damper of the plurality dampers to open to permit the fog to enter the one or more compartments (Paragraphs 42-43, process is repeated for the fluid control valve 42 wherein fluid control valve 42 is opened and the gas is blown in to the endoscope channel; Paragraph 20, force air assembly in the chemical chamber 14 is used to blow the fog into the decontamination chamber).
The Office notes that using a positive pressure forced air apparatus within a chemical chamber to blow fog into a decontamination chamber is well known in the art as evidenced by Levi (US 20080290189 A1).
Regarding claim 17, Schwartz teaches the method of claim 16, comprising:
filling a first compartment of the one or more compartments with the fog from the fog generation machine (Paragraph 20, system controller 20 opens the fluid control valve 24 such as to allow the fog inside of chemical chamber 14 to be transferred into the decontamination chamber 16);
applying, via the controller, the positive pressure from one or more blowers to the first compartment to generate a first combustion effect (Paragraph 24, decontamination chamber 16 includes as assembly to force the fog F through the outlet 32 to remove the fog F from the interior of the decontamination chamber which includes pushing the fog or positive pressure);
Schwartz fails to teach:
filling a second compartment of the one or more compartments with the fog from the fog generation machine
applying, via the controller, the positive pressure from the one or more blowers to the second compartment to generate a second combustion effect wherein the second combustion effect is visually smaller than the first combustion effect
Levi (US 20080290189 A1) teaches an ultrasound fog generator, wherein:
filling a second compartment of the one or more compartments with the fog from the fog generation machine (Figure 4 Paragraph 74, manifold 38 and tubing 40 for distributing the fog to different destinations including bins or storage areas of pharmaceuticals; Figure 5 Paragraph 75, several outputs 52 for expelling fog to multiple rack of items from several outlets; Paragraph 18, MCT produces fog containing sterilizing agents into rooms, chambers, or closets); and
applying, via the controller, the positive pressure from the one or more blowers to the second compartment to generate a second combustion effect (Paragraphs 41 and 64, driver which is a blower is used to cause a driving fluid past the exit opening to push the driving fluid past the exit opening), wherein the second combustion effect is visually smaller than the first combustion effect (amount of visible output would depend upon the amount of gas which is supplied into each chamber as well as the total volume of the chamber which are both obvious engineering choice depending on the device that is intended to be sterilized by a specific chambers; also likely that the visual effect of the gas being exhausted would appear slightly visually different).
It would have thus been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Schwatz with Levi and included multiple compartments to which the gas is delivered to. This would have been done to allow the single source to provide fog to multiple compartments simultaneously (Levi Paragraph 74).
The Office further notes that the MPEP teaches that mere duplication of parts has no patentable significance unless a new and unexpected result is produced. MPEP §2144.04.VI.B. In this case, having multiple compartments has no patentable significance unless a new and unexpected result is produced.
Claim(s) 6 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Schwartz (US 20140369887 A1) as applied to claim 5 above, and further in view of Levi (US 20080290189 A1) and O'Brien (US 20100108777 A1).
Regarding claim 6, Schwartz teaches the special effect system of claim 5.
Schwartz fails to teach:
the outlets comprise a covering comprising of a perforated material.
Levi (US 20080290189 A1) teaches an ultrasound fog generator, wherein:
the outlets comprise a covering comprising of a perforated material (Paragraph 66, various filters can be used at the outlet of the fog such as to filter contaminants when exiting port 21; Paragraph 18, returns the remainders of the fog into the unit for drying and neutralization for reuse).
It would have thus been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Schwatz with Levi and placed a filter at the outlet. This would have been done to filter contaminants when exiting (Levi Paragraph 66).
Paragraph 18 of Levi further teaches that recycling the fog for reuse can additionally be beneficial. O'Brien (US 20100108777 A1) teaches a haze recapture control which teaches using an air capture device 115 with one or more perforated openings (O'Brien Paragraph 25) such as to facilitate recycling of the gas. It would have thus been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Schwatz with O'Brien and used a perforated opening as an air intake system. This would have been done to recycle fog for reuse in sterilization (Levi Paragraph 18).
Claim(s) 10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Schwartz (US 20140369887 A1) as applied to claim 9 above, and further in view of Dennis (US 10111974 B1).
Regarding claim 10, Schwartz teaches the special effect system of claim 9, wherein
wherein the controller is configured to perform operations comprising to apply the negative pressure from the one or more vacuum generation devices to the one or more compartments (Paragraph 19, pressure controller 18 may evacuate the decontamination chamber 16 to produce a vacuum to the decontamination chamber; Paragraph 30, system controller 20 controls the fluid control valves 24 and 42).
Schwartz fails to explicitly teach:
a negative pressure damper of a plurality of dampers coupled to the one or more vacuum generation devices, wherein the controller is configured to perform operations comprising instructing the negative pressure damper of the plurality of dampers to open to apply the negative pressure from the one or more vacuum generation devices to the one or more compartments
Dennis (US 10111974 B1) teaches a method and apparatus for on-site microbial remediation, wherein:
a negative pressure damper of a plurality of dampers coupled to the one or more vacuum generation devices, wherein the controller is configured to perform operations comprising instructing the negative pressure damper of the plurality of dampers to open to apply the negative pressure from the one or more vacuum generation devices to the one or more compartments (Column 4 Lines 34-53, utilizing a valve capable of opening and closing such as to selectively isolate the vacuum from the chamber to which the vacuum is being applied to)
It would have thus been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Schwatz with Dennis and placed a valve between the vacuum generation device and the chamber controlled by the system controller. This would have been done to facilitate stopping the vacuum from applying into the chamber when the pressure has reached the proper pressure by selectively isolating the vacuum (Dennis Column 4 Lines 34-53) and to automate the opening and closing of the valve (Schwatz Paragraph 30).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to FRANKLIN JEFFERSON WANG whose telephone number is (571)272-7782. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 10AM-6PM (E.S.T).
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, Ibrahime Abraham can be reached at (571) 270-5569. 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.
/F.J.W./Examiner, Art Unit 3761
/IBRAHIME A ABRAHAM/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3761