DETAILED ACTION
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 .
Priority
Acknowledgement is made to Applicant’s claim to priority to National Stage Application No. PCT/RU2021/050123 filed May 10, 2021 and to foreign priority to Russian Application No. RU2020135840 filed October 30, 2020.
Status of Claims
The present office action is in response to the preliminary amendment filed 04/26/2023. As directed by the amendment, no claims have been amended, claims 1-6 have been cancelled, and claims 7-12 have been newly added. Thus, claims 7-12 are presenting pending in this application.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to as failing to comply with 37 CFR 1.84(p)(4) because reference characters, 1-6 has been used to designate on the different embodiments of Figures 1-6. For example, the reference character ‘1’ of Fig 1 is indicated as “aerosol protective clouds” (¶0010) while the reference character ‘1’ of Fig 2 is indicated as “primary source of water supply” (¶0026) and the reference character ‘1’ of Fig 3 is indicated as “primary source of water supply” (¶0026).
The drawings are objected to because the reference numbers indicated Figs 2-3 are different from ¶0026 and ¶0041 respectively. For example, a filling tank of Fig 3 is indicated as “3.5” in the specification.
Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
Regarding Figure 3, photographs, including photocopies of photographs, are not ordinarily permitted in utility and design patent applications. The Office will accept photographs in utility and design patent applications, however, if photographs are the only practicable medium for illustrating the claimed invention. See 37 CFR 1.84 (b)(1).
Specification
The disclosure is objected to because of the following informalities:
In ¶0013-14, there is inconsistency on the reference characters with Figure 1 such as “form aerosol protective cloud 2”, “IMAC 4”, “actuating devices (sprayers and electrolyzers) 4”, and “monitoring the situation, forecasts and statistical data 6).
In ¶0026, there is inconsistency on the reference characters with Figure 2. Examiner suggest amending to be consistent with the specification.
In ¶0041, there is inconsistency on the reference characters with Figure 3. Examiner suggest amending the reference characters to be different from Figs 1-2 and amending the drawing to be consistent with the specification.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Objections
Claims 8-9, and 11-12 are objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 8 recites, “wherein metal-ion water system” in ln 2 which Examiner suggest amending to read --wherein a metal-ion water system--
Claims 9 and 12 is objected by the virtue of dependency to claim 8.
Claim 11 recites, “at the place” in ln 2 which Examiner suggest amending to read --at a place--
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claims 9 and 12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
Claim 9 recites, “the aqueous solutions being harmless for humans but fatal for pathogens thus preventing the pathogens from invading body tissues, and from reproducing and transmitting”. The specification does not provide how the aqueous solutions are fatal for pathogens thus preventing any pathogens from invading body tissues and from reproducing and transmitting, such as achieving pathogen lethality across different families of microorganism or analysis of correlating concentration, droplet size, exposure duration or environmental variables among different combinations of metals which are dissolved in water in an ionic form.
Thus, the specification does not reasonably convey to a person of ordinary skill in the art that the subject matters were in possession of the claimed invention.
Claim 12 is rejected by virtue of dependency to claim 9.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 7, and 10-11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Dutta et al. (US 20230046062 A1).
Regarding claim 7, Dutta et al. discloses, a method for arresting epidemics and pandemics (¶0025, “methods of forming a viricidal coating on a surface…an effective amount of antimicrobial metal ions to kill or inactivate the virus; and allowing the composition to dry to produce the viricidal coating”), the method comprising making and maintaining an aerosol protective cloud (¶0043, “applying hydrogen peroxide as an aerosol…which kill or inhibit microbes that contact the surface”) of a pathoprotector (abstract; ¶0043, implies a surface of an object is coated with antimicrobial compositions provides protection against virus/microbes. Examiner notes that any surface has potential contact with a pathogen carrier when exposed to the environment) in places of potential contact with a pathogen carrier (¶0022).
Regarding claim 10, Dutta et al. discloses the method of claim 7. Dutta et al. further discloses, wherein the aerosol protective cloud is made by a sprayer (¶0057, “the composition can comprise a spray which can be sprayed onto surfaces (e.g., in a healthcare setting, such as an electronic device, furniture, walls etc.) to render the surface antimicrobial”).
Regarding claim 11, Dutta et al. discloses the method of claim 10. Dutta et al. further discloses, wherein parameters (Examiner interprets parameters as to different combinations of compositions including metals, concentrations, sizes, surfactants, binder polymer, etc. in broadest reasonable interpretation) of the aerosol protective cloud are changed in the sprayer subject to epidemiological situation at the place of making the aerosol protective cloud (¶0013-0027, 0032-0044, implies different combination of the antimicrobial composition coating in order to kill and/or inhibit the growth of a microbe such as a bacteria, a fungi, a virus, an algae, or a combination).
Claims 7-8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Terashima (machine translation of WO 2019064629 A1).
Regarding claim 7, Terashima discloses, a method for arresting epidemics and pandemics (PG 1, under section “Technical-Field”; PG 2, ln 1-7, implies that a method of preventing bacteria or a virus with generated silver ion water with an ultrasonic transducer), the method comprising making and maintaining an aerosol protective cloud a pathoprotector in places of potential contact with a pathogen carrier (abstract; PG 4, ln 29-43, implies that the spraying device with the generated ion water is capable of spraying any places such as any surfaces as it can be portable device).
Regarding claim 8, Terashima discloses the method of claim 7 and further discloses, wherein a metal-ion water system (silver ion generation unit 113, Fig 1) is used as the pathoprotector (PG 2, ln 21 - PG 3, ln 31, implies that the generated silver ion mist by electrifying between the electrodes in water to elute silver ions by electrolysis which are used to antibacterial agent).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
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.
Claims 9 and 12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Terashima (machine translation of WO 2019064629 A1) as applied to claim 8 above, and further in view of Koga et al. (machine translation of JP 2018067576 A).
Regarding claim 9, Terashima discloses the method of claim 8 and further discloses, wherein used as the metal-ion water system are aqueous solutions of silver (PG 2, ln 21 - PG 3, ln 31) which are fatal for pathogens thus preventing the pathogens from invading body tissues, and from reproducing and transmitting (abstract; ¶0004,0042), but Terashima is silent on aqueous solutions of silver and other metals present.
However, Koga et al., which is analogous art to the claimed invention for spraying mist and water droplets consisting silver ion water for bactericidal effect (PG 5-6), teaches aqueous solutions of silver and other metals present in water (PG 4, ln 10-25, “…Examples of bactericidal metal ion water include silver ion water, copper ion water, and zinc ion water… a method of generating water by electrolysis), and the aqueous solutions being harmless for humans (PG 4, ln 26-28, “it can have no effect on the human body”) for known antibacterial effect of different metals.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the method of Terashima to include aqueous solutions of silver and other metals present as taught by Koga et al. for known antibacterial effect of different metals.
Regarding claim 12, Terashima in view of Koga et al. discloses the method of claim 9.
Terashima further discloses, wherein the aqueous solutions of metals are prepared by electrolysis (PG 2, ln 21 - PG 3, ln 31).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Togo et al. (machine translation of WO 2020071433 A1) is cited for a metal ion water spraying deice (abstract) using vibration parts (131, Fig 4).
An (US 20040022675) is cited for a humidifying method using silver ionized water and spraying the vaporized silver ionized water into the air, thereby enhancing sterilization effects and preventing respiratory ailments caused by harmful bacteria or virus (¶0001).
Sugiura et al. (US 20070026087 A1) is cited for silver-ion is effective against a coronavirus (abstract)
Terashima (machine translation of WO 2015186514 A1) is cited for ion generating humidifier for spraying on the face in purpose of the effect of preventing and treating atopy.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JAEICK JANG whose telephone number is (703)756-4569. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8:30 - 4:30.
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, Kendra D Carter can be reached at (571) 272-9034. 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.
/J.J./Examiner, Art Unit 3785
/JOSEPH D. BOECKER/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3785