DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
Claims 1, 3 and 5-7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Gordon (US 2011/0076191), and alternatively over Gordon (US 2011/0076191) in view of Crowe (US 2003/0132100).
Regarding claim 1, Gordon (US 2011/0076191) discloses –
An air cleaning system comprising (Title, abstract – the device is well capable of cleaning air, see MPEP 2114, II):
an ozone generation unit that generates ozone gas (Fig. 1 ozone generator 140, par. 18);
an aqueous alcohol solution (pars. 14, 28 disclose the use of alcohol solution in combination with ozone); and
a discharge unit that atomizes or vaporizes an aqueous alcohol solution and discharges the aqueous alcohol solution (storage unit 170 injects a vaporized alcohol into the space with ozone; par. 22, 27), wherein
a hydroxyl radical is generated through a reaction of the ozone gas with the aqueous alcohol solution that has been atomized or vaporized (par. 7), and
the alcohol includes at least one of ethanol or isopropanol (pars. 14 and 28 disclose specifically isopropanol).
Gordon appears to be silent with regards to the specific mole fraction of alcohol. However, the modification of Gordon to arrive at a mole fraction that is between .05 and .35 would be obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, as this modification is merely one of routine optimization. The general difference in concentration is not indicative of patentability unless there is evidence indicating the concentration is critical, and the relative amounts of decontaminant are expected to affect the cleaning performance of the device, rendering adjustments thereof as ordinary. See MPEP 2144.05(II)(A).
Should it be found Gordon does not teach or suggest the treatment of air with sufficient specificity: Crowe (US 2003/0132100) discloses ozone and vaporized alcohol as appropriate means to disinfect air (par. 3, 56), and it would be obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the device disclosed by Gordon to apply the mixture to air to arrive at the claimed invention. The combination of familiar prior art elements, like known sterilizing vectors and known applications for sterilizing vectors, according to known means to arrive at results that are nothing more than predictable is prima facie obvious. MPEP 2143(I)(A).
Regarding claim 3, the device disclosed by Gordon is well capable of being used to perform the claimed function of discharging alcohol in such a manner that the alcohol, when converted as gas, is 12 times or less the ozone gas in volume ratio. See MPEP 2114, II. Furthermore, should it be found Gordon fails to sufficiently teach or suggest the limitation, the modification would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention as it amounts to a mere routine optimization. The relative amounts of decontaminant are expected to affect the cleaning performance of the device, rendering adjustments thereof as ordinary, see MPEP 2144.05(II)(A).
Regarding claim 5, modified Gordon further teaches a first housing that houses the ozone generation unit and the discharge unit (station 130), wherein the ozone gas and the aqueous alcohol solution that has been atomized or vaporized react outside the first housing (the components are mixed in container 110).
Regarding claim 6, modified Gordon teaches the ozone gas and the aqueous alcohol solution that has been atomized or vaporized react outside the housing that contains the generation unit and discharge unit (Fig. shows station 130), but appears to be silent with regards to the housing being two housings. However, It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the device disclosed by Gordon such that the housing includes another housing such that there are second and third housings to arrive at the claimed invention. One would have been motivated to do so as this modification is merely a duplication of parts, and the mere duplication of parts has no patentable significance unless a new and unexpected result is produced. MPEP 2144.04(VI)(B).
Regarding claim 7, modified Gordon is well capable of controlling an ozone gas concentration in an external space to be less than or equal to 0.1 ppm (par. 20 of Gordon discloses a meter for adjusting the level of ozone for proper treatment conditions). Furthermore, should it be found Gordon fails to sufficiently teach or suggest the limitation, the modification would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention as it amounts to a mere routine optimization. The relative amounts of decontaminant are expected to affect the cleaning performance of the device, rendering adjustments thereof as ordinary, see MPEP 2144.05(II)(A).
Claim 4 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Gordon (US 2011/0076191), and alternatively over Gordon (US 2011/0076191) in view of Crowe (US 2003/0132100) as applied to claim 1 above and further in view of Tapp (US 2018/0193507).
Regarding claim 4, modified Gordon is set forth above with regards to claim 1 but appears to be silent with regards to the reaction occurring inside the first housing.
Tapp (US 2018/0193507) discloses an ozone treatment unit where ozone is mixed with a carrier gas inside a housing and then applied outside the housing (Fig. 3 ozone from ozone reaction chamber 26 is mixed with air as a carrier gas from air blower system 14 at line 40 and the dispensed through hose 58 for application). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the device disclosed by Gordon such that the ozone gas and the aqueous alcohol solution that has been atomized or vaporized are mixed together and react within the first housing as taught by Tapp to arrive at the claimed invention. One would have been motivated to do so to consolidate the features into a single housing to save space and parts to arrive at an improved device.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 12/26/25 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues that the amendment to the claim to require isopropanol or ethanol in the claimed mole ratio overcomes the prior art is not persuasive. Applicant argues that the particular claimed range is critical on pages 5-7, citing tables and figures showing various mole fractions of the alcohol solution components, however there is no actual identification of any range that is critical. In order for a range to be critical, it must be shown that the range as claimed achieves unexpected results. MPEP 2144.05(III)(A). There is no unexpected result argued by Applicant, nor is there evidence in the cited portions of the instant specification that indicates the results achieved by the claimed mole fraction are anything more than ordinary and expected. Where the issue of criticality is involved, the Applicant has the burden of establishing his position by a proper showing of the facts upon which they rely (In re Becket, 88 F.2d 684 (CCPA 1937), and MPEP 2144.05(III)(A).
Applicant fails to sufficiently identify any result that is unexpected and therefore the claimed mole fractions are maintained as nothing more than the result of routine experimentation. Claim 1 remains rejected herein.
The remaining claims remain rejected similarly.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to BRENDAN A HENSEL whose telephone number is (571)272-6615. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Thu 8:30 - 7pm;.
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.
/BRENDAN A HENSEL/Examiner, Art Unit 1758