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 without traverse of Claims 1-17 in the reply filed on 7/28/25 is acknowledged.
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 (nonstructural term underlined for clarity):
“a sterilization source configured to emit radiation” in claim 1.
“at least one sterilization source is configured to emit radiation” in claim 11.
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.
Looking to the disclosure, it appears the corresponding structure is, in both instances, an ultraviolet lamp configured to emit radiation as set forth in the last paragraph on page 3 of the instant specification.
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 6 is 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 6 recites the limitation "the radiation source" in line 1. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. For the purpose of examination, it is interpreted that the source is the same or a part of the sterilization source recited in claim 4 from which claim 6 depends.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
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.
Claims 8-9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Gauthier (US 3,745,991).
Regarding claim 8, Gauthier (US 3,745,991) discloses –
A sterilization system for a ventilator return air flow (Figs. 1-4, contamination control device 10), the sterilization system comprising:
a return line (Fig. 1 hose 16) configured to provide for airflow between first and second ends (Col. 3 lines 23-33);
a hood (cowl device 13 extending from the inlet at filter 45) having a top wall (the filter 45 acts as a top wall to the cowl device 13), at least one side wall extending from a top wall (the sidewalls of the cowl 13 best shown in figs. 1 and 2), and
an opening situated in the top wall (the particle filter 45 is made up of a plurality of small holes to allow for air to pass through, which is inherent to fiber-based filters; Col. 4 line 41 – Col. 5 line 2), wherein the hood is configured to be coupled to a tube that is coupled to an end of the return line (Fig. 2 inlet member 48 includes a tube that is coupled to line 16); and
couplers (Fig. 2 the extended end 39) configured to couple the at least one side wall of the hood to adjacent ones of a plurality of support struts (the extended end 39 connects the side wall of the cowl 13 to wire loop 40 which extends from supports to the housing 12, see fig. 2; Col. 4 lines 17-41) to configure the hood to form an opening (enlarged opening 19) leading to a cavity (the space within the cowl 13, see fig. 1),
the cavity being configured to receive at least a portion of a head of a subject receiving respiratory gas from an air source via a mask (Fig. 1 shows this, the mask is not positively claimed and the cowl 13 is well-capable of performing this function, see MPEP 2114, II), wherein
the hood is configured to enable ambient air into the airflow while over the portion of the head of the subject (Col. 3 lines 23-44).
Regarding claim 9, Gauthier further teaches a hood base (housing 12) configured to be coupled to the plurality of support struts (Fig. 1 shows the housing 12 coupled to the supports that define the shape of the cowl 13) such that each of the support struts extends away from the hood base and each other (Fig. 1 the cowl is a rectangular prism with the support struts in the corner, extending away from another and the housing 12), the hood base having an opening configured to receive the tube that is coupled to the end of the return line (Figs. 2 and 4 shows the housing 12 with opening 29 in the plate 28, where the inlet member 48 is positioned).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
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 1-4, 10-13 and 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Gauthier (US 3,745,991) in view of Sokolik (US 2,737,695).
Regarding claim 1, Gauthier (US 3,745,991) discloses –
A sterilization system for a ventilator return air flow (Figs. 1-4 environmental contamination control device 10), comprising:
a hood base (housing 12) having
an opening (Fig. 2, the opening at gross particle filter 45) and a coupler (plate 28 has an opening 28 coupled to a return line 16)
configured to receive a return line (the return line 16) and
a plurality of support struts (the wire cowl frame 37 is shown in figs. 2-3 having multiple frame pieces reading on the limitation of support struts) extending away from the hood base (fig. 2 best shows this, Col. 4 lines 17-26);
a hood (cowl 13) having a top wall and at least one side wall (Figs. 1-2 show a plurality of walls, particularly at least 4) extending from a top wall (the cowl has walls that extend vertically downward from a top wall as shown in fig. 1; Col. 4 lines 27-30),
the hood being configured to be coupled to the plurality of support struts to form an opening (Col. 4 lines 17-30; Figs. 1-2 opening 19) leading to a cavity (the inside of cowl 13 shown in the cross-section of fig. 2),
the cavity being configured to receive at least a portion of a head of a subject receiving respiratory gas from an air source via a mask (Fig. 1 shows this, the mask is not positively claimed and the cowl 13 is well-capable of performing this function, see MPEP 2114, II); and
an air pump (Blower 30) configured to establish an air flow through the opening of the hood (Col. 4 lines 3-6) and into at least one chamber for treatment that may be provided to an inlet port (Col. 4 lines 41-51) of the air source, wherein
the hood is configured to enable ambient air into the airflow while over the portion of the head of the subject (Col. 3 lines 23-44).
Gauthier sets forth that the air drawn through the hood is intended to be treated and recycled back to the air source for the re-use of the air in the process of operating the nebulizer (Col. 3 lines 40-45), but appears to be silent with regards to specifically a sterilizer with a sterilization chamber that emits radiation to sterilize air.
Sokolik (US 2,737,695) discloses a sterilization system for sterilizing air in a return air-flow including a sterilizer (Figs. 1-2 funnel 17 including the UV germicidal light 20, also germicidal lamps 15 and 16 in conduits 24 and 25) coupled to a return line (spout 54) having at least one sterilization chamber (Figs. 1-2 specifically funnel 17) and a sterilization source for emitting radiation to sterilize air within the chamber (Figs. 1-2 germicidal lamp 20, Col. 2 lines 39-44 disclosing the irradiation of the air with UV rays, Col. 4 lines 28-34). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the device disclosed by Gauthier such that there is a sterilizer coupled to the return line having at least one sterilization chamber and a sterilization source configured to emit radiation to sterilize air within the at least one chamber as taught by Sokolik to arrive at the claimed invention. One would have been motivated to do so to better and more thoroughly treat and sterilize the air in the air system to arrive at an improved and more effective environmental contamination control device.
Regarding claim 2, modified Gauthier further teaches a pole stand (Fig. 1 carriage 15) comprising a hood support (trunnions 26) coupled to the hood base (fig. 1 shows the trunnions 26 coupled to hood base 12), wherein the pole stand is configured to selectively position the hood in a vertical or a horizontal position (Col. 3 lines 45-55 disclose the trunnions 26 are for positioning the hood in various positions including vertical and angular adjustments where a patient is sitting or lying down, and therefore the structure is expected to reasonably be capable of performing the claimed function of selectively positioning in a vertical or horizontal position, see MPEP 2114, II).
Regarding claim 3, modified Gauthier further teaches the pole stand further comprises a base (Fig. 1 carriage 15 having base 23) having a plurality of wheels (wheels 24) and a support pole (support members 25) which extends from the base (see fig. 1, the members 25 extending from the base 23 of the carriage 15), wherein the base is configured to be coupled to at least one of the sterilizer and the air source (the base 23 is well capable of being at least indirectly coupled to one or both of a sterilizer and an air source, MPEP 2114, II; nebulizer 14 delivering aerosol in an air mixture also reads on the limitation of a source and further reads on this limitation, Col. 3 lines 23-33).
Regarding claim 4, modified Gauthier further teaches the sterilization source (156) further comprises an ultra-violet (UV) lamp configured to emit radiation that is germicidal into the at least one sterilization chamber of the sterilizer (Lamps 20 and 14-15 are UV lamps, Col. 2 lines 39-44 disclosing the irradiation of the air with UV rays, Col. 4 lines 28-34).
Regarding claim 10, Gauthier is set forth above with regards to claim 8 but appears to be silent with regards to a sterilizer.
Sokolik (US 2,737,695) discloses a sterilization system for sterilizing air in a return air-flow including a sterilizer (Figs. 1-2 funnel 17 including the UV germicidal light 20, also germicidal lamps 15 and 16 in conduits 24 and 25) coupled to a return line (spout 54) having at least one sterilization chamber (Figs. 1-2 specifically funnel 17) and a sterilization source for emitting radiation to sterilize air within the chamber (Figs. 1-2 germicidal lamp 20, Col. 2 lines 39-44 disclosing the irradiation of the air with UV rays, Col. 4 lines 28-34), wherein the sterilizer receives the airflow, sterilizes it, and outputs it via an outlet port to be provided to an inlet port of an air source (Col. 4 lines 13-36 describe the sterilization of air being received and then outputting to the inlet of an air circulating system of a building). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the device disclosed by Gauthier such that there is a sterilizer downstream of filter 44 coupled to the return line 16 having at least one sterilization chamber and a sterilization source configured to emit radiation to sterilize air within the at least one chamber as taught by Sokolik to arrive at the claimed invention. One would have been motivated to do so to better and more thoroughly treat and sterilize the air in the air system to arrive at an improved and more effective environmental contamination control device.
Regarding claim 11, modified Gauthier further teaches at least one sterilization source (156) situated within the at least one sterilization chamber, wherein the at least one sterilization source is configured to emit radiation to sterilize the air flow within the at least one sterilization chamber (germicidal lamps 24 and 25).
Regarding claim 12, modified Gauthier further teaches a sterilizer output coupler (Fig. 2 and 4, inlet member 48 and valve 47) configured to provide the sterilized air flow to the inlet port of the ventilator, the sterilizer output coupler having a balance valve (the valve 47 is for diverting air through tube 16, which is controllable via closure member 49 and knob 50 – reading on the limitation of a balance valve as claimed) to selectively bleed at least a portion of the sterilized air flow to an ambient surrounding (the valve 47 determines if air is bled to the ambient or recycled through the tube 16, Col. 5 lines 3-14). The ventilator is not positively claimed in this claim nor any claim from which claim 12 depends and therefore not a part of invention. The limitation that the output coupler is configured to provide the sterilized air flow to a ventilator is therefore merely a manner in which the device is intended to be used. The inlet member 48 and valve 47 are well capable of diverting through hose 16 air which has been sterilized via the incorporated sterilizer of Sokolik to a device such as a ventilator, which is similar in function to the nebulizer 14 which is explicitly taught by Gauthier. All of the structural limitations of the claim are met and the device disclosed by Gauthier is well capable of performing the claimed function, and therefore all of the claimed limitations are met. MPEP 2114, II.
Regarding claim 13, modified Gauthier further teaches the balance valve is configured to be manually adjusted (knob 50 is used to control the valve, Col. 5 lines 3-14).
Regarding claim 16, modified Gauthier further teaches an air pump (Fig. 2 pump 30) configured to establish the airflow to flow air through the opening of the hood (Col. 3 lines 23-44) and into the at least one sterilization chamber for exposure to the at least one sterilization source and subsequent output as the sterilized air flow (the sterilization chamber of Sokolik, when incorporated into Gauthier would reasonably be a part of the housing 12 downstream of the filter 44 or in line with the air hose 16, and therefore would receive the air from the air pump as claimed) to an inlet port of the ventilator (the end of hose 16, attached to medical device 14). Similar to claim 12, the ventilator is not claimed and therefore all of the structure of the claimed invention is taught, the structure of modified Gauthier is well capable of and reasonably expected to perform the claimed function, and therefore all of the limitations of the claim are met. MPEP 2114, II.
Claims 5-7, 14-15 and 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Gauthier (US 3,745,991) in view of Sokolik (US 2,737,695) as applied to claim 4, 11 and 16 above and further in view of Johannes (DE 102020205986 A1).
Regarding claim 5, modified Gauthier is set forth above with regards to claim 4, but appears to be silent with regards to the wavelength of emitted radiation.
Johannes (DE 102020205986 A1) discloses a system for air disinfection (title, abstract) where a UV LED emitting radiation in the wavelength range between 100-320 nm is used (par. 10 discloses 265-275 nm UV light). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the device disclosed by Gauthier such that the UV light emitted is in the range of 100-320 nm as taught by Johannes to arrive at the claimed invention. One would have been motivated to do so to use a known and effective wavelength to destroy and inactivate pathogens in air to arrive at an improved sterilization system. The combination of familiar prior art elements, including known light wavelengths for known applications, according to known means to arrive at results that are nothing more than predictable is prima facie obvious. MPEP 2143(I)(A).
Regarding claim 6, modified Gauthier is set forth with regards to claim 5 above. Gauthier is further silent with regards to an LED.
Johannes further teaches the radiation source comprises at least one LED (par. 11). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the device disclosed by Gauthier such that the radiation source includes at least one LED as taught by Johannes to arrive at the claimed invention. One would have been motivated to do so to take advantage of the energy efficiency and compact construction of LEDs to arrive at an improved sterilization system.
Regarding claim 7, modified Gauthier is set forth with regards to claim 1 above. Gauthier is silent with regards to at least one controller performing the claimed functions.
Johannes teaches a controller configured to control the intensity of the sterilization source and a speed of the air pump (par. 12, control unit) such that increasing the speed of the pump increases the intensity of the sterilization source and decreasing the speed of the pump decreases the intensity similarly (par. 12, the intensity of the UV sources is increased or decreased in proportion to the airflow velocity generated by the fan). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the device disclosed by Gauthier such that it includes a controller for proportionally controlling the intensity of the sterilization source relative to the speed of the air pump as taught by Johannes to arrive at the claimed invention. One would have been motivated to do so to thoroughly sterilize the flow of air and to maintain a constant flux of sterilizing radiation on the whole of the flow of air across different flow velocities to arrive at an improved air treatment device.
Regarding claim 14, modified Gauthier appears to be silent with regards to a UV LED.
Johannes further teaches the UV radiation source comprises at least one LED (par. 11). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the device disclosed by Gauthier such that the radiation source includes at least one LED as taught by Johannes to arrive at the claimed invention. One would have been motivated to do so to take advantage of the energy efficiency and compact construction of LEDs to arrive at an improved sterilization system.
Regarding claims 15 and 17, modified Gauthier appears to be silent with regards to at least one controller to control and intensity of the at least one sterilization source and at least one controller to control the air pump to establish air flow through the opening of the hood.
Johannes teaches a controller configured to control the intensity of the sterilization source and a speed of the air pump (par. 12, control unit) (par. 12, the intensity of the UV sources is increased or decreased in proportion to the airflow velocity generated by the fan). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the device disclosed by Gauthier such that it includes at least one controller for controlling the intensity of the sterilization source and at least one controller for controlling the speed of the air pump for the purpose of drawing air through the opening in the hood as taught by Johannes to arrive at the claimed invention. One would have been motivated to do so to controllably and thoroughly sterilize the flow of air and to adjust the amount of air provided to remove contaminated air from the cowl 13 in order to at an improved air treatment device.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to BRENDAN A HENSEL whose telephone number is (571)272-6615. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Thu 8:30 - 7pm;.
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.
/BRENDAN A HENSEL/ Examiner, Art Unit 1758