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. The amendment filed 25 November 2025 has been received and considered for examination. Claims 1-7,15 and 17-22 are presently pending and being examined herein.
3. The rejection of claim 15 (formerly claim 16) under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) is maintained.
4. All other rejections and objections from the previous Office action are withdrawn in view of Applicant’s amendment.
5. New grounds of rejection under 35 U.S.C. 112(b), U.S.C. 102(a)(1), and 35 U.S.C. 103 are necessitated by the amendments, as detailed below.
Claim Objections
6. Claim 2 is objected to because of the following informalities: “the disinfectant” should read --the disinfectant liquid--. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
7. 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.
8. Claims 20 and 22 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.
9. Regarding claim 20, it is unclear whether the limitation “combinations thereof” would refer to a multi-component nanostructure (see instant Specification, par 0039) of the listed “inorganic nanoparticles, ceramic nanoparticles, and carbonaceous nanoparticles” or simply a suspended mixture of the listed nanoparticles. Examiner recommends revising to a proper Markush format if the claim is intended to require only one or more of the alternatives (see MPEP 2117 and 2173.05(h)(I)), or deleting the limitation “and combinations thereof” if the claim is intended to require all three listed nanoparticle types.
10. Regarding claim 22, it is unclear whether the limitation “combinations thereof” would refer to a multi-component nanostructure (see instant Specification, par 0039) of the listed “inorganic nanoparticles, ceramic nanoparticles, and carbonaceous nanoparticles” or simply a suspended mixture of the listed nanoparticles. Examiner recommends revising to a proper Markush format if the claim is intended to require only one or more of the alternatives (see MPEP 2117 and 2173.05(h)(I)), or deleting the limitation “and combinations thereof” if the claim is intended to require all three listed nanoparticle types.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
11. 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.
12. Claims 1, 3, 5, 15, 17, and 21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Markesbery et al (US 20200306399 A1).
13. Regarding claim 1, Markesbery discloses a surface disinfection apparatus (mechanized or automated spray, fogging, or delivery system, par 0202; for disinfecting a surface, par 0203) comprising:
a tank containing a disinfectant liquid (FIG. 3, aqueous composition containers 312 configured for housing or containing an aqueous composition, par 0067; aqueous composition for disinfecting a range of materials, pars 0172-0175);
a nozzle (FIG. 3, nozzles 316) having a size variable spray opening (adjusting the nozzle size, par 0210);
a pump operationally connected to the tank and to the nozzle (FIG. 3, pumps 314 in fluid communication with containers 312 and delivery nozzles 316, par 0226) for pumping the disinfectant liquid from the tank into and through the nozzle (pumps to dispense aqueous compositions from the aqueous composition containers to and through the aqueous composition delivery nozzles, par 0226) to spray the disinfectant liquid onto a surface (dispersing aqueous compositions as a multiplicity of microdroplets and forming microns-thick reaction layer on the surface, par 0172) for a period of time (time sufficient for any of the aqueous compositions to deposit onto the surface can be defined to be a specific unit of time, par 0202);
an electric charge source (ionizing needle or high voltage charging system proximate to the nozzle, par 0235) operationally connected to the tank (FIG. 3, nozzles 316 and pumps 314 in communication with respective containers 312, par 0226) for ionizing disinfectant liquid (configured to electrostatically charge microdroplets of the aqueous composition, par 0235);
wherein charge dispenser voltage (distribution of the multiplicity of electrostatically-charged microdroplets can be controlled by adjusting the magnitude of the voltage applied to the nozzle, par 0210), nozzle spray opening size (distribution of the multiplicity of electrostatically-charged microdroplets can be controlled by adjusting the nozzle size, par 0210), and distance between the surface and the nozzle (atomizing device can be located a sufficient distance from the surface to be disinfected, par 0214; coverage depends on distance from the sprayer, par 0309) are predetermined based on the characteristics of the surface (multiplicity of microdroplets can be any diameter that facilitates distribution, deposition, and coalescence of the microdroplets onto a surface or surfaces to be disinfected, pars 0155 and 0157), wherein the characteristics of the surface are selected from material composition, porosity, and surface roughness (sensor 344 can be used for…identification of the variety of objects and surfaces within the volumetric space 330, including the material or composition of those objects, par 0230; applied to a variety of hard or soft surfaces having smooth, irregular, or porous topography, par 0143).
14. Regarding claim 3, Markesbery discloses the surface disinfection apparatus of claim 1, wherein the surface is selected from the group consisting of wood, plastic, metal, glass, and combinations thereof (surface in need of disinfecting is selected from the group consisting of plastics; metals; linoleum; tiles; vinyl; stone; structural lumber and/or finished wood; concrete; wallboards; plaster; carpet; insulation; pulp and fiber-based materials; glass; heating, ventilation, and air conditioning systems; plumbing; and vinyl, including combinations thereof, par 0015).
15. Regarding claim 5, Markesbery discloses the surface disinfection apparatus of claim 1, wherein the period of time is between one second and three seconds (time sufficient for an aqueous composition to deposit onto a surface is at least about 1 second, pars 0202-0203).
16. Regarding claim 15, Markesbery discloses a disinfectant sprayer assembly (mechanized or automated spray, fogging, or delivery system, par 0202; for disinfecting a surface, par 0203), comprising:
a tank defining a volume (FIG. 3, aqueous composition containers 312);
a disinfectant suspension (aqueous composition can encompass suspensions, par 0111) contained within the volume (aqueous composition containers configured for housing or containing an aqueous composition, par 0067);
a nozzle (FIG. 3, nozzles 316) having a size variable spray opening (adjusting the nozzle size, par 0210);
a pump operationally connected to the volume and to the nozzle (FIG. 3, pumps 314 in fluid communication with containers 312 and delivery nozzles 316, par 0226) for pumping the disinfectant suspension from the volume through the spray opening (pumps to dispense aqueous compositions from the aqueous composition containers to and through the aqueous composition delivery nozzles, par 0226) to apply the disinfectant suspension to a predetermined surface having a predetermined set of physical characteristics (porous and non-porous surfaces including plastics; metals; linoleum; tiles; vinyl; stone; structural lumber and/or finished wood; concrete; wallboards; plaster; carpet; insulation; pulp and fiber-based materials; glass; heating, ventilation, and air conditioning systems; plumbing; and vinyl, including combinations thereof, par 0015; surfaces having irregular or porous topography, par 0143) for a period of time (precise control of the amount of time that a composition is dispersed, pars 0273-0274);
an ion generator (ionizing needle or high voltage charging system proximate to the nozzle, par 0235) operationally connected to the volume (FIG. 3, nozzles 316 and pumps 314 in communication with respective containers 312, par 0226) for ionizing the disinfectant suspension (configured to electrostatically charge microdroplets of the aqueous composition, par 0235); and
a microprocessor (programming can be resident, contained within the controller 322, or distributed or resident elsewhere, such as in a remote controller or processor 332, par 0229) operationally connected to the size variable spray opening (nozzle 316 can be directed by the controller, par 0234);
wherein ion generator voltage (distribution of the multiplicity of electrostatically-charged microdroplets can be controlled by adjusting the magnitude of the voltage applied to the nozzle, par 0210), nozzle spray opening size (distribution of the multiplicity of electrostatically-charged microdroplets can be controlled by adjusting the nozzle size, par 0210), and distance between the predetermined surface and the spray opening (coverage depends on distance from the sprayer, par 0309) are predetermined based on the predetermined set of physical characteristics of the surface (multiplicity of microdroplets can be any diameter that facilitates distribution, deposition, and coalescence of the microdroplets onto a surface or surfaces to be disinfected, pars 0155 and 0157; discussion of charge/droplet distribution and surface properties, par 0209), wherein the predetermined set of physical characteristics are selected from material composition, porosity, and surface roughness (sensor 344 can be used for…identification of the variety of objects and surfaces within the volumetric space 330, including the material or composition of those objects, par 0230; applied to a variety of hard or soft surfaces having smooth, irregular, or porous topography, par 0143).
17. Regarding claim 17, Markesbery discloses the disinfectant sprayer assembly of claim 15 wherein the disinfectant suspension further comprises a plurality of nanostructures (nanoparticles can be delivered or dispersed within one or more aqueous compositions, pars 0173-0174) suspended in a glycol-based vehicle (alcohol present in an aqueous composition can be ethylene glycol or other polyols, pars 0161-0162).
18. Regarding claim 21, Markesbery discloses the surface disinfection apparatus of claim 1, wherein the disinfectant liquid comprises a plurality of nanostructures (nanoparticles can be delivered or dispersed within one or more aqueous compositions, pars 0173-0174) suspended in a glycol-based vehicle (alcohol present in an aqueous composition can be ethylene glycol or other polyols, pars 0161-0162).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102/103
19. When the interpretation of the claim(s) is or may be in dispute, i.e., given one interpretation, a rejection under 35 U.S.C.102 is appropriate and given another interpretation, a rejection under 35 U.S.C. 103 is appropriate. 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.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this section made 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.
20. Claim 4 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as anticipated by or, in the alternative, under 35 U.S.C. 103 as obvious over Markesbery et al (US 20200306399 A1).
Regarding claim 4, Markesbery discloses the surface disinfection apparatus of claim 1, wherein the distance between the spray opening and the surface can be interpreted as a manner of operating the device, i.e., an intended use that does not carry patentable weight. See MPEP 2114(II). The sprayer of Markesbery (FIG. 3) is taught as having a portable spray opening that can be reasonably placed at a range of distances from the target surface, varying the spray distance in one demonstration from about 0-150 inches in the spray direction (FIG. 13, par 0309).
In the alternative, wherein the distance between the surface and the nozzle is a fixed characteristic of the apparatus design, Markesbery teaches a surface coating experiment in which the spray distance in the spray direction is varied between 0 and 150 inches (FIG. 13, par 0309). The experimental range is not deemed critical, as dispersed disinfectant would be expected to deposit on surfaces when dispensed from a range of distances that exceeds the claimed range. Thus, the optimal distance between the spray opening and the target surface is a result effective variable that can be attained via routine optimization. See MPEP 2144.05(II)(A). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to discover the optimum or workable range of distance between the spray opening and the surface, as Markesbery discloses a spray distance on a similar scale using a readily moveable hand sprayer.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
21. 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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
22. Claim 2 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as obvious over Markesbery et al (US 20200306399 A1) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Trifiro et al (US 20160296640 A1).
Regarding claim 2, Markesbery discloses the surface disinfection apparatus of claim 1, wherein the disinfectant liquid comprises a glycol based suspension (alcohol present in an aqueous composition can be ethylene glycol or other polyols, pars 0161-0162) with “one or more chemical stabilizers and/or enhancers such as metal colloids and/or nanoparticles” (pars 0173-0174). Markesbery does not specifically teach that the disinfectant liquid would include all three of one or more inorganic nanoparticles, one or more ceramic nanoparticles, and one or more carbonaceous nanoparticles.
Trifiro teaches an analogous surface disinfecting agent (pars 0008, 0011, and 0125-0127) that combines carbon-based nanomaterials with metal i.e. inorganic nanoparticles and/or titanium dioxide i.e. ceramic nanoparticles for enhanced plasmonic interaction (pars 0110-0113), namely to generate a photothermal effect for surface sterilization (par 0127).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to use for the generic nanoparticle suspension of Markesbery a combination of one or more inorganic nanoparticles, one or more ceramic nanoparticles, and one or more carbon-based nanoparticles as taught by Trifiro. As the base device of Markesbery is already capable of spraying a nanoparticle suspension, one would be motivated to choose a nanoparticle suspension that effects the desired surface sterilization, and the mixture of Trifiro would predictably provide added sterilization using the described plasmonic mechanism with a reasonable expectation of success. See MPEP 2143(I)(G).
23. Claim 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as obvious over Markesbery et al (US 20200306399 A1) as evidenced by Electrical Safety Forum (NonPatent Literature, accessed 21 August 2025, https://www.electrical-safety-forum.com/high-voltage-electrical-safety).
Regarding claim 6, Markesbery teaches the surface disinfection apparatus of claim 1, wherein the electric charge source is configured to impart a high voltage (par 0204) but does not specify a voltage range. The U.S. National Electrical Code defines high voltage as exceeding 600 volts (Electrical Safety Forum). Markesbery further teaches wherein the resulting microdroplet distribution can be controlled by adjusting the magnitude of the voltage applied (par 0210). Although Markesbery fails to teach a specific operating voltage, the experimental range is not deemed critical, as electrostatic charging of droplets would be expected to take place across the voltage range within high voltage. Thus, operating voltage is a result effective variable that can be attained via routine optimization. See MPEP 2144.05(II)(A). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to discover the optimum or workable range of voltage to effect a desired microdroplet distribution and employ a voltage between 1 kV and 7 kV, as Markesbery discloses an adjustable voltage source that applies high voltage of a similar magnitude to the claimed range.
24. Claim 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as obvious over Markesbery et al (US 20200306399 A1) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Bone-Winkel et al (US 20220042692 A1).
Regarding claim 7, Markesbery teaches the surface disinfection apparatus of claim 1, wherein microdroplet size can be controlled i.e. automatically variable (par 0234) and microdroplet size may ideally be less than about 20 microns (par 0155). Markesbery further teaches the use of remotely controlled power sources to engage pumps and control various aspects of the operation (pars 0250 and 0273-0279). Markesbery does not specifically teach wherein the spray opening size is automatically variable between 40 and 110 microns in response to a remotely generated input signal.
Bone-Winkel teaches an analogous spray apparatus for disinfecting surfaces (pars 0179-0181, FIG. 3) wherein the spray opening size (mouth of nozzle disposed in the rotation nozzle piece, pars 0181 and 0183, FIG. 3) is automatically variable (the particle size of the disinfectant is reduced by the rotation of the rotating nozzle piece, pars 0121-0123) in response to a remotely generated input signal (rotation nozzle piece is rotated by the operation of the air pump, par 0181; control device operates air pump, par 0179; control device may be controlled remotely using mobile applications, par 0038). Bone-Winkel further teaches that the spray opening size is between forty microns and one-hundred and ten microns (the mouth of the nozzle is particularly preferably of less than 0.1 mm, or 100 microns, par 0124).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to employ in place of the nozzle of Markesbery an automatically variable nozzle having a spray opening size of between 40 and 110 microns in response to a remotely generated input signal as taught by Bone-Winkel. Employing this nozzle would predictably provide the same benefits taught by Bone-Winkel, namely producing small droplets that stay afloat without immediately evaporating (Bone-Winkel pars 0041-0043) as controlled remotely (Bone-Winkel pars 0041-0043).
25. Claim 18 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as obvious over Markesbery et al (US 20200306399 A1) as evidenced by Electrical Safety Forum (NonPatent Literature, accessed 21 August 2025, https://www.electrical-safety-forum.com/high-voltage-electrical-safety).
Regarding claim 18, Markesbery teaches the disinfectant sprayer assembly of claim 15, and further teaches a log-kill experiment wherein the aqueous disinfectant composition was sprayed at a distance of about 6-8 inches from a surface with a hand sprayer (par 0303). The experimental range is not deemed critical, as dispersed disinfectant would be expected to deposit on surfaces when dispensed from a range of distances from about 0-150 inches as demonstrated in an experiment by Markesbery (FIG. 13, par 0309). Thus, the optimal distance between the spray opening and the target surface is a result effective variable that can be attained via routine optimization. See MPEP 2144.05(II)(A). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to discover the optimum or workable range of distance between the spray opening and the surface and spray from a distance of 18 to 30 inches, as Markesbery discloses a spray distance on a similar scale using a readily moveable hand sprayer.
Markesbery further teaches wherein the ion generator produces a positive voltage (adjustable to selectively spray microdroplets having a positive charge, par 0204), disclosed as a high voltage (par 0204) but with no specified voltage range. The U.S. National Electrical Code defines high voltage as exceeding 600 volts (Electrical Safety Forum). Markesbery further teaches wherein the resulting microdroplet distribution can be controlled by adjusting the magnitude of the voltage applied (par 0210). Although Markesbery fails to teach a specific operating voltage, the experimental range is not deemed critical, as electrostatic charging of droplets would be expected to take place across the voltage range within high voltage. See MPEP 2144.05(II)(A). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to discover the optimum or workable range of voltage to effect a desired microdroplet distribution and employ a voltage between 1 kV and 7 kV, as Markesbery discloses an adjustable voltage source that applies high voltage of a similar magnitude to the claimed range.
26. Claim 19 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as obvious over Markesbery et al (US 20200306399 A1) as applied to claim 15 above, and further in view of Trifiro et al (US 20160296640 A1).
Regarding claim 19, Markesbery discloses the disinfectant sprayer assembly of claim 15, wherein the disinfectant suspension is a glycol based vehicle (alcohol present in an aqueous composition can be ethylene glycol or other polyols, pars 0161-0162) which includes “one or more chemical stabilizers and/or enhancers such as metal colloids and/or nanoparticles” (pars 0173-0174). Markesbery does not specifically teach that the disinfectant would include all three of one or more inorganic nanoparticles, one or more ceramic nanoparticles, and one or more carbonaceous nanoparticles.
Trifiro teaches an analogous surface disinfecting agent (pars 0008, 0011, and 0125-0127) that combines carbon-based nanomaterials with metal i.e. inorganic nanoparticles and/or titanium dioxide i.e. ceramic nanoparticles for enhanced plasmonic interaction (pars 0110-0113), namely to generate a photothermal effect for surface sterilization (par 0127).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to use for the generic nanoparticle suspension of Markesbery a combination of one or more inorganic nanoparticles, one or more ceramic nanoparticles, and one or more carbon-based nanoparticles as taught by Trifiro. As the base device of Markesbery is already capable of spraying a nanoparticle suspension, one would be motivated to choose a nanoparticle suspension that effects the desired surface sterilization, and the mixture of Trifiro would predictably provide added sterilization using the described plasmonic mechanism with a reasonable expectation of success. See MPEP 2143(I)(G).
27. Claim 20 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as obvious over Markesbery et al (US 20200306399 A1) as applied to claim 17 above, and further in view of Trifiro et al (US 20160296640 A1).
Regarding claim 20, Markesbery discloses the disinfectant sprayer assembly of claim 17, wherein the disinfectant suspension has “one or more chemical stabilizers and/or enhancers such as metal colloids and/or nanoparticles” (pars 0173-0174). Markesbery does not specifically teach that the disinfectant liquid would include one or more inorganic nanoparticles, one or more ceramic nanoparticles, and one or more carbonaceous nanoparticles.
Trifiro teaches an analogous surface disinfecting agent (pars 0008, 0011, and 0125-0127) that combines carbon-based nanomaterials with metal i.e. inorganic nanoparticles and/or titanium dioxide i.e. ceramic nanoparticles for enhanced plasmonic interaction (pars 0110-0113), namely to generate a photothermal effect for surface sterilization (par 0127).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to use for the generic nanoparticle suspension of Markesbery a combination of one or more inorganic nanoparticles, one or more ceramic nanoparticles, and one or more carbon-based nanoparticles as taught by Trifiro. As the base device of Markesbery is already capable of spraying a nanoparticle suspension, one would be motivated to choose a nanoparticle suspension that effects the desired surface sterilization, and the mixture of Trifiro would predictably provide added sterilization using the described plasmonic mechanism with a reasonable expectation of success. See MPEP 2143(I)(G).
28. Claim 22 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as obvious over Markesbery et al (US 20200306399 A1) as applied to claim 21 above, and further in view of Trifiro et al (US 20160296640 A1).
Regarding claim 2, Markesbery discloses the surface disinfection apparatus of claim 21, wherein the disinfectant liquid may comprise “one or more chemical stabilizers and/or enhancers such as metal colloids and/or nanoparticles” (pars 0173-0174). Markesbery does not specifically teach that the disinfectant liquid would include all three of one or more inorganic nanoparticles, one or more ceramic nanoparticles, and one or more carbonaceous nanoparticles.
Trifiro teaches an analogous surface disinfecting agent (pars 0008, 0011, and 0125-0127) that combines carbon-based nanomaterials with metal i.e. inorganic nanoparticles and/or titanium dioxide i.e. ceramic nanoparticles for enhanced plasmonic interaction (pars 0110-0113), namely to generate a photothermal effect for surface sterilization (par 0127).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to use for the generic nanoparticle suspension of Markesbery a combination of one or more inorganic nanoparticles, one or more ceramic nanoparticles, and one or more carbon-based nanoparticles as taught by Trifiro. As the base device of Markesbery is already capable of spraying a nanoparticle suspension, one would be motivated to choose a nanoparticle suspension that effects the desired surface sterilization, and the mixture of Trifiro would predictably provide added sterilization using the described plasmonic mechanism with a reasonable expectation of success. See MPEP 2143(I)(G).
Response to Arguments
29. Applicant’s arguments, see Remarks filed 25 November 2025 pages 8-9, with respect to the rejections of claims 1-7 and 17 under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) have been fully considered and are persuasive. Therefore, the rejections have been withdrawn.
30. Applicant's arguments, see Remarks filed 25 November 2025 pages 9-12, with respect to the rejections of claims 1-7 and 15-18 under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) and 35 U.S.C. 103 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Regarding Applicant’s argument that Markesbery discloses a method that requires sequential dispersion of a peroxide and an organic acid onto the surface, Examiner notes that Markesbery clearly teaches an apparatus for dispersing these liquid compositions as well (FIG. 3, sequential application and delivery system 310, par 0226). As apparatus claims cover what a device is, not what a device does, the device of Markesbery anticipates the claimed device as it includes all of the claimed structures regardless of whether the intended use of the claimed device involves different disinfectant liquids. See MPEP 2114(II). Examiner further clarifies that as the peroxide and organic acid in Markesbery are liquids used in a disinfecting application, either liquid can read upon the limitation “a disinfectant liquid”.
Regarding Applicant’s argument that Markesbery does not discuss nozzles having size variable openings, Examiner points specifically to the quoted section of Markesbery par 0210: “distribution of the multiplicity of electrostatically-charged microdroplets can be controlled by adjusting…nozzle size” (emphasis added). Examiner takes the opinion that one of ordinary skill in the art would understand this passage to refer to an adjustable nozzle i.e., a nozzle having a size variable opening, but, for the sake of argument and without conceding the propriety of the aforementioned interpretation, even if adjusting the nozzle of Markesbery involved manually replacing a nozzle head with a different size opening, this would still anticipate the limitation “a nozzle having a size variable spray opening” as the size of the nozzle opening can clearly be varied.
Regarding Applicant’s assertion that Non-Patent Literature “Electrical Safety Forum” (www.electrical-safety-forum.com/high-voltage-electrical-safety) may not be prior art (an assertion that Examiner refutes, as the URL may be accessed through the Wayback Machine at web.archive.org dating from 03 December 2020), Examiner notes that the reference is applied only as an evidentiary reference to establish a working range for the term “high voltage”. As the reference does not modify Markesbery in any way, claims 6 and 18 were properly rejected as obvious over Markesbery.
Conclusion
31. The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure:
Moore et al (US 20220362427 A1) discloses an analogous disinfectant sprayer (Abstract, FIGS.1 and 12-13) wherein a nozzle adjuster can automatically adjust the nozzle to produce larger or smaller droplet size (pars 0056 and 0058).
32. 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.
33. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Eric Talbert whose telephone number is (703)756-5538. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri 8:00-5:00 Eastern Time.
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.
/ERIC TALBERT/Examiner, Art Unit 1758
/MARIS R KESSEL/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1758