DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
1. 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
2. Claims 3-4 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected invention, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Election was made without traverse in the reply filed on 10/21/2025.
Applicant’s election without traverse of Group I in the reply filed on 10/21/2025 is acknowledged.
Claim Objections
3. Claim 1 is objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 1, lines 2-3 recite “the object to be decontaminated having a particle removal filter attached to an inside thereof and the decontamination apparatus comprising:”. It is unclear as to whether or not the Applicant is trying to say that the particle removal filter is present both on the inside of the object to be decontaminated and the decontamination apparatus or just the object to be decontaminated. Examiner recommends (and thus will be interpreted as such) editing the aforementioned claim language to state “the object to be decontaminated having a particle removal filter attached to an inside thereof, the decontamination apparatus comprising:”, as it seems that the particle removal filter is only attached to the object to be decontaminated (the isolation chamber, Fig. 1) and not the decontamination apparatus itself (Fig. 2).
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Interpretation
4. 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: “vapor generator unit” in claim 1.
The corresponding structure appears to be: a container, a moisture absorbing member, and the chemical solution (Applicant’s specification [0025]).
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.
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 § 103
4. 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.
5. Claims 1 and 2 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yokoi (US 20120275965 A1), further in view of Sakaki (US 20160022852 A1, provided in Applicant’s IDS filed 03/31/2023).
Regarding claim 1, Yokoi teaches a decontamination apparatus (decontaminating gas supply unit 3a and flow paths P1, P2, and P3, Fig. 1) configured to decontaminate at least one of microorganisms and viruses (“a process of killing microorganisms, etc., to realize an aseptic environment is referred to as decontamination”, where 3a is a decontaminating gas supply unit, Fig. 1 and [0005]) present inside an object to be decontaminated (working chamber 4, Fig. 1), the object to be decontaminated (working chamber 4, Fig. 1) having a particle removal filter (filter F2, Fig. 1) attached to an inside thereof (is fluidly connected to the interior of the working chamber 4, Fig. 1), the decontamination apparatus comprising:
a vapor generator unit (container 31, a moisture absorbing member being atomizer 34, and the chemical solution of hydrogen peroxide in container 31, Fig. 1) configured to generate, without heating and without releasing mist, vapor (“the compressed air and the hydrogen peroxide solution are mixed in the atomizer 34, to be injected as atomized hydrogen peroxide solution, thereafter immediately vaporized, and supplied as the hydrogen peroxide gas”, [0038]); and
a pump (blower B2, Fig. 1, where Applicant’s specification [0052] suggests the pump to be a blower) configured to suck the vapor from an exhaust side of the particle removal filter (vapor supplied by atomizer 34 is sucked through filter F2 into exhaust side via blower B2, Fig. 1 and see drawing below) and to supply the vapor to the air supplying side of the particle removal filter (vapor supplied by atomizer 34 to working chamber/air supplying side 4, Fig. 1 and see drawing below),
PNG
media_image1.png
724
468
media_image1.png
Greyscale
wherein the decontamination apparatus is used in a state of being disposed outside the object to be decontaminated (decontaminating gas supply unit 3a and flow paths P1 and P2 are outside/external to working chamber 4, Fig. 1).
Yokoi teaches the vapor being from a hydrogen peroxide source (31, Fig. 1), but fails to mention the vapor containing peracetic acid.
Sakaki teaches a decontamination apparatus for the decontamination of a biosafety cabinet/chamber (Fig. 1), having a gaseous disinfectant containing a peracetic acid component ([0061]) for the same purpose of disinfecting/decontaminating the interior chamber ([0024]).
Yokoi and Sakaki are both considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of decontamination systems for chambers utilizing a gaseous sterilant.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to substitute the hydrogen peroxide sterilant with a sterilant containing peracetic acid, because the substitution of this feature yields the predictable result of disinfecting the chamber (Sakaki, [0024]). Furthermore, selection of a known sterilant (peracetic acid in replacement of Yokoi’s hydrogen peroxide solution) suited for the intended purpose of sterilizing the space the sterilant occupies (i.e., the chamber) supports a prima facie case of obviousness (see MPEP 2144.07).
Regarding claim 2, modified Yokoi teaches wherein an amount of air sucked by the pump from the exhaust side of the particle removal filter (sucked-in air from flow paths P2 and P3 by blower B2 as seen in drawing below) is larger than an amount of air supplied by the pump to the air supplying side of the particle removal filter (air from air supplying side of filter F2 is volumetrically lower than the air from flow path P2 and P3, Fig. 1).
PNG
media_image1.png
724
468
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Conclusion
6. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Aham Lee whose telephone number is (703)756-5622. The examiner can normally be reached Monday to Thursday, 10:00 AM - 8:00 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 R. 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.
/Aham Lee/Examiner, Art Unit 1758
/MARIS R KESSEL/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1758