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 .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
2. A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 20 July 2026 has been entered.
Response to Amendment
3. The amendment filed 20 July 2026 has been received and considered for examination. Claims 1-7, 15 and 17-24 are presently pending and being examined herein.
4. All rejections and objections from the previous Office action are withdrawn in view of Applicant’s amendment.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. 103 are necessitated by the amendments/arguments, as detailed below.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
6. 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.
7. Claims 1, 3-6, 15, 17-18, and 21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Markesbery et al (US 20200306399 A1) in view of Huge (US 1,571,629 A), as evidenced by Electrical Safety Forum (NonPatent Literature, accessed 21 August 2025, https://www.electrical-safety-forum.com/high-voltage-electrical-safety) with respect to claims 6 and 18.
8. 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 having a spray opening (FIG. 3, nozzles 316);
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).
Although Markesbery teaches that the distribution of the multiplicity of electrostatically charged microdroplets can be controlled by adjusting the nozzle size or type (par 0210), Markesbery does not provide the requisite detail to fully anticipate the claimed size-variable spray opening.
Huge teaches an analogous sprayer for projecting disinfecting fluids in the form of fine drops (page 1 lines 8-17) wherein the improved sprayer has an outlet opening that can be adjusted to different diameters (page 2 lines 105-108 and 124-131, page 3 lines 1-2) by forming a rotatable register with several holes of different sizes (page 3 lines 3-38), teaching that the advantage afforded by this construction is that it allows a very wide regulation of the delivery without any dismounting of the parts (page 3 lines 39-43).
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 nozzle of Markesbery a nozzle with a size-variable spray opening as taught by Huge, because this size-variable construction would predictably provide the same advantage of wide flow regulatability without any dismounting of parts while providing the adjustable nozzle size required by Markesbery with a reasonable expectation of success, the modification entailing simple substitution of one known element for another to yield predictable results. See MPEP 2143(I)(B) and MPEP 2143(I)(G).
9. Regarding claim 3, Markesbery as modified by Huge teaches 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, Markesbery par 0015).
10. Regarding claim 4, Markesbery as modified by Huge teaches 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 between 18 and 30 inches, as Markesbery discloses a spray distance on a similar scale using a readily moveable hand sprayer.
11. Regarding claim 5, Markesbery as modified by Huge teaches the surface disinfection apparatus of claim 1, and Markesbery further teaches that the time sufficient for an aqueous composition to deposit onto a surface is at least about 1 second (pars 0202-0203). Although the combination does not specifically teach wherein the period of time is between one second and three seconds , the experimental range of spray duration is not deemed critical and thus 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 for the period of time to be between 1 and 3 seconds, as Markesbery discloses a spray application time on a similar scale.
12. Regarding claim 6, Markesbery as modified by Huge 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.
13. 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 having a spray opening (FIG. 3, nozzles 316);
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).
Although Markesbery teaches that the distribution of the multiplicity of electrostatically charged microdroplets can be controlled by adjusting the nozzle size or type (par 0210), Markesbery does not provide the requisite detail to fully anticipate the claimed size-variable spray opening.
Huge teaches an analogous sprayer for projecting disinfecting fluids in the form of fine drops (page 1 lines 8-17) wherein the improved sprayer has an outlet opening that can be adjusted to different diameters (page 2 lines 105-108 and 124-131, page 3 lines 1-2) by forming a rotatable register with several holes of different sizes (page 3 lines 3-38), teaching that the advantage afforded by this construction is that it allows a very wide regulation of the delivery without any dismounting of the parts (page 3 lines 39-43).
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 nozzle of Markesbery a nozzle with a size-variable spray opening as taught by Huge, because this size-variable construction would predictably provide the same advantage of wide flow regulatability without any dismounting of parts while providing the adjustable nozzle size required by Markesbery with a reasonable expectation of success, the modification entailing simple substitution of one known element for another to yield predictable results. See MPEP 2143(I)(B) and MPEP 2143(I)(G).
14. Regarding claim 17, Markesbery as modified by Huge teaches 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, Markesbery pars 0173-0174) suspended in a glycol-based vehicle (alcohol present in an aqueous composition can be ethylene glycol or other polyols, Markesbery pars 0161-0162).
15. Regarding claim 18, Markesbery as modified by Huge teaches the disinfectant sprayer assembly of claim 15, and Markesbery 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.
16. Regarding claim 21, Markesbery as modified by Huge teaches 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, Markesbery pars 0173-0174) suspended in a glycol-based vehicle (alcohol present in an aqueous composition can be ethylene glycol or other polyols, Markesbery pars 0161-0162).
17. Claims 2 and 24 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as obvious over Markesbery et al (US 20200306399 A1) and Huge (US 1,571,629 A) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Trifiro et al (US 20160296640 A1).
18. Regarding claim 2, Markesbery as modified by Huge teaches 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, Markesbery pars 0161-0162) with “one or more chemical stabilizers and/or enhancers such as metal colloids and/or nanoparticles” (pars 0173-0174). Markesbery as modified 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 to be sprayed (pars 0008, 0011, 0071 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).
19. Regarding claim 24, Markesbery as modified by Huge teaches the disinfectant sprayer assembly of claim 1, wherein the disinfectant suspension has “one or more chemical stabilizers and/or enhancers such as metal colloids and/or nanoparticles” (pars 0173-0174). The combination does not specifically teach that the disinfectant liquid would include monocomponent nanostructures.
Trifiro teaches an analogous surface disinfecting agent (pars 0008, 0011, and 0125-0127) wherein carbon based nanoparticles such as carbon nanotubes or carbon nanoparticles (par 0074) are mono-dispersed in the fluid as the disinfecting agent (pars 0001 and 0088-0089).
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 monocomponent 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 monocomponent mixture of Trifiro would predictably provide the surface sterilization mechanism with a reasonable expectation of success. See MPEP 2143(I)(B) and MPEP 2143(I)(G).
20. Claim 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as obvious over Markesbery et al (US 20200306399 A1) and Huge (US 1,571,629 A) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Moore et al (US 20220362427 A1).
Regarding claim 7, Markesbery as modified by Huge teaches the surface disinfection apparatus of claim 1, wherein the size of the nozzle opening may be varied (Markesbery par 0210, Huge page 2 line 124 to page 3 line 38) such that microdroplet size can be controlled (Markesbery par 0234) and microdroplet size may ideally be less than about 20 microns (Markesbery 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). The combination 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.
Moore teaches an analogous self-adjusting disinfectant sprayer (Title, Abstract, FIG. 1) (pars 0179-0181, FIG. 3) with a nozzle adjuster that may be used by the processor to automatically adjust the droplet size applied to the object based on sensed distance i.e., a remotely generated input signal (par 0058), using a similar algorithm to deliver finer droplets when an object is close to the nozzle and larger droplets as the nozzle is moved away from the surface (par 0058). Though Moore does not teach a nozzle size, the droplet size required by Markesbery of less than about 20 microns can be readily obtained through routine optimization of the nozzle size by a skilled artisan, as the correlation between nozzle orifice size and droplet size is well-known (e.g., Markesbery par 0234), and the experimental range is not deemed critical, as droplets ranging in size to around 20 microns would be expected to be produced over a range of nozzle sizes on the order of microns. 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 further modify the nozzle of Markesbery to automatically vary its spray opening size between 40 and 110 microns in response to a remotely generated input signal as taught by Moore, because this modification would predictably enable the same automatic feedback control based on sensed distance to beneficially manage fluid flow rate for controllable disinfectant dosing in a similar manner (Moore pars 0040-0041) with a reasonable expectation of success. See MPEP 2143(I)(G).
21. Claim 19 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as obvious over Markesbery et al (US 20200306399 A1) and Huge (US 1,571,629 A) as applied to claim 15 above, and further in view of Trifiro et al (US 20160296640 A1).
Regarding claim 19, Markesbery as modified by Huge teaches 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). The combination 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).
22. Claims 20 and 23 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as obvious over Markesbery et al (US 20200306399 A1) and Huge (US 1,571,629 A) as applied to claim 17 above, and further in view of Trifiro et al (US 20160296640 A1).
23. Regarding claim 20, Markesbery as modified by Huge teaches 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). The combination does not specifically teach that the disinfectant liquid would include multicomponent nanostructures.
Trifiro teaches an analogous surface disinfecting agent (pars 0008, 0011, and 0125-0127) that combines carbon-based nanomaterials with metal and/or titanium dioxide nanoparticles to form hybrid 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 multicomponent 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).
24. Regarding claim 23, Markesbery as modified by Huge teaches 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). The combination does not specifically teach that the disinfectant liquid would include monocomponent nanostructures.
Trifiro teaches an analogous surface disinfecting agent (pars 0008, 0011, and 0125-0127) wherein carbon based nanoparticles such as carbon nanotubes or carbon nanoparticles (par 0074) are mono-dispersed in the fluid as the disinfecting agent (pars 0001 and 0088-0089).
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 monocomponent 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 monocomponent mixture of Trifiro would predictably provide the surface sterilization mechanism with a reasonable expectation of success. See MPEP 2143(I)(B) and MPEP 2143(I)(G).
25. 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 22, Markesbery as modified by Huge teaches 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” (Markesbery pars 0173-0174). Markesbery as modified does not specifically teach that the disinfectant liquid would include multicomponent nanostructures.
Trifiro teaches an analogous surface disinfecting agent (pars 0008, 0011, and 0125-0127) that combines carbon-based nanomaterials with metal and/or titanium dioxide nanoparticles to form hybrid 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 multicomponent 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
26. Applicant's arguments, see Remarks filed 20 July 2026 pages 8-18, with respect to the rejections of claims 1-7 and 15-22 under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) and 35 U.S.C. 103 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
27. Regarding Applicant’s argument that Markesbery discloses a method that requires sequential dispersion of a peroxide and an organic acid onto the surface (Remarks page 8), Examiner notes that Markesbery clearly teaches an apparatus for dispersing these liquid disinfectants 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 (emphasis added), the device of Markesbery reads upon the claimed device as it includes the claimed structures regardless of whether the intended use of the claimed device involves different disinfectant liquids. See MPEP 2114(II).
28. Likewise, regarding Applicant’s argument that Markesbery fails to disclose a system where the charge dispenser voltage, nozzle spray opening size, and distance between the surface and the nozzle are capable of being predetermined based on characteristics of the surface being disinfected (Remarks pages 12-14), the Examiner respectfully disagrees, as Markesbery clearly teaches sensor inputs that can identify the material composition of surfaces being disinfected (par 0230) in communication with a controller that can provide an adjustment of the voltage applied to the nozzle of the electrostatic sprayer (par 0210), an adjustment of the nozzle size (par 0210), and an adjustment of the distance between the surface and nozzle (par 0309). Perhaps Applicant is operating under a different interpretation of the term “predetermined”, which under its plain meaning is construed to mean that the device is operable under known conditions, akin to recommended settings, based on the surface being disinfected. In any case, Markesbery teaches at least two sets of predetermined operating methods for porous materials and non-porous materials (pars 0152 and 0172) in which the dispersion of droplets can be controlled by adjusting the voltage, nozzle size, and/or distance (pars 0210 and 0214), and a person having ordinary skill in the art would understand from the disclosure of Markesbery how to construct and operate the device to carry out the claimed intended use (see again MPEP 2114(II)) according to predetermined prescriptions based on the surface being disinfected as presented by Markesbery.
29. Regarding Applicant’s argument that Markesbery does not consider nozzles having size variable openings (Remarks pages 8-12), Examiner again 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). Although the Examiner takes the opinion that one of ordinary skill in the art would understand this passage to refer to a size-adjustable nozzle, i.e., a nozzle having a size variable opening, the teaching of a size-variable spray opening in the analogous sprayer nozzle of Huge is presently supplied to support a conclusion that a size-variable opening for a size adjustable nozzle would, under any interpretation, have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art. As Karter (US 1,981,623 A) aptly puts in his patent disclosure from 1934 concerning an analogous spray device for a disinfectant (page 1 lines 1-4): “Of course, the size of the outlet orifice can be regulated by adjustment of the nozzle” (page 2 lines 25-32).
Conclusion
30. 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
Prosecution Insights