DETAILED ACTION
Response to Amendment
1. In response to the amendment received on 3/3/26:
claims 16-27 are presently pending
the rejections of claims 22 and 27 under 35 USC 112(b) are withdrawn in light of the amendments to the claims
all prior art rejections are maintained for the reasons as set forth herein
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
Claim(s) 16-26 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US Pub. No. 2008/0170971 to Bergeron et al., (hereinafter referred to as “BERGERON”) in view of US Pat. No. 6,805,732 to Billiotte et al., incorporated by reference in BERGERON in its entirety (see BERGERON at ¶6), (hereinafter referred to as “BILLIOTTE”) and DE 10-2020-200074 A1 to Hepperle et al., with reference to the provided machine translation (hereinafter referred to as “HEPPERLE”).
Regarding claim 16, BERGERON teaches a method of preparing a dry hydrogen peroxide (“DHP”) gas containing environment using an electrocatalytic device (see BERGERON at Abstract and Fig. 12 depicting a reactor that could be termed an electrocatalytic device as claimed due to electrostatic filter 128 and the coating of the photocatalytic oxidation catalyst on electrode 165; see also BERGERON at ¶48-¶49 discussing the electrostatic filter and ¶105-¶107 and ¶110 discussing the last electrode 165 having a photocatalytic oxidation catalyst coated thereon and when exposed to UV light resulting in the generation of H2O2 which is not made from an aqueous solution and is instead formed from a gas and so could be termed DHP as claimed), comprising:
providing an electrocatalytic device comprising an electrocatalytic mesh (“ECM”) comprising an air permeable electrically conductive network coated with a catalyst (see BERGERON at Fig. 12 depicting electrodes 165; see also ¶110 teaching the photocatalyst being coated onto electrode 165; see also ¶48 and ¶49 teaching electrode 165 being porous and made of an open cell metalized foam so as to be an ECM as claimed), and an electrical power source (see BERGERON at ¶48 teaching a high potential difference being applied to electrodes 162 and 165 including voltages ranging from 4-40 kV which would necessitate the presence of some power source);
providing a potential to the ECM (see BERGERON at ¶48 as discussed);
providing a flow of humid air through the electrically conductive network having the applied potential to prepare a DHP containing airflow (see BERGERON at Fig. 12 depicting airflow flowing from the left to the right through the reactor which would have some humidity; see also BERGERON at ¶57, ¶58 and ¶61 teaching humidity at 30% and the electrostatic field acting to produce H2O2 to varying degrees);
directing the DHP containing airflow into an enclosed environment (see BERGERON at Fig. 12 depicting treated air leaving the reactor; see also BERGERON at ¶119 and ¶120 teaching the use of the reactor to treat hospital air or for use in an aircraft and so enclosed environments).
While BERGERON teaches the application of a potential as set forth above and BILLIOTTE teaches the use of an alternating voltage for electrostatic filter elements for treating air (see BILLIOTTE at col. 3 lines 15-20), BERGERON fails to explicitly teach the power source including a variable waveform generator with the potential to the ECM including providing a time varied electric potential, wherein the time varied electric potential has a waveform selected from the group consisting of a sine wave, square wave, triangle wave, sawtooth wave, and combination thereof as claimed.
However, as taught by BILLIOTTE it is known in the art of electrostatic filters for an alternating current to be applied between the electrode elements (see BILLIOTTE at col. 3 lines 15-20). Furthermore, HEPPERLE teaches an electrostatic filter unit for air purification (see HEPPERLE at Abstract) in which the alternating voltage is applied via various voltage waveforms which are taught to include sine, rectangular, triangular, or sawtooth shaped waveforms (see HEPPERLE at ¶18).
As such, one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the alternating voltage to be used by the electrostatic filter elements of BERGERON could include the time varying or alternating voltages as taught by BILLIOTTE so as to include the various types of waveforms as taught by HEPPERLE.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have in applying a high potential difference to the electrostatic electrodes of BERGERON to have used an alternating voltage as taught by BILLIOTTE with the waveform of the alternating voltage including a sine, rectangular, triangular, or sawtooth shaped waveforms as taught by HEPPERLE so as to arrive at the predictable result of having a method as claimed.
Regarding claim 17, BERGERON as modified by BILLIOTTE and HEPPERLE teaches the method wherein the time varied electrical potential has a minimum voltage of 0.3 V to 30 kV and a frequency between 0.00025 Hz and 0.5 GHz (see BERGERON at ¶48 teaching a voltage of 4 V to 40 kV; see also HEPPERLE at ¶18 teaching a voltage of 500 V and a period of 1 s which would be equivalent to a frequency of 1 Hz).
Regarding claim 18, BERGERON as modified by BILLIOTTE and HEPPERLE fails to explicitly teach the method wherein the current is between 0.01 A and 100 A as claimed. However, BERGERON as modified by BILLIOTTE and HEPPERLE teaches the application of similar voltages to mesh electrodes for treating water vapor containing air and so would be reasonably expected to result in similar current values.
Regarding claim 19, BERGERON as modified by BILLIOTTE and HEPPERLE teaches the method wherein the waveform has a period that is the sum of the time in seconds of the power having a negative potential and positive potential (see rejection of claim 16 above which sets forth an alternating voltage being applied which would necessarily have a period which is as defined by the claim, i.e. one full cycle).
Regarding claim 20, BERGERON as modified by BILLIOTTE and HEPPERLE teaches the method wherein the waveform is symmetric (see HEPPERLE at ¶18 teaching a sine or triangular waveform).
Regarding claim 21, BERGERON as modified by BILLIOTTE and HEPPERLE teaches the method wherein the waveform is asymmetric (see HEPPERLE at ¶18 teaching a sawtooth or rectangular waveform).
Regarding claim 22, BERGERON as modified by BILLIOTTE and HEPPERLE teaches the method wherein the waveform is the square wave having an amplitude of 10 V with a pulse width and period as defined (see BERGERON at ¶48 teaching the voltage ranging from 4 to 40kV so as to include 10 V; see also HEPPERLE at ¶18 teaching a rectangular, i.e. square shaped, wave). As to the pulse width and period limitations it noted that those limitation merely set forth the definition of a period and pulse width such that any alternating waveform would provide for.
Regarding claims 23-26, it is noted that these further limitation are all directed towards further limiting the optionally required square wave as set forth in the limitation of claim 16 at lines 7-8 of the claim. As such, BERGERON as modified by BILLIOTTE and HEPPERLE teaches the method as claimed when the waveform is a sine wave as set forth in the rejection of claim 16 (see teachings of BILLIOTTE and HEPPERLE cited in the rejection of claim 16 as to the use of an alternating voltage in the form of a sine wave).
Claim(s) 27 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over BERGERON in view of BILLIOTTE and HEPPERLE as applied to claim 16 above, and further in view of US Pub. No. 2018/0185538 to Lee et al., (hereinafter referred to as “LEE”).
Regarding claim 27, while BERGERON as modified by BILLIOTTE and HEPPERLE teaches the method wherein DHP would be produced via a photocatalytic process (see rejection of claim 16 above), but fails to explicitly teaching the concentration of the produced H2O2.
However, LEE teaches a photocatalytic process for the production of H2O2 in which the concentration of H2O2 is taught to be at least 5 ppb (see LEE at ¶29). As such, the photocatalytic process of BERGERON which teaches the use of a similar catalyst would be expected to create hydrogen peroxide at similar concentrations (see BERGERON at ¶105 teaching the use of TiO2 as a catalyst and LEE at ¶86 teaching the use of titanium dioxide as a catalyst).
As such, one of ordinary skill in the art would have been able to prepare a concentration of H2O2 within the range as claimed using the photocatalytic process of BERGERON as modified by BILLIOTTE and HEPPERLE.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention in the method of BERGERON as modified by BILLIOTTE and HEPPERLE to have produced H2O2 at the amounts as claimed.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 3/3/26 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Specifically, Applicant argues that BERGERON does not teach forming DHP nor would the device of BERGERON be capable directing the DHP containing airflow into an enclosed environment as claimed in independent claim 16 (see Remarks at page 5, second paragraph). Additionally, Applicant notes that the device of BERGERON teaches treating/purifying contaminated air within the air filtration device and then discharging the clean air (see Remarks at pages 5-6, paragraph spanning the two pages).
The examiner readily acknowledges that BERGERON teaches treating air within the device itself (see BERGERON at ¶119 and ¶120 teaching the purification and filtering of the air being treated). However, the claimed method does not require the DHP containing gas to flow into an enclosed environment outside of the electrocatalytic device, instead the claimed method merely requires the DHP containing airflow to be directed into “an enclosed environment” (see claim 16 at lines 9-11).
As such, BERGERON is relied upon to teach a device that meets the required method steps through a combination of the UV light source and photocatalyst coated electrodes of the electrostatic filter that would produce at least some hydrogen peroxide that could be termed dry hydrogen peroxide and is directed into the space between the electrostatic filter stack and the final catalyst elements 130 (see BERGERON at Fig. 12 and ¶105-¶107 and ¶110 teaching the presence of surfaces before, within and after the electrostatic filter that would produce H2O2 and then direct that produced gas into the final catalyst elements 130 before exiting the device).
Consequently, the examiner is relying on the produced H2O-2 within the device that is then directed to a later section of the device as the enclosed environment which is used to treat/purify the air passing through the device before being expelled or returned to the environment from which it was taken.-
Furthermore, while BERGERON does not use the words “dry hydrogen peroxide” it is noted that the hydrogen peroxide of BERGERON is not a vaporized or aerosolized form of hydrogen peroxide and is formed from humid air and so would appear to meet the description of hydrogen peroxide as set forth within the specification (see Specification at ¶21 and ¶22).
Therefore, for at least the reasons cited herein the examiner must respectfully disagree and instead is still of the opinion that the prior art as currently set forth would still teach the method as currently claimed in independent claim 16.
As to the Affidavit filed 3/3/26, it is noted that similar points are made as set forth in the remarks. As such, the reasons as set forth above are also applied to the Affidavit and is not found persuasive as well. It is noted that similar contentions are made with respect to the inability of BERGERON to produce any hydrogen peroxide that would be able to exit the reactor. While the examiner acknowledges this fact, the claim as currently drafted and presented fails to require this feature and so this argument is deemed to not be commensurate with the scope of the claims as presently presented.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
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