DETAILED ACTION
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
1. A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 7/7/26 has been entered.
Response to Amendment
2. In response to the amendment received on 7/7/26:
claims 16-27 are presently pending
all prior art rejections of the claims are withdrawn in light of the amendments to the claims
Claim Objections
Claim 19 is objected to because of the following informalities:
In claim 19, line 1, the claim recites “said waveform has period that is …” but it would appear that the claim should instead state “said waveform has a period that is …”
Appropriate correction is required.
Double Patenting
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a nonstatutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13.
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer.
Claims 16-20 and 27 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1, 11, 12, 23 and 24 of U.S. Patent No. 12,636,389 (hereinafter referred to as “the ‘389 Patent”). Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because each of the limitations of the instant claims are claimed in the claims of the ‘389 Patent as set forth below.
Regarding claim 16 of the instant application, the claim is directed towards a method of preparing a dry hydrogen peroxide (DHP) gas containing environment using an electrocatalytic device (see the ‘389 Patent at claim 23 lines 41-43 and claim 1 at lines 21-22), the method comprising: providing an electrocatalytic device comprising an electrocatalytic mesh (ECM) comprising an air permeable electrically conductive network coated with a catalyst (see the ‘389 Patent at claim 1 lines 23-24 and lines 45-46), and an electrical power source including a variable waveform generator; providing a time varied electric potential to said ECM (see the ‘389 Patent at claim 1 lines 27-35), wherein said time varied electric potential has a waveform selected from the group consisting of sine wave, square wave, triangle wave, a sawtooth wave, and a combination thereof (see the ‘389 Patent at claim 1 lines 27-28 referring to a modulated alternating current which at col. 12 lines 36-47 define modulated current as a sinusoidal … cycle); providing a flow of humid air through said electrically conductive network having a time varied electric potential to prepare a DHP containing airflow (see the ‘389 Patent at claim 23 lines 44-46); directing said DHP containing airflow outside the electrocatalytic device and into an enclosed environment surrounding the electrocatalytic device so that the DHP may accumulate in the enclosed environment surrounding the electrocatalytic device (see the ‘389 Patent at claim 23 lines 47-48 and claim 24).
Regarding claims 17-20 and 27, please refer to claims 1, 11, 12, 23 and 24.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 21-26 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Bryan D. Ripa whose telephone number is (571)270-7875. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri 8:00AM-4:00PM ET.
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, James Lin can be reached at (571) 272-8902. 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.
/BRYAN D. RIPA/Primary Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1794
Prosecution Insights