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 .
FINAL ACTION
Response to Amendment
The amendment filed on 12/26/2025 has been received and claims 1-2, 5-6, 8-11, 14-21 and 26-27 are pending.
Claim Interpretation
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: “sterilization means” and “forced air flow device” in claim 1; “air directing means” in claim 8.
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. The corresponding structure for the “sterilization means” is an arrangement for soaking the object in a sterilizing solution or a steam generator (see Specification, p. 6 lines 4-10). The corresponding structure for the “forced air flow device” is a fan (AC or DC), an air pump, or a positive displacement pump (see Specification, p. 11 lines 1-7). The corresponding structure for the “air directing means” is a manifold (see Specification, p. 5 line 32).
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 § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 20-21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
In Claim 20, it is not clear what the limitation “an outside” is attempting to set forth, whether to an environment in which the apparatus is located or to the (external) environment of the earth.
Claim 21 is rejected due to being dependent on a rejected base claim.
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.
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.
Claim(s) 1-2, 5, 8-11, 15-16, 18-21 and 27 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wen (WO2020114397) in view of De Linage (CN111263666).
As to Claim 1, Wen (‘397) discloses an apparatus (see Figure 1), for sterilizing objects (A, B), comprising:
a chamber (1), for housing objects to be sterilized (A, B);
a sterilization means (12) for sterilizing objects within the chamber (see English translation, p. 3 – lines 18-19, p. 5 - Claim 1);
a forced air flow device (44; 54; 24) arranged to direct air/fluid into the chamber (1) (i.e. via 41/51-53/25 – see Figure 1); and
at least one nozzle (42; spray holes of 52 and 53) extending into the chamber (1) and arranged to direct air/fluid from the forced air flow device (44; 54);
wherein the at least one nozzle (i.e. portion of 42 that extends into A, B; spray holes of 52 and 53) comprises at least one outlet (i.e. at the end/outlet of branches of 42 entering A and B; openings of spray holes of 52 and 53) arranged to direct air/fluid along (see Figure 1) and capable of around an axis of the at least one nozzle (42) to thereby create a helical flow of air.
Wen (‘397) does not specifically teach that (i) the at least one nozzle comprises an internal helical air flow path leading towards the at least one outlet; and/or (ii) air from the forced air flow device is directed into the at least one nozzle so as to flow around an internal wall of the at least one nozzle and thereby create a helical flow of air within the at least one nozzle.
It was known in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide at least one nozzle that is comprised of an internal helical air flow path leading towards at least one outlet. De Linage (‘666) discloses an apparatus (see Figures 1 and 5-11), for sterilizing a surface/surfaces of objects, comprising:
a forced air flow device (22; 23) ( see Figure 1; English translation, p. 2 lines 16-17, p. 3 9th – 10th lines from the bottom); and
at least one nozzle (24; 1) arranged to direct air from the forced air flow device (22; 23);
wherein the at least one nozzle (24; 1) comprises at least one outlet (8, 10) arranged to direct air along (see Figures 1, 5-6 and 8-11) and around an axis (2) of the at least one nozzle (24; 1) to thereby create a helical flow of air;
wherein the at least one nozzle (24; 1) comprises an internal helical air flow path (7) leading towards the at least one outlet (8, 10) (see Figures 5-6 and 8-11); and/or (ii) air from the forced air flow device (23) is directed (via 6) into the at least one nozzle (24; 1) so as to flow around an internal wall (3, 7) of the at least one nozzle (24; 1) and thereby create a helical flow of air within the at least one nozzle (24; 1) (see Figures 5-6 and 8-11; English translation, p. 2 lines 20-30),
in order to provide more uniform droplet size of fluid being emitted from the at least one nozzle by reducing the droplet size spectrum so as to improve the sterilizing effect for surface sterilization (see entire document, particularly Figure 7, English translation, p. 2 last 2 lines, p. 3 5th – 11th lines from the bottom).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in this art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide (i) at least one nozzle that is comprises an internal helical air flow path leading towards the at least one outlet; and/or (ii) air from a forced air flow device is directed into at least one nozzle so as to flow around an internal wall of the at least one nozzle and thereby create a helical flow of air within the at least one nozzle in the apparatus of Wen as a known alternate configuration of a nozzle in order to provide more uniform droplet size of cleaning/sterilizing fluid that are emitted from the at least one nozzle so as to improve the cleaning/sterilizing effect for surface cleaning/sterilization as shown by De Linage.
As to Claim 2, Wen (‘397) discloses that the at least one nozzle (42) comprises a further outlet (i.e. at the end of the other one of the branches of 42 entering either A or B) aligned with the axis of the at least one nozzle (42) and arranged to direct air along the axis of the at least one nozzle (42) (see Figure 1).
As to Claim 5, air in the apparatus of Wen (‘397) is capable of entering the at least one nozzle (42) at least partially tangentially with the internal wall of the at least one nozzle (42).
As to Claim 8, Wen (‘397) discloses that the apparatus further comprises an air directing means (41), located downstream of the forced air flow device (44), arranged to direct a first portion of air through the at least one nozzle (42) and a second portion of air directly into the chamber (1) (see Figure 1).
As to Claim 9, the first portion of air is capable of being between 40% and 60%, preferably 50%, of the air directed by the forced air flow device (44) of Wen (‘397).
As to Claim 10, Wen (‘397) discloses that the sterilization means (12) comprises a steam generator arranged to direct steam into the chamber (1) (see English translation, p. 3 – lines 18-19, p. 5 - Claim 1).
As to Claim 11, Wen (‘397) discloses that the apparatus (see Figure 1) further comprising at least one inlet (i.e. inlet of 42 and/or outlet of 41, particularly portion(s) of 41 with diameter greater than 42 and/or inlet from 2 into 1) arranged to allow a portion of the air/fluid directed by the forced air flow device (44; 54; 24) into the chamber (1), and at least one chamber outlet (101 and/or 32 connected via 33 to 11) arranged to allow fluid to escape the chamber (1) (see Figure 1), wherein the at least one inlet (i.e. inlet of 42 and/or outlet of 41, particularly portion(s) of 41 with diameter greater than 42 and/or inlet from 2 into 1) and the at least one chamber outlet (101 and/or 32 connected via 33 to 11) are arranged in the chamber (1) such that at least a portion of the air/fluid passing into the chamber (1) through the at least one inlet (i.e. inlet of 42 and/or outlet of 41, particularly portion(s) of 41 with diameter greater than 42 and/or inlet from 2 into 1) travels in a first direction (i.e. horizontal direction parallel to the bottom of the chamber) away from the at least one chamber outlet (101 and/or 32 connected via 33 to 11).
As to Claim 15, Wen (‘397) discloses that the at least one inlet (i.e. inlet of 42 and/or outlet of 41, particularly portion(s) of 41 with diameter greater than 42) comprises a conduit (i.e. end portion of 41 and/or horizontal portion of 42) which extends into chamber (1) (see Figure 1).
As to Claim 16, Wen (‘397) discloses that the conduit (i.e. end portion of 41 and/or horizontal portion of 42) extends from a base of the chamber (1) towards a central portion of the chamber (1) (see Figure 1).
As to Claim 18, Wen (‘397) discloses that a portion (i.e. 51 and/or sidewall of 1 opposite of where 41 is located) of the chamber (1) facing the at least one air inlet (i.e. inlet of 42 and/or outlet of 41, particularly portion(s) with diameter greater than 42) is shaped so as to redirect air around the chamber (1) towards the at least one air outlet (101).
As to Claim 19, Wen (‘397) discloses that a cross-sectional area of the at least one chamber outlet (101) is less than a cross-sectional area of an air supply inlet (at 43) to the forced air flow device (44) (see Figure 1).
As to Claim 20, while Wen (‘397) discloses that the apparatus further comprises an expansion chamber (31) arranged downstream of the at least one chamber outlet (101 and/or 32 connected via 33 to 11) (see Figure 1), Wen (‘397) does not specifically teach that the expansion chamber (31) comprises at least one apparatus outlet that is in fluid communication with an outside of the apparatus. However, it would have been well within the purview of one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide at least one apparatus outlet in the expansion chamber (31) that is in fluid communication with an outside of the apparatus of Wen as modified by De Linage as a known configuration in order to allow emptying of the expansion chamber so as to ensure that accumulation of fluid therein does not cause an overflow which may then cause a fluid backup to the chamber as a matter of engineering choice. Only the expected results would be attained.
As to Claim 21, while Wen (‘397) does not specifically teach a configuration where the at least one apparatus outlet has a cross-sectional area which is larger than a cross-sectional area of the at least one chamber outlet (101 and/or 32 connected via 33 to 11), it would have been well within the purview of one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide a larger cross-sectional area for the at least one apparatus outlet in the apparatus of Wen as modified by De Linage as a matter of engineering design choice in order to allow a rapid drainage of fluid accumulated within the expansion chamber (31) so as to provide a minimum downtime in the operation of the apparatus for servicing/maintenance. Only the expected results would be attained.
As to Claim 27, Wen (‘397) discloses that the apparatus is a baby equipment sterilizing apparatus (see Figure 1; see English translation, Abstract).
Thus, Claims 1-2, 5, 8-11, 15-16, 18-21 and 27 would have been obvious within the meaning of 35 U.S.C. 103 over the combined teachings of Wen (‘397) and De Linage (‘666).
Claim(s) 6, 14 and 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wen (WO2020114397) in view of De Linage (CN111263666) as applied to claims 1 and 11 above, and further in view of Cheon (WO2007058441).
Wen (‘397) and De Linage (‘666) are relied upon for disclosure described in the rejection of claims 1 and 11 under 35 U.S.C. 103.
As to Claim 6, neither Wen (‘397) nor De Linage (‘666) appears to specifically teach that the at least one outlet comprises a plurality of outlets each arranged to direct along and around the axis so as to create a helical flow of air.
It was known in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide a plurality of outlets with at least one nozzle. Cheon (‘441) discloses an apparatus (100) (see Figure 3) comprising:
a chamber (110), for housing objects to be sterilized (B, C);
a sterilization means (720) for sterilizing objects within the chamber (see entire document, particularly Figure 13);
a forced air flow device (820) arranged to direct air into the chamber (110); and
at least one nozzle (210; 310) extending into the chamber (110) and arranged to direct air from the forced air flow device (820);
wherein the at least one nozzle (210; 310) comprises at least one outlet (212; 312) arranged to direct air along (see Figures 4-6 and 9) and capable of around an axis of the at least one nozzle (210; 310) (via walls of B, C),
wherein the at least one outlet (212; 312) comprises a plurality of outlets (212; 312) each arranged to direct along and around the axis capable of creating a helical flow of air,
in order to inject and distribute sterilization agent into the objects to be sterilized (see Figures 4-6 and 9).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in this art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide a plurality of outlets in the at least one nozzle of Wen as modified by De Linage as a known configuration in order to provide means to inject and distribute sterilization agent into the object to be sterilization as shown by Cheon.
As to Claim 14, Cheon (‘441) discloses that at least one chamber outlet (150) is arranged on a lower portion of the chamber (110) (see Figure 3).
As to Claim 17, Cheon (‘441) discloses that at least one inlet (400) is arranged above the at least one chamber outlet (150) (see Figure 3).
Thus, Claims 6, 14, and 17 would have been obvious within the meaning of 35 U.S.C. 103 over the combined teachings of Wen (‘397), De Linage (‘666), and Cheon (‘441).
Claim(s) 26 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wen (WO2020114397) in view of De Linage (CN111263666) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Grassia (CN105992540).
Wen (‘397) and De Linage (‘666) are relied upon for disclosure described in the rejection of claim 1 under 35 U.S.C. 103.
Neither Wen (‘397) nor De Linage (‘666) appears to specifically teach that the apparatus further comprising a one-way valve arranged downstream of the forced air flow device and configured to allow air to flow through the one-way valve towards the chamber.
It was known in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide a one-way valve arranged downstream of a forced air flow device. Grassia (‘540) discloses an apparatus (see Figures 1, 13 and 15) comprising:
a chamber (116);
a sterilization means (101, 103, 104; 1220) for sterilizing objects within the chamber (116) (see Figures 1, 13 and 15);
a forced air flow device (112; 1202) arranged to direct air into the chamber (116) (i.e. via 111, 115, 122; 1214, 1204, 1205) (see Figures 1, 13 and 15);
at least one nozzle (122; 1205) arranged to direct air from the forced air flow device (112; 1202); and
a one-way valve (114; 1213) arranged downstream of the forced air flow device (112; 1202) and configured to allow air to flow through the one-way valve (114; 1213) towards the chamber (116) (see Figures 1, 13 and 15),
in order to prevent back flow of air (see entire document, particularly p. 8 line 8 from the bottom).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in this art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide a one-way valve downstream of the forced air flow device in the apparatus of Wen as modified by De Linage in order to prevent back flow of air as shown by Grassia.
Thus, Claim 26 would have been obvious within the meaning of 35 U.S.C. 103 over the combined teachings of Wen (‘397), De Linage (‘666), and Grassia (‘540).
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 1-2, 5-6, 8-11, 14- have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on the same combination of references applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment along with Applicant's submission of an information disclosure statement under 37 CFR 1.97(c) with the timing fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(p) on 3/13/2026 prompted the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). See also MPEP § 609.04(b). 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 REGINA M YOO whose telephone number is (571)272-6690. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday, 9:00 am - 5:00 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 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.
/REGINA M YOO/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1758
Prosecution Insights