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 of Group I, claims 1-16, in the reply filed on 12/22/25 is acknowledged. Because applicant did not distinctly and specifically point out the supposed errors in the restriction requirement, the election has been treated as an election without traverse (MPEP § 818.01(a)).
Claim Objections
Claims 3 and 6 are objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 3, please spell out the acronym “cfm” in line 3.
Claim 6, please change “a contact precautions” to “as contact precautions” in line 3.
Appropriate correction is required.
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: “dispensing profile for controlling the dispensing of said disinfectant” 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 dispensing profile is understood to be readable software instructions/data configured to be utilized by a controller to manipulate a nozzle or pump the specification (page 12, para 1).
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.
Claims 1, 9, 12, and 14-16 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.
Claims 1, 9, and 12 recite the limitation "either said pump, fan, or nozzle assembly" in lines 14, 16, and 17, respectively. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation (said fan) in the claim.
Claims 1, 9, and 12 recite the limitation "central controller" in lines 13, 15, and 16, respectively. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. For examination purposes, this term will be understood to be referring to the recited controller. This rejection can be cured by deleting the term “central.”
Claims 1, 9, and 12 recite the limitation "the amount of sanitization fluid” in lines 17, 19, and 20, respectively. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. For examination purposes, this term will be understood to be referring to the recited disinfecting fluid.
Claims 2-8, 10-11, and 13-16 are rejected due to their dependency on the rejected intendent claims and failure to cure the antecedent basis issues above.
Claims 14-16 recite the limitation "the centralized operating system" in line 1. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
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.
Claim(s) 1 and 8-12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Grinstead (US 20170333585 A1) in view of Garmendia Oyarbide (US 20210386050 A1) (eligible as prior art under 102(a)(2) with an effective filing date of 10/2/2018) hereinafter “Garmendia.”
Regarding claim 1, Grinstead teaches a disinfecting system (Fig. 1, fogging system 30) for a room having at least a first and second wall defining a room dimension (Fig. 7, fogging system comprises fogger 31 within an enclosed area including a room = understood to have a first and second wall defining a dimension), comprising:
a housing (Fig. 7, 32);
a reservoir containing a disinfecting fluid carried by said housing (Fig. 7, reservoir 33),
a nozzle assembly including a nozzle (Fig. 7, 35) and a nozzle controller for dispensing said disinfecting fluid into a room (Fig. 7, processor 37 controls atomizing nozzle [0030]), said nozzle assembly carried by said housing (nozzle 35 within housing 32);
a pump for communicating said disinfecting fluid from said reservoir to said nozzle assembly, said pump carried by said housing (Fig. 7, compressor 34);
a controller for controlling the dispensing of said disinfectant, said controller carried by said housing (Fig. 7, processor 37);
a dispensing profile for controlling the dispensing of said disinfectant (processor has computer executable instructions to control fogging systems [0032] = understood to be dispensing profile);
wherein said dispensing profile utilizes the dimensions of the room as instructions for said controller, said controller utilizing said dispensing profile instructions for manipulating either said pump, fan or nozzle assembly to dispense a desired volume of said disinfectant fluid (processor uses room dimensions to determine respective rate of dispensing to ensure saturation of room, [0035-0036] = understood to be dispensing a desired volume of said disinfectant at a variable rate determined by processor);
wherein the amount of sanitization fluid dispensed will remain in a fluid state within the room constituting a dwell time of at least between one minute and ten minutes (dwell time can be in five-minute intervals to saturate enclosed space with disinfectant [0041] = understood to be capable of keeping sanitization fluid liquid for dwell time of one to ten minutes).
Grinstead does not teach wherein said dispensing profile utilizes the dimensions of the room as instructions for said controller to identify the range for dispensing said disinfecting fluid, and wherein said controller utilizes said dispensing profile instructions for manipulating either said pump, fan or nozzle assembly to dispense a desired volume of said disinfectant fluid at a range as identified by said dispensing profile.
One having ordinary skill in the art would be concerned with determining the distance from the nozzle outlet and the walls of the enclosed space to optimize the spraying dosage, motivating one to turn towards Garmendia. Garmendia teaches a device for the application of insecticides comprising a spray nozzle (Fig. 3, 110) configured to eject the insecticide and a distance sensor (Fig. 6, 80) attached to said nozzle and configured to determine if a distance between the nozzle and a target area is sufficient to ensure an optimal dose [0061].
Grinstead and Garmendia are considered analogous to the claimed invention since both are drawn to the atomization and dispensing arts. 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 controller as taught by Grinstead to include the distance sensor as taught by Garmendia to determine the distance between the nozzle and the enclosed space to ensure an optimal dosage of disinfectant and this involves the combination of elements to yield a predictable result with a reasonable expectation of success. See MPEP 2143(I)(A).
Regarding claim 8, Modified Grinstead teaches the disinfectant system of claim 7 including a humidity sensor (Grinstead, Fig. 12, sensor 120) located within an airflow path between said inlet and outlet for measuring the humidity of the ambient air (Grinstead, [0046]), said measurement of said humidity transferred to said controller for controlling the dispensing of said disinfectant (Grinstead, [0046], Fig. 15).
Regarding claim 9, Grinstead teaches a disinfecting system (Fig. 1, fogging system 30) for a room having at least a first and second wall defining a room dimension (Fig. 7, fogging system has fogger 31 within an enclosed area including a room = understood to have a first and second wall defining a dimension), comprising:
a first disinfecting unit (Fig. 1, fogger 31) comprising:
a housing (Fig. 7, 32);
a reservoir containing a disinfecting fluid carried by said housing (Fig. 7, reservoir 33),
a nozzle assembly including a nozzle (Fig. 7, 35) and a nozzle controller for dispensing said disinfecting fluid into a room (Fig. 7, processor 37 controls atomizing nozzle [0030]), said nozzle assembly carried by said housing (nozzle 35 within housing 32);
a pump for communicating said disinfecting fluid from said reservoir to said nozzle assembly, said pump carried by said housing (Fig. 7, compressor 34);
a controller for controlling the dispensing of said disinfectant, said controller carried by said housing (Fig. 7, processor 37);
a first dispensing profile for controlling the dispensing of said disinfectant (processor has computer executable instructions to control fogging systems [0032] = understood to be dispensing profile);
said first dispensing profile utilizing the dimensions of the room as instructions for said controller, said controller utilizing said first dispensing profile instructions for manipulating either said pump, fan or nozzle assembly to dispense a desired volume of said disinfectant fluid at a range to provide said disinfecting fluid to a first sanitization area as defined by said first dispensing profile (processor uses room dimensions to determine respective rate of dispensing to ensure saturation of room, [0035-0036] = understood to be dispensing a desired volume of said disinfectant at a variable rate determined by processor);
wherein the amount of sanitization fluid dispensed will remain in a fluid state within the room constituting a dwell time of at least between one minute and ten minutes (dwell time can be in five-minute intervals to saturate enclosed space with disinfectant [0041] = understood to be capable of keeping sanitization fluid liquid for dwell time of one to ten minutes).
and,
a second disinfecting unit (Fig. 7, fogging system 30 includes a plurality of foggers 31 that can be positioned within an enclosed space, each fogger comprising the same structure as the first disinfecting unit above [0025]) comprising a housing;
a housing (Fig. 7, 32);
a reservoir containing a disinfecting fluid carried by said housing (Fig. 7, reservoir 33),
a nozzle assembly including a nozzle (Fig. 7, 35) and a nozzle controller for dispensing said disinfecting fluid into a room (Fig. 7, processor 37 controls atomizing nozzle [0030]), said nozzle assembly carried by said housing (nozzle 35 within housing 32);
a pump for communicating said disinfecting fluid from said reservoir to said nozzle assembly, said pump carried by said housing (Fig. 7, compressor 34);
a controller for controlling the dispensing of said disinfectant, said controller carried by said housing (Fig. 7, processor 37);
a second dispensing profile for controlling the dispensing of said disinfectant (processor has computer executable instructions to control fogging systems [0032] = understood to be dispensing profile);
said second dispensing profile utilizing the dimensions of the room as instructions for said controller, said controller utilizing said second dispensing profile instructions for manipulating either said pump, fan or nozzle assembly to dispense a desired volume of said disinfectant fluid at a range to provide said disinfecting fluid to a second sanitization area as defined by said second dispensing profile (processor uses room dimensions to determine respective rate of dispensing to ensure saturation of room, [0035-0036] = understood to be dispensing a desired volume of said disinfectant at a variable rate determined by processor);
and wherein said first sanitization area is different than said second sanitization area (plurality of foggers may be used in an area = foggers understood to sanitize different sanitization areas within an enclosed space [0025-0026]).
wherein the amount of sanitization fluid dispensed will remain in a fluid state within the room constituting a dwell time of at least between one minute and ten minutes (dwell time can be in five-minute intervals to saturate enclosed space with disinfectant [0041] = understood to be capable of keeping sanitization fluid liquid for dwell time of one to ten minutes).
Grinstead does not teach wherein said dispensing profiles utilize the dimensions of the room as instructions for said controller to identify the range for dispensing said disinfecting fluid, and wherein said controller utilizes said dispensing profile instructions for manipulating either said pump, fan or nozzle assembly to dispense a desired volume of said disinfectant fluid at a range as identified by said dispensing profile.
One having ordinary skill in the art would be concerned with determining the distance from the nozzle outlet and the walls of the enclosed space to optimize the spraying dosage, motivating one to turn towards Garmendia. Garmendia teaches a device for the application of insecticides comprising a spray nozzle (Fig. 3, 110) configured to eject the insecticide and a distance sensor (Fig. 6, 80) attached to said nozzle and configured to determine if a distance between the nozzle and a target area is sufficient to ensure an optimal dose [0061].
Grinstead and Garmendia are considered analogous to the claimed invention since both are drawn to atomization and dispensing arts. 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 controller as taught by Grinstead to include the distance sensor as taught by Garmendia to determine the distance between the nozzle and the enclosed space to ensure an optimal dosage of disinfectant and this involves the combination of elements to yield a predictable result with a reasonable expectation of success. See MPEP 2143(I)(A).
Regarding claim 10, Modified Grinstead teaches the sanitization system of claim 9 wherein said first and second sanitization areas encompass the entire area of the room (Fig. 7, [0025-0026]).
Regarding claim 11, Modified Grinstead teaches the sanitization system of claim 9 including a third disinfecting unit (Fig. 7, fogging system 30 includes a plurality of foggers 31 that can be positioned within an enclosed space, each fogger comprising the same structure as the first disinfecting unit above [0025]) comprising:
a housing (Fig. 7, 32);
a reservoir containing a disinfecting fluid carried by said housing (Fig. 7, reservoir 33),
a nozzle assembly including a nozzle (Fig. 7, 35) and a nozzle controller for dispensing said disinfecting fluid into a room (Fig. 7, processor 37 controls atomizing nozzle [0030]), said nozzle assembly carried by said housing (nozzle 35 within housing 32);
a pump for communicating said disinfecting fluid from said reservoir to said nozzle assembly, said pump carried by said housing (Fig. 7, compressor 34);
a controller for controlling the dispensing of said disinfectant, said controller carried by said housing (Fig. 7, processor 37);
a third dispensing profile for controlling the dispensing of said disinfectant (processor has computer executable instructions to control fogging systems [0032] = understood to be dispensing profile);
said third dispensing profile utilizing the dimensions of the room as instructions for said controller, said controller utilizing said third dispensing profile instructions for manipulating either said pump, fan or nozzle assembly to dispense a desired volume of said disinfectant fluid at a range to provide said disinfecting fluid to a third sanitization area as defined by said third dispensing profile (processor uses room dimensions to determine respective rate of dispensing to ensure saturation of room, [0035-0036] = understood to be dispensing a desired volume of said disinfectant at a variable rate determined by processor);
and wherein said third sanitization area is different than said first or second sanitization area (plurality of foggers may be used in an area = foggers understood to sanitize different sanitization areas within an enclosed space [0025-0026]).
wherein the amount of sanitization fluid dispensed will remain in a fluid state within the room constituting a dwell time of at least between one minute and ten minutes (dwell time can be in five-minute intervals to saturate enclosed space with disinfectant [0041] = understood to be capable of keeping sanitization fluid liquid for dwell time of one to ten minutes).
Grinstead does not teach wherein said the third dispensing profile utilizes the dimensions of the room as instructions for said controller to identify the range for dispensing said disinfecting fluid, and wherein said controller utilizes said dispensing profile instructions for manipulating either said pump, fan or nozzle assembly to dispense a desired volume of said disinfectant fluid at a range as identified by said dispensing profile.
One having ordinary skill in the art would be concerned with determining the distance from the nozzle outlet and the walls of the enclosed space to optimize the spraying dosage, motivating one to turn towards Garmendia. Garmendia teaches a device for the application of insecticides comprising a spray nozzle (Fig. 3, 110) configured to eject the insecticide and a distance sensor (Fig. 6, 80) attached to said nozzle and configured to determine if a distance between the nozzle and a target area is sufficient to ensure an optimal dose [0061].
Modified Grinstead and Garmendia are considered to be analogous to the claimed invention since both are drawn to atomization and dispensing arts. 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 controller as taught by Modified Grinstead to include the distance sensor as taught by Garmendia to determine the distance between the nozzle and the enclosed space to ensure an optimal dosage of disinfectant and this involves the combination of elements to yield a predictable result with a reasonable expectation of success. See MPEP 2143(I)(A).
Regarding claim 12, Grinstead teaches a disinfecting system (Fig. 1, fogging system 30) for a room having at least a first and second wall defining a room dimension (Fig. 7, fogging device 31 within an enclosed area including a room = understood to have a first and second wall defining a dimension) and a second room having at least a first and second wall defining a second room dimension (fogging system understood to be placed in multiple areas [0025-0026]), comprising:
a first disinfecting unit (Fig. 1, fogger 31) comprising:
a housing (Fig. 7, 32);
a reservoir containing a disinfecting fluid carried by said housing (Fig. 7, reservoir 33),
a nozzle assembly including a nozzle (Fig. 7, 35) and a nozzle controller for dispensing said disinfecting fluid into a room (Fig. 7, processor 37 controls atomizing nozzle [0030]), said nozzle assembly carried by said housing (nozzle 35 within housing 32);
a pump for communicating said disinfecting fluid from said reservoir to said nozzle assembly, said pump carried by said housing (Fig. 7, compressor 34);
a controller for controlling the dispensing of said disinfectant, said controller carried by said housing (Fig. 7, processor 37);
said first dispensing profile utilizing the dimensions of the room as instructions for said controller, said controller utilizing said first dispensing profile instructions for manipulating either said pump, fan or nozzle assembly to dispense a desired volume of said disinfectant fluid to provide said disinfecting fluid to a first sanitization area as defined by said first dispensing profile (processor uses room dimensions to determine respective rate of dispensing to ensure saturation of room, [0035-0036] = understood to be dispensing a desired volume of said disinfectant at a variable rate determined by processor);
wherein the amount of sanitization fluid dispensed will remain in a fluid state within the room constituting a dwell time of at least between one minute and ten minutes (dwell time can be in five-minute intervals to saturate enclosed space with disinfectant [0041] = understood to be capable of keeping sanitization fluid liquid for dwell time of one to ten minutes), and
a second disinfecting unit (Fig. 7, fogging system 30 includes a plurality of foggers 31 that can be positioned within an enclosed space, each fogger comprising the same structure as the first disinfecting unit above [0025]) comprising a housing;
a housing (Fig. 7, 32);
a reservoir containing a disinfecting fluid carried by said housing (Fig. 7, reservoir 33),
a nozzle assembly including a nozzle (Fig. 7, 35) and a nozzle controller for dispensing said disinfecting fluid into a room (Fig. 7, processor 37 controls atomizing nozzle [0030]), said nozzle assembly carried by said housing (nozzle 35 within housing 32);
a pump for communicating said disinfecting fluid from said reservoir to said nozzle assembly, said pump carried by said housing (Fig. 7, compressor 34);
a controller for controlling the dispensing of said disinfectant, said controller carried by said housing (Fig. 7, processor 37);
a second dispensing profile for controlling the dispensing of said disinfectant (processor has computer executable instructions to control fogging systems [0032] = understood to be dispensing profile);
said second dispensing profile utilizing the dimensions of the room as instructions for said controller, said controller utilizing said second dispensing profile instructions for manipulating either said pump, fan or nozzle assembly to dispense a desired volume of said disinfectant fluid at a range to provide said disinfecting fluid to a second sanitization area as defined by said second dispensing profile (processor uses room dimensions to determine respective rate of dispensing to ensure saturation of room, [0035-0036] = understood to be dispensing a desired volume of said disinfectant at a variable rate determined by processor);
and wherein said first sanitization area is different than said second sanitization area (plurality of foggers may be used in multiple areas = foggers understood to sanitize different sanitization areas [0025-0026]).
wherein the amount of sanitization fluid dispensed will remain in a fluid state within the room constituting a dwell time of at least between one minute and ten minutes (dwell time can be in five-minute intervals to saturate enclosed space with disinfectant [0041] = understood to be capable of keeping sanitization fluid liquid for dwell time of one to ten minutes); and
said first sanitization area being within said first room and said second sanitization area being within said second room (plurality of foggers may be used in multiple area = foggers understood to sanitize different sanitization areas that could be different rooms [0025-0026]).
Grinstead does not teach wherein said dispensing profiles utilize the dimensions of the room as instructions for said controller to identify the range for dispensing said disinfecting fluid, and wherein said controller utilizes said dispensing profile instructions for manipulating either said pump, fan or nozzle assembly to dispense a desired volume of said disinfectant fluid at a range as identified by said dispensing profile.
One having ordinary skill in the art would be concerned with determining the distance from the nozzle outlet and the walls of the enclosed space to optimize the spraying dosage, motivating one to turn towards Garmendia. Garmendia teaches a device for the application of insecticides comprising a spray nozzle (Fig. 3, 110) configured to eject the insecticide and a distance sensor (Fig. 6, 80) attached to said nozzle and configured to determine if a distance between the nozzle and a target area is sufficient to ensure an optimal dose [0061].
Grinstead and Garmendia are considered to be analogous to the claimed invention since both are drawn to atomization and dispensing arts. 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 controller as taught by Grinstead to include the distance sensor as taught by Garmendia to determine the distance between the nozzle and the enclosed space to ensure an optimal dosage of disinfectant 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) 2 and 4 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Grinstead (US 20170333585 A1) in view of Garmendia (US 20210386050 A1), as applied to claim 1 above, further in view of Bone-Winkel et al. (US 20220042692 A1) (eligible as prior art under 102(a)(2) with an effective filing date of 8/10/2021).
Regarding claim 2, Modified Grinstead teaches the disinfectant system of claim 1 wherein said disinfectant is hydrogen peroxide (Grinstead, [0054]) but does not teach wherein the disinfectant is Hypochlorous Acid.
One having ordinary skill in the art would contemplate other disinfectants capable of being used in a fogging device, motivating one to turn towards Bone-Winkel. Bone-Winkel teaches a dry fog generator for sterilizing HVAC systems [abstract] wherein the disinfectant used by the dry fog generator is hypochlorous acid [0063].
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 hydrogen peroxide disinfectant as taught by Modified Grinstead with the hypochlorous acid solution as taught by Bone-Winkel since both are understood to be equivalents for the same purpose (sterilization). See MPEP 2144.06 (II).
Regarding claim 4, Modified Grinstead teaches the disinfectant system of claim 1 but does not teach an electrostatically charging element for electrostatically charging said disinfectant upon dispensing by said system.
Bone-Winkel further teaches a charging unit to add an electrical charge to the dispensed particles of the disinfectant to allow for better adhesion to air-borne pathogens [0125].
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 disinfectant system as taught by Modified Grinstead to include the charging unit as taught by Bone-Winkel to add electrical charge to the dispersed particles of the disinfectant and allow for a better adhesion to certain air-borne pathogenic particles. See MPEP 2143(I)(G).
Claim(s) 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Grinstead (US 20170333585 A1) in view of Garmendia (US 20210386050 A1), as applied to claim 1 above, further in view of Pelfrey et al. (US 20130272929 A1).
Regarding claim 5, Modified Grinstead teaches the disinfectant system of claim 4 but does not teach wherein the electrostatically charging element is positioned in axial alignment with a nozzle for electrostatically charging a disinfectant as the disinfectant is being dispensed by said nozzle.
Pelfrey teaches a sanitization system using a plasma activated disinfectant [abstract], comprising an atomizer (Fig. 3, 31 = understood to be a nozzle) configured to generate a disinfecting mist (316) and an electrode (Fig. 302, understood to be an electrostatically charged element) in axial alignment with said atomizer [0013].
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 electrostatically charging element as taught by Modified Grinstead to be axially aligned with the nozzle since this involves the rearrangement of parts which has already been found to be obvious. See MPEP 2144(VI)(C).
Claim(s) 3 and 7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Grinstead (US 20170333585 A1) in view of Garmendia (US 20210386050 A1), as applied to claim 1 above, further in view of Aamodt et al. (US 20130183749 A1).
Regarding claim 3, Modified Grinstead teaches the disinfectant system of claim 1 including a fan configured to circulate air over a filter media to exhaust aerosolized sterilant from a room [0054] but does not teach wherein said fan is a variable fan having variable fan speeds and said controller manipulates the speed of the fan to increase the cfm of the fan in response to the dispersion profile.
One having ordinary skill in the art would be concerned with controlling operation of said fan in response to sensed environmental conditions, motivating one to turn towards Aamodt. Aamodt teaches a disinfection system for sterilizing a space using a dry fog [0014] comprising a controller configured to control operations of the disinfection system based on sensed conditions such as controlling the speed of exhaust fans to control the rate of extraction or distribution of a dispersed biocide (understood to manipulate speed of fan in response to a dispersion profile [0130-0132]).
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 disinfectant system as taught by Modified Grinstead to include the fans and controller as taught by Aamodt since Aamodt teaches the controller to control the speed of each fan and extract/disperse a biocide in response to a sensed condition 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).
Regarding claim 7, Modified Grinstead teaches the disinfectant system of claim 1 but does not teach wherein the system includes an ultra-violet lighting system carried within the interior of said housing for providing sanitization treatment to the ambient environment wherein airflow is established by the fan drawing air into the housing from an inlet and said housing including an outlet for dispensing ultra-violet treated air.
One having ordinary skill in the art would be concerned with further sterilizing the air within the enclosed space, motivating one to turn towards Aamodt. Aamodt teaches a disinfection system for sterilizing a space using a dry fog [0014] wherein the system may withdraw an airflow from an ambient environment [0222], expose the stream to ultraviolet light using a UV light source (Fig. 2, 230e, [0224]), and exhausting the treated stream via an outlet (Fig. 1, 104 [0094]).
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 disinfectant system as taught by Modified Grinstead with the ultraviolet lighting system as taught by Aamodt since Aamodt teaches the ultraviolet lighting system to sterilize and incoming air stream before discharging to an environment 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) 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Grinstead (US 20170333585 A1) in view of Garmendia (US 20210386050 A1), as applied to claim 1 above, further in view of Pui et al. (WO 2017041057 A1).
Regarding claim 6, Modified Grinstead teaches the disinfectant system of claim 1 but does not teach wherein said dispensing profile includes varying profiles depending on the type of containment intended to be disinfected and wherein said varying profile includes profiles for contaminants identified as contact precautions, droplet precautions, or airborne precautions.
One having ordinary skill in the art would be concerned with dynamically adjusting sterilization protocols to handle specific type of contaminants, motivating one to turn towards Pui. Pui teaches an adaptive spray cleaning system [abstract] comprising an array of spray nozzles configured to generate fluid showers to remove pollutants from an air stream (page 7, lines 21-24) wherein the spray nozzles have adaptable characteristics (such as arrangement, density, spray particle size, flow rate, etc.) to target different types of pollutants (page 7, lines 26-33). Pui further teaches a controller configured to use sensors to measure pollutant characteristics the air stream and control operation of the sprayer nozzles accordingly to treat the pollutant according to specified treatment configurations stored in the controller (understood to be spray profiles for specific contaminants, page 19, lines 20-33).
Therefore, it would have ben obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the disinfectant system as taught by Modified Grinstead with the sensors and controller as taught by Pui since Pui teaches the controller to measure pollutant characteristics an air stream and dynamically treat the airstream according to a dispensing profile stored in the controller (page 19, lines 20-33) 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).
Regarding claim 13, Modified Grinstead teaches the system of claim 12 wherein said first and said second disinfecting units are controlled by a centralized operating system (Grinstead, wireless transceiver 36 and processor 37 in communication with a mobile wireless communication device, which is used to control foggers 31 = understood to be centralized operation system [0033]).
Regarding claim 14, Modified Grinstead teaches the system of claim 12 wherein the centralized operating system is a hotel front desk (Grinstead, wireless transceiver 36 and processor 37 in communication with a mobile wireless communication device, which is used to control foggers 31 = understood to be centralized operation system [0033]; mobile wireless communication device can be a tablet, computer, or laptop, all which can be controlled at a hotel front desk).
Regarding claim 15, Modified Grinstead teaches the system of claim 12 wherein the centralized operating system is a hospital operating room control system (Grinstead, wireless transceiver 36 and processor 37 in communication with a mobile wireless communication device, which is used to control foggers 31 = understood to be centralized operation system [0033]; Fig. 9 shows an embodiment where centralized operating system is associated with a hospital control system [0035]).
Regarding claim 16, Modified Grinstead teaches the system of claim 15 wherein the centralized operating system is a hospital Command and Control system (Grinstead, wireless transceiver 36 and processor 37 in communication with a mobile wireless communication device, which is used to control foggers 31 = understood to be centralized operation system [0033]; Fig. 9 shows an embodiment where centralized operating system is associated with a hospital control system [0035]).
Regarding the recitation “which controls the dismissal of hospital patients,” the Examiner points to MPEP 2114 (II) which states “A claim containing a recitation with respect to the manner in which a claimed apparatus is intended to be employed does not differentiate the claimed apparatus from a prior art apparatus" if the prior art apparatus teaches all the structural limitations of the claim.” Therefore, the limitation “[hospital Command and Control system] which controls the dismissal of hospital patients” is considered to be an intended use of the apparatus and will not be given patentable weight.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
WO 2020019028 A1 teaches a disinfection system for aerosolizing a disinfecting agent
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