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 .
Response to Amendment
2. This is an office action in response to Applicant's arguments and remarks filed on 05/27/2026. Claims 1-4 are pending in the application. Claims 3-4 have been withdrawn and claims 1-2 are being examined herein.
Status of Objections and Rejections
3. All rejections from the previous office action are withdrawn in view of Applicant's amendment.
New grounds of rejection under 35 U.S.C. 103 are necessitated by the amendments.
Response to Arguments
4. In the arguments presented on p.7 of the amendment, the Applicant argues that Yokoi’s atomizer is a component for atomizing or injecting a liquid agent, and is different from the vapor generator unit of amended claim 1, which causes air to contain a component vaporized from a medical agent in liquid form without releasing the medical agent as mist. Furthermore, secondary reference Sasaki teaches a peracetic acid disinfectant as droplets or dry fog, and therefore teaches a vapor generation principle different from the non-mist vapor generation of the claimed invention.
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 1 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
5. The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
6. Claims 1 and 2 are is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tanimoto (US 20140290162 A1), further in view of Buczynski et al. (US 20080218047 A1) and further in view of Childers (US 20070274858 A1).
Regarding claim 1, Tanimoto teaches a decontamination apparatus (portion of Fig. 3, see drawing below)
PNG
media_image1.png
159
90
media_image1.png
Greyscale
configured to decontaminate at least one of microorganisms and viruses present inside an object to be decontaminated (Fig. 3 except the portion of drawing above), the object to be decontaminated having a particle removal filter attached to an inside thereof (filter 72, Fig. 3), the decontamination apparatus comprising:
a vapor generator unit (evaporator 52, Fig. 3) including:a container (walls of VHP generator 52, Fig. 1); and
a medical agent in liquid form containing hydrogen peroxide ([0024]), the medical agent contained in the container (The aqueous hydrogen peroxide supplied to the evaporator 52, Fig. 3 and [0024]),
wherein the vapor generator unit is configured to generate air containing vapor containing hydrogen peroxide (“The aqueous hydrogen peroxide supplied to the evaporator 52 becomes hydrogen peroxide vapor”, [0024]), without heating and without releasing mist (no mention of heat or mist in the entire reference), by causing air introduced into the container (flow path 122, Fig. 3) to contain hydrogen peroxide vaporized from the medical agent ([0024]); and
a blower (88, Fig. 3) configured to suck the air containing the vapor (supply path 54, Fig. 3) from an exhaust side of the particle removal filter (side of filter 72 that supply path 54 is connected to, Fig. 3) and to supply the air containing the vapor to an air supplying side of the particle removal filter (other, downstream side of filter 72, Fig. 3), thereby circulating the air containing the vapor between the object to be decontaminated and the vapor generator unit (the vaporized air can be introduced through gas introduction path 86, Fig. 3);
wherein the decontamination apparatus is used in a state of being disposed outside the object to be decontaminated (the VHP generation portion of Fig. 3 as shown in the drawing above is fluidly external to the remainder of the apparatus of Fig. 3).
Tanimoto fails to teach wherein the medical agent in liquid form contains peracetic acid.
Buczynski teaches a decontamination apparatus (112, Fig. 4) in fluid connection to an object to be decontaminated (chamber 102, Fig. 4), wherein the decontaminant generator generates vaporized hydrogen peroxide from a liquid hydrogen peroxide supply without mentioning the utilization of heat or generation of mist ([0028]), further citing an alternative to where liquid peracetic acid and hydrogen peroxide can be used as the decontaminant in the decontaminant generator ([0032]).
Tanimoto and Buczynski are both considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of utilizing vaporized hydrogen peroxide without generation of heat or mist to disinfect a decontamination chamber.
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 aqueous hydrogen peroxide supply of Tanimoto with the hydrogen peroxide and peracetic acid combination suggested by Buczynski because the substitution of this feature yields the predictable result of decontaminating the chamber (Buczynski, [0028]) with a reasonable expectation of success (KSR Rationale B, MPEP 2143). Furthermore, the selection of a known sterilant (hydrogen peroxide with peracetic acid, Buczynski [0032]) suited for the intended purpose of sterilizing the decontamination chamber supports a prima facie case of obviousness (see MPEP 2144.07).
Modified Tanimoto fails to teach a pump rather than a blower.
Childers teaches a vapor phase decontamination apparatus (Fig. 9) utilizing an air pump (20, Fig. 9) to supply air from an inlet (10, Fig. 9 and [0126]), also citing a blower as an alternative ([0027]).
Modified Tanimoto and Childers are both considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of vapor-based sterilization of a chamber utilizing airflow means to generate an airflow within its conduits.
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 blower of modified Tanimoto with an air pump as taught by Childers because the substitution of this feature yields the predictable result of generating an airflow within the conduits of the entire decontamination system (Childers, [0126]) with a reasonable expectation of success (KSR Rationale B, MPEP 2143). Furthermore, the selection of a known means to generate airflow (pump instead of a blower, Childers [0027]) suited for the intended purpose of generating an airflow within a conduit of the decontamination system supports a prima facie case of obviousness (see MPEP 2144.07).
Regarding claim 2, the modified Tanimoto/Childers combination teaches wherein an amount of air sucked by the pump (Tanimoto’s blower 88 of Fig. 3 substituted with Childers’ air pump 20 of Fig. 9) from the exhaust side of the particle removal filter (Tanimoto, the other, downstream side of filter 72, Fig. 3) is larger than an amount of air supplied by the pump to the air supplying side of the particle removal filter (gas introduction path 86 can introduces air from the other, downstream side of filter 72 and air from blower 112, Fig. 3).
Conclusion
7. 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.
8. 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
/SEAN E CONLEY/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1799
Prosecution Insights