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 .
Claim amendments filed 11/11/2025 are acknowledged. Claims 1-20 are pending.
Response to Arguments
Arguments filed 11/11/2025 have been considered.
As to the use of Seiss to teach the use of the particle entrainer TEG, the teaching of Seiss of the benefits of treating air with TEG applies whether one is treating a whole room full of air or air forming an air curtain. Further, Seiss teaches the use of the invention in an air curtain (abstract; fig 5; para [0174]-[0176]). It does not matter whether Seiss calls the TEG a particle entrainer or a coactive disinfectant as the prior art motivation can differ from that of the applicant (MPEP 2144IV.). As TEG is the same compound, the properties of the TEG have to be the same and thus it is capable of entraining particles, the claimed intended use of the TEG (MPEP 2112.01 II.). The prior art does not teach away from or disparage the use of TEG in an air curtain.
Additionally, the arguments attack the reference of Seiss individually and not the combination of the teachings with Schrieber, who teaches adding various specific chemicals as well as generic cleaning or sterilizing agent to the air curtain flow (para [0073], [0075]). As previously set forth, a person having ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to have included TEG in the air curtain of Schrieber as TEG is taught as a disinfectant additive for air and Schrieber teaches adding air disinfectants to the air curtain air. Thus a person having ordinary skill in the art would have a reasonable expectation of success and be motivated by a desire to successfully carryout the teachings to achieve a disinfected airflow curtain.
Election/Restrictions
Newly submitted/amended claims 10-16 are directed to an invention that is independent or distinct from the invention originally claimed for the following reasons:
Inventions I (the system of claims 1-9 and 17-20) and II (the method of claims 10-16) are related as product and process of use. The inventions can be shown to be distinct if either or both of the following can be shown: (1) the process for using the product as claimed can be practiced with another materially different product or (2) the product as claimed can be used in a materially different process of using that product. See MPEP § 806.05(h). In the instant case, the apparatus can be used in methods for removing pathogens from a variety of other areas than a dental operatory such as on airplanes or preventing contamination on food on a restaurant table or counter. Further, the apparatus can be used in methods such as providing air curtains to prevent flies from entering a doorway or area.
Since applicant has received an action on the merits for the originally presented invention, this invention has been constructively elected by original presentation for prosecution on the merits. Accordingly, claims 10-16 are withdrawn from consideration as being directed to a non-elected invention. See 37 CFR 1.142(b) and MPEP § 821.03.
To preserve a right to petition, the reply to this action must distinctly and specifically point out supposed errors in the restriction requirement. Otherwise, the election shall be treated as a final election without traverse. Traversal must be timely. Failure to timely traverse the requirement will result in the loss of right to petition under 37 CFR 1.144. If claims are subsequently added, applicant must indicate which of the subsequently added claims are readable upon the elected invention.
Should applicant traverse on the ground that the inventions are not patentably distinct, applicant should submit evidence or identify such evidence now of record showing the inventions to be obvious variants or clearly admit on the record that this is the case. In either instance, if the examiner finds one of the inventions unpatentable over the prior art, the evidence or admission may be used in a rejection under 35 U.S.C. 103 or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) of the other invention.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claim(s) 1-6 and 17-19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Schreiber (US 2017/0003015) in view of Haar (US 2019/0234645) and Siess (US 2004/0005252).
With regards to claim 1, Schreiber describes a system capable of the intended use of removing pathogens from a dental operatory (Abstract, para[0063]: dental offices), comprising: a manifold in fluid connection with a fluid source (upper air channel 160 and peripheral air channels 162 in fluid connection to ambient via opening 154, FIGS. 16-17, para[0071]; see also FIGS. 5-6, para[0049)), the manifold including a plurality of apertures for directing a fluid stream (apertures 148, FIGS. 16-17, 5, para[0071),[0049)), a fluid pump for pressurizing a fluid within the fluid source (fan 156, para(0049],[0072]: "the delivery of forced air ... generates a pressure zone underneath the lighting assembly"), and the system is configured to instruct the fluid pump to pressurize the fluid, and instruct the fluid pump to pump the pressurized fluid to the manifold such that the directed fluid stream generates a fluid shield relative to an object (para[0033]: "prevents contaminants from easily entering the air path(s)"; para[00051), but fails to describe specifically processing circuitry.
Schreiber is silent as to the construction of the control means. Haar teaches a similar operatory sterile air delivery system (abstract and fig 1). Haar further teaches that computer controllers can be used to carry out the desired programmed operation of the system (para [0066]). A person having ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to have added a controller including control circuitry (a programmed computer controller) in order to control and automate the operation of the device.
Schreiber fails to describe wherein the disinfectant includes triethylene glycol particles. However, Schreiber discloses various specific chemical as well as disclosing generic cleaning or sterilizing agent that are added to the airflow (para[0073],[0075]). Thus Schreiber teaches a reservoir with a sterilizing agent (source of sterilizing agent that is added to the flow).
Siess discloses air curtains for human protection (Abstract, FIG. 5, para[0174]-[0176]) and discloses the use of TEG particles as a coactive agent in an air disinfectant (para[0034),[0051]-[0052]).
It would have been obvious to one skilled in the art to utilize any such agent, such as the TEG, so as to effectively treat the pathogens. As previously set forth, a person having ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to have included TEG in the air curtain of Schrieber as TEG is taught as a disinfectant additive for air and Schrieber teaches adding air disinfectants to the air curtain air flow. Thus a person having ordinary skill in the art would have a reasonable expectation of success and be motivated by a desire to successfully carryout the teachings to achieve a disinfected airflow curtain.
The combination results in a reservoir containing at least a particle entrainer (TEG can function as a particle entrainer and is thus a particle entrainer).
The combination results in instructing mixing of the particle entrainer with the pressurized fluid pumped to the manifold such that the particle entrainer is introduced into the fluid shield (control circuit controls the operation of the device which includes the addition of the sterilizing agent including TEG into the fluid shield flow).
With regards to claim 2, the pressurized fluid is water or air (air, Abstract).
With regards to claim 3, the system further has a reservoir containing at least a disinfectant (various sterilization chemicals, within 900/902, FIGS. 16-17, para [0073]),[0075]), the processing circuitry being further configured to instruct mixing of the disinfectant with the pressurized fluid pumped to the manifold (as modified).
With regards to claim 4, Schreiber fails to describe wherein the disinfectant is mixed with the pressurized fluid at a concentration of between 0.5% and 20%. However, Schreiber discloses various specific chemical as well as disclosing generic cleaning or sterilizing agent (para[0073],[0075]). It would have been obvious to one skilled in the art, through routine experimentation, to provide the appropriate concentration as needed so as to provide the sterility while preventing toxicity based on the agent used and treatment conditions. Additionally, in order to use a sterilizing agent, one must first determine how much to use.
With regards to claim 5, the particle entrainer includes triethylene glycol particles (TEG).
With regards to claim 6, Schreiber and Siess describe the system of claim 5, Siess describes wherein the triethylene glycol particles are between 0.001 and 10 micron (overlaps the claimed range of 1.26 um and 3.72 um) to sustain the aerosols in the air (para [0106]). A person having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was effectively filed would have found it obvious to have included the disinfectant at any size within the range of 0.001 and 10 microns in order to successfully form aerosols that remain in the air.
With regards to claim 17, Schreiber describes an apparatus capable of the intended use of removing pathogens (Abstract, para[0063]: dental offices), comprising: a manifold in fluid connection with a fluid source (upper air channel 160 and peripheral air channels 162 in fluid connection to ambient via opening 154, FIGS. 16-17, para[0071]; see also FIGS. 5-6, para[0049)), the manifold including a plurality of apertures for directing a fluid stream (apertures 148, FIGS. 16-17, 5, para[0071),[0049)), a fluid pump for pressurizing a fluid within the fluid source (fan 156, para(0049],[0072]: "the delivery of forced air ... generates a pressure zone underneath the lighting assembly"), and the system is configured to instruct the fluid pump to pressurize the fluid, and instruct the fluid pump to pump the pressurized fluid to the manifold such that the directed fluid stream generates a fluid shield relative to an object (para[0033]: "prevents contaminants from easily entering the air path(s)"; para[00051), but fails to describe specifically processing circuitry.
Schreiber is silent as to the construction of the control means. Haar teaches a similar operatory sterile air delivery system (abstract and fig 1). Haar further teaches that computer controllers can be used to carry out the desired programmed operation of the system (para [0066]). A person having ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to have added a controller including control circuitry (a programmed computer controller) in order to control and automate the operation of the device.
Schreiber fails to describe wherein the disinfectant includes triethylene glycol particles. However, Schreiber discloses various specific chemical as well as disclosing generic cleaning or sterilizing agent that are added to the airflow (para[0073],[0075]). Thus Schreiber teaches a reservoir with a sterilizing agent (source of sterilizing agent that is added to the flow).
Siess discloses air curtains for human protection (Abstract, FIG. 5, para[0174]-[0176]) and discloses the use of TEG particles as a coactive agent in an air disinfectant (para[0034),[0051]-[0052]).
It would have been obvious to one skilled in the art to utilize any such agent, such as the TEG, so as to effectively treat the pathogens. As previously set forth, a person having ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to have included TEG in the air curtain of Schrieber as TEG is taught as a disinfectant additive for air and Schrieber teaches adding air disinfectants to the air curtain air flow. Thus a person having ordinary skill in the art would have a reasonable expectation of success and be motivated by a desire to successfully carryout the teachings to achieve a disinfected airflow curtain.
The combination results in a reservoir containing at least a particle entrainer (TEG can function as a particle entrainer and is thus a particle entrainer).
The combination results in instructing mixing of the particle entrainer with the pressurized fluid pumped to the manifold such that the particle entrainer is introduced into the fluid shield (control circuit controls the operation of the device which includes the addition of the sterilizing agent including TEG into the fluid shield flow).
With regards to claim 18, the pressurized fluid is water or air (air, Abstract).
With regards to claim 19, the system further has a reservoir containing at least a disinfectant (various sterilization chemicals, within 900/902, FIGS. 16-17, para [0073]),[0075]), the processing circuitry being further configured to instruct mixing of the disinfectant with the pressurized fluid pumped to the manifold (as modified).
As to the use of two or more sterilizing agents, a person having ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to have combined two sterilizing agents to form an agent for the same purpose motivated by an expectation of successfully providing the desired sterilization activity (see MPEP 2144.06).
The combination results in the reservoir having a disinfecting agent along with the TEG (a second disinfecting agent that is also capable of the intended use of entraining particles).
Claim(s) 7 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Schreiber (US 2017/0003015) in view of Haar (US 2019/0234645) and Siess (US 2004/0005252) as applied to claim 1 above and further in view of Al Shawi (US 2018/0153637) and Self et al. (US 2019/0117331).
With regards to claim 7, the combination above fails to describe wherein the manifold has a substantially-arced shape, the fluid stream directed therefrom forming a semi cylindrical fluid column.
AI-Shawi describes a similar air curtain for an operatory wherein the pattern and shape of the flow channels may be modified as needed (para [0101]).
Self describes a similar air curtain device for an operatory (Abstract) and discloses wherein the manifold is arc-shaped, the fluid stream directed therefrom forming a semi-cylindrical fluid column (FIGS. 9, 13, para[0055)). It would have been obvious to one skilled in the art to provide the flow in any desired shape including an arc shape manifold with a semi cylindrical flow, so as to better accommodate the anatomy of the desired area.
Claim(s) 8, 9, and 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Schreiber (US 2017/0003015) in view of Haar (US 2019/0234645) and Siess (US 2004/0005252) as applied to claims 1 and 17 above and further in view of Al Shawi (US 2018/0153637).
With regards to claims 8 and 20, the combination does not teach a vacuum as claimed. Al Shawi teaches a similar operatory air curtain which has a vacuum configured to evacuate the directed fluid stream from the operatory (intended use that it is a dental operatory space) ("the chamber 414 (hereinafter referred to as suction chamber 414) is provided with an outlet 404 adaptable for coupling with an external suction tube connected to a negative pressure source capable of creating partial vacuum", FIGS. 4, para[0095)-[0097]; e.g. see FIG. 5A; para[0101]: "suction pump(s) used") in order to help provide the gas shield and remove byproducts and contaminants created by the procedure (claim 1).
A person having ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to have added a vacuum system as taught by Al Shawi in order to help provide the gas shield and remove byproducts and gas contaminants created by the procedure.
It would have been obvious to one skilled in the art utilize the same control means including the control circuitry to operate the vacuum, so as to ensure proper operation of the system.
With regards to claim 9, the combination does not specify the aperture diameter as claimed. AI-Shawi describes the shield device is provided in a range of sizes and that the ports are suitably sized accordingly (para[0101)). It would have been obvious to one skilled in the art to size the ports any such size, through routine experimentation, so as to provide the appropriate air curtain while accounting for such a device size, air pressure provided and vacuum pressure provided.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). 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 DONALD R SPAMER whose telephone number is (571)272-3197. The examiner can normally be reached Monday to Friday from 9-5.
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, Michael Marcheschi can be reached at (571)272-1374. 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.
/DONALD R SPAMER/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1799