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 19 March 2026 has been received and considered for examination. Claims 1-20 are presently pending and being examined herein.
3. All rejections and objections from the previous Office action are withdrawn in view of Applicant’s amendment.
4. New grounds of rejection under 35 U.S.C. 112(d) and U.S.C. 103 are necessitated by the amendments, as detailed below.
Claim Interpretation
5. 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.
6. 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.
7. 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: “dispensing device” in claim 1, interpreted to include a housing and a means for dispensing, which can comprise a heater, a fan, and an evaporative surface (page 15, lines 4-21) or a wick, membrane, gel, porous or semi-porous substrate, including a felt pad (page 16 lines 29-32).
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.
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
8. The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(d):
(d) REFERENCE IN DEPENDENT FORMS.—Subject to subsection (e), a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, fourth paragraph:
Subject to the following paragraph [i.e., the fifth paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112], a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
9. Claim 20 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(d) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, 4th paragraph, as being of improper dependent form for failing to further limit the subject matter of the claim upon which it depends, or for failing to include all the limitations of the claim upon which it depends. The step of “reducing the amount of liquid particles formed during dispensing via increasing the air temperature of the airstream flowing through the dispensing device and increasing the volume of the air flowing through the dispensing device” is fully required by the dispensing step of claim 1 as amended, and Examiner does not interpret the claim 20 step as an additional, distinct step that further limits the method of claim 1. Applicant may cancel the claim(s), amend the claim(s) to place the claim(s) in proper dependent form, rewrite the claim(s) in independent form, or present a sufficient showing that the dependent claim(s) complies with the statutory requirements.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
10. 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.
11. Claims 1-8, 11-17, and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Schur (US 7638114 B1) in view of Khazaieli et al (US 20190133391 A1).
12. Regarding claim 1, Schur discloses a method of treating air having a level of airborne microorganisms (method for disinfecting the air, Title/Abstract, col 6 lines 15-42) with a sanitizing composition (distribution or atomization of a special antimicrobial composition, Abstract, col 6 lines 15-42), the method comprising:
dispensing the sanitizing composition in the form of liquid particles and vapor (treatment agent is introduced into the air in a liquid phase and evaporated, col 6 lines 15-24) from a dispensing device (effected by commercially available two-fluid nozzles or evaporation techniques, col 6 lines 15-24; system including pump, bubbler means, and fan described in col 7 lines 45-65 considered functional equivalent to the claimed dispensing device), wherein dispensing the sanitizing composition comprises increasing a volume of the air flowing through the dispensing device to reduce an amount of the liquid particles formed (proportion of the treatment agent in the air can be adjusted by the ratio of the amount of air supplied to the amount of treatment agent…with the above-mentioned ratios between the air and the treatment agent, a major portion of the air treatment agent is discharged from the vortexing chamber, col 8 lines 3-32);
circulating the vapor and liquid particles into the air (feeding of the air treatment agent from a storage chamber into a vortexing chamber through which air is flowing…and introducing the mixture of air and vaporized air treatment agent into a room to be treated, col 6 lines 15-34);
removing at least a portion of the liquid particles in the air (retaining disk 36 retains droplets of air treatment agent dragged away by the current of air, col 9 lines 44-51), wherein after removing the at least a portion of the liquid particles, the air has a total mass liquid particles of greater than 0 mg/m3 (any air treatment agent present in the mixture of air and air treatment agent which is not in a vaporized form i.e. a non-zero mass of liquid particles, col 9 lines 52-64); and
reducing the level of airborne microorganisms in the air (reduction factor of 5 to 3 powers of ten can be achieved by the distributing or atomizing of the antimicrobial composition, col 10 lines 35-39).
Schur does not teach that dispensing the sanitizing composition comprises increasing an air temperature of an airstream flowing through the dispensing device.
Khazaieli teaches an analogous vaporization method for propylene glycol and/or triethylene glycol (par 0009) wherein the internal temperature within the device i.e. air temperature is controllably heated from room temperature to no greater than 50 degrees Celsius, the heating enhancing the vaporization of the cleaning compound inside the vacuum chamber (par 0006).
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 heat the air within the method of Schur to as taught by Khazaieli. Doing so would predictably provide the same beneficial effect of enhancing the vaporization of the cleaning compound inside the device (Khazaieli par 0006), tipping the vapor-liquid equilibrium of sanitizing agent away from liquid toward vapor to reduce an amount of the liquid particles formed. See MPEP 2143(I)(A).
Schur is silent regarding the droplet size of atomized sanitizing liquid thus does not explicitly teach that the nonzero mass of liquid particles which remain airborne after removal by the disk includes particles of 0.1-3 um diameter. However, Schur does indicate that the retaining disk has apertures of low diameter or consists of a membrane having a fine porosity (col 9 lines 44-51), thus larger liquid particles would be expected to be filtered out by the disk leaving the smaller liquid particles airborne. Further, the experimental range of the particle size is not deemed critical, as Schur intends that the small amount of air treatment agent present in the mixture can no longer be detected as a precipitate upon exiting via the fan chamber (col 9 lines 52-64). Thus, the total mass fraction of liquid particles of 0.1-3 micron particle size remaining airborne after filtration is a result effective variable that can be attained via routine optimization. See MPEP 2144.05(II)(A).
13. Regarding claim 2, Schur as modified by Khazaieli teaches the method of claim 1, wherein the step of circulating the vapor and liquid particles into the air further comprises circulating the vapor into the air with a fan (fan 24 serving as a means for generating a current of air to the vortex chamber…mixture of air and air treatment agent enters a fan chamber 44, Schur col 9 lines 10-21, Schur FIG. 6).
14. Regarding claim 3, Schur as modified by Khazaieli teaches the method of claim 1, wherein the step of dispensing a sanitizing composition in the form of liquid particles and vapor from a dispensing device further comprises evaporating the sanitizing composition from an evaporative surface (evaporation system shown with a heated surface, Schur FIG. 3; DOA agent is propylene glycol sanitizing composition, Schur col 12 lines 28-33 and col 15 lines 9-16) into liquid particles and vapor (treatment agent is introduced into the air in a liquid phase and evaporated, Schur col 6 lines 15-24).
15. Regarding claim 4, Schur as modified by Khazaieli teaches the method of claim 3, wherein the step of evaporating the sanitizing composition into liquid particles and vapor is conducted without a heater (Schur col 7 lines 4-13), though Schur acknowledges that this heatless approach produces a small concentration that can be employed effectively only for small spaces (col 8 lines 27-32 and col 16 lines 35-38). In another embodiment, Schur teaches heating an evaporative surface with a heater (Schur FIG. 3), a technique with which Schur demonstrates a reduction of molds and yeasts (Example 3, Schur col 14 line 55 to col 16 line 28).
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 for the evaporation step of modified Schur a step of heating the evaporative surface with a heater. Doing so would predictably increase the disinfectant delivery rate into the air stream in a controllable manner and would be expected to effectively disinfect the air as demonstrated by Schur. See MPEP 2143(I)(B).
16. Regarding claim 5, Schur as modified by Khazaieli teaches the method of claim 1, wherein the step of removing at least a portion of the liquid particles from the air includes filtering the air (retaining disk preferably has fine apertures or is designed as a fine-pore membrane to serve as drop separator, Schur col 7 lines 26-37 and col 9 lines 44-64).
17. Regarding claim 6, Schur as modified by Khazaieli teaches the method of claim 1, wherein the step of removing at least a portion of the liquid particles from the air further comprises directing the liquid particles and vapor through at least one of: a circular vortex (vortexing chamber 16, Schur col 9 lines 3-38, FIG. 6), an elbow (Schur FIG. 6, 44), or a media filter to collect the liquid particles (retaining disk preferably has fine apertures or is designed as a fine-pore membrane to serve as drop separator, Schur col 7 lines 26-37) before circulating the vapor into the air (Schur FIG. 6, vortexing chamber 16, retaining disk 36, intermediate chamber 38, and fan chamber 44 all upstream of vapor release location 46, Schur col 9 lines 10-38).
18. Regarding claim 7, Schur as modified by Khazaieli teaches the method of claim 1, wherein the sanitizing composition comprises a suitable derivative from a list of GRAS flavor alcohols that include propylene glycol as a particularly preferred base alcohol (Schur col 2 line 50 to col 3 line 18), wherein suitable derivatives include, for example, the esters, ethers and carbonates of the above mentioned alcohols (Schur col 2 line 50 to col 3 line 18).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to choose from the list of suitable sanitizing compositions taught by Schur a glycol ether. Doing so would predictably provide suitable sanitizing effect to the air, as Schur teaches that propylene glycol is particularly preferred for sanitization and that ethers of the listed compounds would be expected to function similarly (Schur col 2 line 50 to col 3 line 18). See MPEP 2143(I)(B).
19. Regarding claim 8, Schur as modified by Khazaieli teaches the method of claim 7, and Schur further teaches general conditions for formulating a suitable antimicrobial composition, to which the above claimed glycol ether would be applied as an a2 active ingredient (Schur col 4 lines 9-35). Schur teaches that this composition can include from 0.01 to 99% by weight of the a2 active ingredient (Schur col 3 line 63 to col 4 line 35), giving as a specific example the use of 75% propylene glycol (Schur col 4 lines 35-44).
Schur as modified does not teach wherein the glycol ether comprises triethylene glycol.
Khazaieli teaches an analogous vaporization method (par 0009) wherein propylene glycol and triethylene glycol are listed as equivalent disinfecting compounds (par 0009). As the glycol ether can be applied similarly to propylene glycol as the active sanitizing ingredient in the method of Schur, the ranges taught by Schur fall within the claimed ranges of about 50 wt.% to about 100 wt.%.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to execute the method of Schur using a triethylene glycol from 50 wt% to 100 wt% based on the total weight of the sanitizing composition as taught by Khazaieli. Such a composition would predictably provide similar sanitizing effect as the 75% propylene glycol and equivalent derivatives taught by Schur. See MPEP 2143(I)(B).
20. Regarding claim 11, Schur as modified by Khazaieli teaches the method of claim 1, wherein the step of reducing the level of airborne microorganisms in the air further comprises reducing the level of airborne microorganisms by a 3-log reduction (reduction factor of 5 to 3 powers of ten can be achieved by the distributing or atomizing of the antimicrobial composition, col 10 lines 35-39).
21. Regarding claim 12, Schur as modified by Khazaieli teaches the method of claim 1, wherein the step of removing at least a portion of the liquid particles from the air further comprises removing at least 99% of liquid particles greater than 5 microns in size (drop separator ensures that no aerosol will get into the space to be treated…a precipitate cannot be detected, Schur col 7 lines 26-37). The combination does not explicitly teach that this treatment would happen in less than or equal to 20 minutes.
Schur does teach that hourly recirculation is effected in the space (Schur col 10 lines 28-34), thus treating the entirety of air in the space on the order of an hour. The experimental range of time is not deemed critical, as a smaller portion of the space, such as the air within the interior volume of the device, would be reasonably expected to be treated in less than or equal to 20 minutes in a single pass through the drop separator. Thus, the time during which the at least 99% of liquid particles greater than 5 microns in size are removed 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 configure the method of modified Schur to remove at least 99% of liquid particles greater than 5 microns in size in less than or equal to about 20 minutes, as such a condition would be an expected result of routine optimization of the space and the drop separator operation to predictably enable suitable vaporization of sanitizing agent into the space.
22. Regarding claim 13, Schur as modified by Khazaieli teaches the method of claim 1, wherein the step of removing at least a portion of the liquid particles from the air further comprises removing all detectable liquid particles (drop separator ensures that no aerosol will get into the space to be treated…a precipitate cannot be detected, Schur col 7 lines 26-37) to treat the entirety of air in the space on the order of an hour (hourly recirculation is effected in the space, Schur col 10 lines 28-34). Schur does not explicitly teach that this treatment would remove from between about 70% to about 99% of liquid particles being 2.5 micron or greater in size in less than 20 minutes.
Schur further teaches that the air flow and the air/liquid supply ratios can be varied to achieve optimal vortexing, in which some ratios can drag away significant quantities of air treatment droplets (Schur col 7 lines 4-25). The droplets are separated by a retaining disk having fine apertures or a fine-pore membrane (Schur col 7 lines 26-37), but downstream there is an intermediate chamber wherein excess air treatment agent can condensate out (Schur col 7 lines 26-37; FIG. 6, intermediate chamber 38 in relation to retaining disk 36 and vortexing chamber 16). Thus, the vortexing and filtering is expected to not remove the entirety of particles, perhaps between 70% and 99% but with a range not deemed critical (Specification page 11 lines 14-28 state that removing as many particles being 2.5 microns or greater in size is most preferable) with any remaining fine particles vaporizing before reaching the outlet (Schur col 7 lines 26-37 and col 7 line 62 to col 8 line 11). Further, the experimental range of time is not deemed critical, as a smaller portion of the space, such as the air within the interior volume of the device, would be reasonably expected to be treated in less than or equal to 20 minutes in a single pass through the drop separator. Thus, the time during which between about 70% to about 99% of liquid particles being 2.5 micron or greater are removed 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 configure the method of modified Schur to remove from between about 70% to about 99% of liquid particles being 2.5 micron or greater in size in less than 20 minutes, as such a condition would be an expected result of routine optimization of the air/liquid feed ratios, the space, and the drop separator operation to predictably enable suitable vaporization of sanitizing agent into the space.
23. Regarding claim 14, Schur as modified by Khazaieli teaches the method of claim 1, wherein the step of removing at least a portion of liquid particles from the air comprises filtering the liquid particles from the air (retaining disk preferably has fine apertures or is designed as a fine-pore membrane, to allow excess air treatment agent to condensate out, Schur col 7 lines 26-37 and col 9 lines 44-64). The combination teaches heating the air but does not specify heating the air upstream and/or within the dispensing device to a temperature of from about 22 degrees C to less than about 50 degrees C.
Khazaieli teaches wherein the internal temperature within the device i.e. air temperature is controllably heated from room temperature to no greater than 50 degrees Celsius, no greater than 40 degrees Celsius, or no greater than 30 degrees Celsius (par 0006), the heating enhancing the vaporization of the cleaning compound inside the vacuum chamber (par 0006).
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 heat the air within the method of modified Schur to a temperature of from about 22 degrees C to less than about 50 degrees C as taught by Khazaieli. Doing so would predictably provide the same beneficial effect of enhancing the vaporization of the cleaning compound inside the device (Khazaieli par 0006).
24. Regarding claim 15, Schur as modified by Khazaieli teaches the method of claim 1, wherein the step of removing at least a portion of liquid particles from the air comprises filtering the liquid particles from the air (retaining disk preferably has fine apertures or is designed as a fine-pore membrane, to allow excess air treatment agent to condensate out, Schur col 7 lines 26-37 and col 9 lines 44-64). The combination teaches heating the air but does not specify heating the air upstream and/or within the dispensing device to a temperature of from about 25 degrees C to about 40 degrees C.
Khazaieli teaches wherein the internal temperature within the device i.e. air temperature is heated from room temperature to no greater than 40 degrees Celsius or no greater than 30 degrees Celsius (par 0006), the heating enhancing the vaporization of the cleaning compound inside the vacuum chamber (par 0006).
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 heat the air within the method of modified Schur to a temperature of from about 25 degrees C to about 40 degrees C as taught by Khazaieli. Doing so would predictably provide the same beneficial effect of enhancing the vaporization of the cleaning compound inside the device (Khazaieli par 0006).
25. Regarding claim 16, Schur as modified by Khazaieli teaches the method of claim 1. The combination teaches heating the air but does not specify the step of heating the air upstream and/or within the dispensing device to a temperature of greater than 22 degrees C to about 65 degrees C.
Khazaieli teaches wherein the internal temperature within the device i.e. air temperature is heated from room temperature to no greater than 70 degrees Celsius, no greater than 60 degrees Celsius, no greater than 50 degrees Celsius, no greater than 40 degrees Celsius, or no greater than 30 degrees Celsius (par 0006), the heating enhancing the vaporization of the cleaning compound inside the vacuum chamber (par 0006).
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 heat the air within the method of modified Schur to a temperature of greater than 22 degrees C to about 65 degrees C as taught by Khazaieli. Doing so would predictably provide the same beneficial effect of enhancing the vaporization of the cleaning compound inside the device (Khazaieli par 0006).
26. Regarding claim 17, Schur as modified by Khazaieli teaches the method of claim 1. The combination teaches heating the air but does not specify the step of heating the air upstream and/or within the dispensing device to a temperature of from about 25 degrees C to about 65 degrees C.
Khazaieli teaches wherein the internal temperature within the device i.e. air temperature is heated from room temperature to no greater than 70 degrees Celsius, no greater than 60 degrees Celsius, no greater than 50 degrees Celsius, no greater than 40 degrees Celsius, or no greater than 30 degrees Celsius (par 0006), the heating enhancing the vaporization of the cleaning compound inside the vacuum chamber (par 0006).
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 heat the air within the device of Schur to a temperature of from about 25 degrees C to about 65 degrees C as taught by Khazaieli. Doing so would predictably provide the same beneficial effect of enhancing the vaporization of the cleaning compound inside the device (Khazaieli par 0006).
27. Regarding claim 20, Schur as modified by Khazaieli teaches the method of claim 1, further comprising a step of reducing the amount of liquid particles formed during dispensing (with the above-mentioned ratios between the air and the treatment agent, a major portion of the air treatment agent is discharged from the vortexing chamber, Schur col 8 lines 3-32) via increasing the air temperature of the airstream flowing through the dispensing device (heating subsystem to enhance the vaporization of the cleaning compound, Khazaieli par 0006) and increasing the volume of air flowing through the dispensing device (proportion of the treatment agent in the air can be adjusted by the ratio of the amount of air supplied to the amount of treatment agent, Schur col 8 lines 3-32).
28. Claims 9 and 10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Schur (US 7638114 B1) and Khazaieli et al (US 20190133391 A1) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Van der Graaf (US 20190105421 A1).
29. Regarding claim 9, Schur as modified by Khazaieli teaches the method of claim 1 , wherein the amount of air supplied to the vortexing chamber and the amount of air treatment agent supplied to the vortexing chamber are adjusted to provide a proportion of air treatment agent of between 0.1 and 0.00001 ml, preferably between 0.01 and 0.0001 ml per m.sup.3 of air per hour to produce a permanent concentration of from 5 to 10 ppb of air treatment agent in the ambient air (Schur col 6 lines 58-67). The combination does not teach comprising measuring the level of liquid particles and/or vapor in the air.
Van der Graaf teaches an analogous anti-bacterial and anti-viral air treatment device and method using vaporization of a sanitizing composition (Title, Abstract, pars 0004-0008), the device having a sensor configured to sense the concentration of the deactivating product (par 0028), exemplified as a sensor configured to sense evaporated liquid molecules having the advantageous effect of controlling the emission rate based thereon (par 0029).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to include within the method of Schur a step of measuring the level of evaporated liquid molecules in the air in order to adjust the rate of dispensing of the sanitizing composition based thereon as taught by Van der Graaf. Doing so would predictably provide effective feedback control of the airborne concentration of sanitizing composition, as Van der Graaf teaches such a feedback can control the emission rate (par 0029) so as to achieve a target concentration as shown desirable by Schur (col 6 lines 58-67).
30. Regarding claim 10, Schur as modified by Khazaieli and Van der Graaf teaches the method of claim 9 further comprising adjusting the rate of dispensing of the sanitizing composition based on the level of liquid particles or vapor in the air (Van der Graaf pars 0028-0029).
31. Claims 18-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Schur (US 7638114 B1) and Khazaieli et al (US 20190133391 A1) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Rudnick et al (NonPatent Literature, https://www.ajicjournal.org/article/S0196-6553(09)00744-5/fulltext, Accessed 30 October 2025).
32. Regarding claim 18, Schur as modified by Khazaieli teaches the method of claim 1, wherein the step of removing at least a portion of the liquid particles in the air is delayed from the step of circulating the vapor into the air by an unknown delay, as Schur does not provide any length dimension or time of travel between the vortex mixer 16 and the downstream liquid removal portion 38 (Schur FIG. 6). Thus, the combination does not specifically teach such a delay from between about 2 minutes to about 30 minutes.
Rudnick teaches an analogous experimental method of inactivating pathogens using liquid hydrogen peroxide or triethylene glycol (Title; p. 813, 3rd par) wherein the number of log reductions of an influenza virus is shown to plateau at all concentrations of hydrogen peroxide between a 2.5 minute and 15 minute exposure time (FIG. 1). While TEG was shown to be less efficacious at short exposure times (p. 818, 3rd and 4th pars; FIG. 2), Rudnick suggests that germicidal efficacy will increase at higher concentrations, which can only be achieved with higher temperatures and vapor saturation (p. 819, 2nd and 3rd pars).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to incorporate a delay between circulating the vapor and removing the liquid droplets in the method of modified Schur of between about 2 minutes to about 30 minutes as taught by Rudnick. Doing so would predictably provide time for saturation of the vapor and a substantial inactivation of pathogens with a reasonable expectation of success, as Rudnick similarly shows with experiments using circulated hydrogen peroxide and triethylene glycol to deactivate influenza. See MPEP 2143(I)(G).
33. Regarding claim 19, Schur as modified by Khazaieli teaches the method of claim 1, wherein the step of removing at least a portion of the liquid particles in the air is delayed from the step of circulating the vapor into the air by an unknown delay, as Schur does not provide any length dimension or time of travel between the vortex mixer 16 and the downstream liquid removal portion 38 (Schur FIG. 6). Thus, the combination does not specifically teach such a delay from between about 3 minutes to about 20 minutes.
Rudnick teaches an analogous experimental method of inactivating pathogens using liquid hydrogen peroxide or triethylene glycol (Title; p. 813, 3rd par) wherein the number of log reductions of an influenza virus is shown to plateau at all concentrations of hydrogen peroxide between a 5 minute and 15 minute exposure time (FIG. 1). While TEG was shown to be less efficacious at short exposure times (p. 818, 3rd and 4th pars; FIG. 2), Rudnick suggests that germicidal efficacy will increase at higher concentrations, which can only be achieved with higher temperatures and vapor saturation (p. 819, 2nd and 3rd pars).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to incorporate a delay between circulating the vapor and removing the liquid droplets in the method of Schur of between about 3 minutes to about 20 minutes as taught by Rudnick. Doing so would predictably provide time for saturation of the vapor and a substantial inactivation of pathogens with a reasonable expectation of success, as Rudnick similarly shows with experiments using circulated hydrogen peroxide and triethylene glycol to deactivate influenza. See MPEP 2143(I)(G).
Response to Arguments
23. Applicant’s arguments, see Remarks filed 03 February 2026, with respect to the rejections of claim 1 and its dependents under 35 U.S.C. 112(b), 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1), and 35 U.S.C. 103 have been fully considered and are persuasive. Therefore, the rejections have been withdrawn. However, upon further consideration, new grounds of rejection are made over Schur in view of Khazaieli to address the newly recited limitations requiring that “the air has a total mass (mg/m3) of 0.1-3 micron diameter liquid particles of greater than 0” after the removing step and “wherein dispensing the sanitizing composition comprises increasing an air temperature of an airstream flowing through the dispensing device and increasing a volume of the air flowing through the dispensing device to reduce an amount of the liquid particles formed”.
24. With respect to Applicant’s argument (see Remarks page 9) that Schur fails to disclose or otherwise teach air that has a total mass of 0.1-3 micron diameter liquid particles of greater than 0 after the removing step, Examiner respectfully disagrees. Schur contemplates the presence of small liquid particles after the removing step through the retaining disk 36, teaching that any air treatment agent which is not in a vaporized form i.e. liquid particles would be subsequently removed as condensate in the intermediate chamber 38 (col 9 lines 44-58). The claim is constructed with the open term “comprising”, meaning it is not closed to unrecited steps such as a subsequent removal step. As there is no spatial or temporal limitation recited for “the air” having this nonzero mass of liquid particles, the air is considered broadly such that air having this condition at any point after removing the at least a portion of the liquid particles can read upon the claim.
25. With respect to Applicant’s argument that Schur warns against high-volume airflow so as to prevent forming an aerosol thus does not teach that “the amount of liquid particles formed during the dispensing step is reduced…by increasing a volume of the air flowing through the dispensing device” (see Remarks page 10), Examiner offers that Schur teaches in the same passage (col 7 lines 14-25) that too low an amount of air causes insufficient vortexing which leads to more liquid particles being dispensed. This corroborates the mechanism in the Specification page 6 line 26 to page 7 line 1, namely, that “at too low of a cfm, local saturation can increase which can lead to liquid particles”, which is the passage relied upon to support this limitation. Regarding the other part of that limitation, wherein the amount of liquid particles formed during the dispensing step is reduced “by increasing an air temperature of an airstream flowing through the dispensing device”, the new grounds of rejection rely upon Khazaieli for a teaching of heating the airflow to enhance the vaporization of the sanitizing composition (Khazaieli par 0006).
Conclusion
26. 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.
27. 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