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 .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 4/13/2026 has been entered.
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, 3-7 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) and Tapp (US 2018/0193507).
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, and with respect to an external space outside the air cleaning system where a person can exist. 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 the limitation that an external space outside the air cleaning system where a person c can exist is cleaned by the hydroxyl radical: Tapp (US 2018/0193507) teaches an ozone sterilization system where ozone is generated and then applied to an external space outside the system where a person can exist (par. 42 teaches the conduit 50 that is treated with the ozone gas has a diameter of 168 inches, and the conduit is a water main which is a size and structure where a person could at least partially exist within, par. 9). 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 air in an external space outside the air cleaning system where a person can exist is cleaned by the hydroxyl radical as taught by Tapp, or alternatively to use the alcohol and ozone mixture taught by Gordon to treat the water main taught by Tapp to arrive at the claimed invention. One would have been motivated to do so to use and apply a known-effective sterilizing vector such as alcohol and ozone to a space that is in need of treatment to arrive at an improved device.
Furthermore, regarding this limitation directed towards the size of the external space: this limitation is merely a recitation of relative dimensions of an external space. The Federal Circuit has held that, where the only difference between the prior art and the claims is a recitation of relative dimensions of the claimed device and a device having the claimed relative dimensions would not perform differently than the prior art device, the claimed device was not patentably distinct from the prior art device. The size of an external space would not meaningfully affect the performance of the device and therefore modifying the size of the space to be treated would only be obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art. See MPEP 2144.04(IV)(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 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 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.
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).
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 4/13/26 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues Gordon fails to teach an external space being treated, the space capable of a person existing therein. This arguments is not persuasive because this limitation is only a recitation of relative dimensions of a space that is taught by Gordon, and that modification would only be obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art according to MPEP 2144.04(IV)(A). The space being modified such that even, for example: a human hand, could exist within the space during a time period when sterilization is not occurring would be sufficient to read on this limitation because the external space is not positively recited as being part of the claimed invention and the claim does not require that a person be in the space while treatment is occurring. Therefore, only the capability of a person existing within the space is required by the claim, which modified Gordon certainly teaches.
Furthermore, Tapp teaches this limitation (see the conduit 50 in fig. 1) and the incorporation of Tapp into Gordon would also only have been obvious as set forth above. Therefore claim 1 remains rejected.
The remaining claims remain rejected similarly.
Conclusion
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
Prosecution Insights