Prosecution Insights
Last updated: April 18, 2026
Application No. 18/187,100

SYSTEMS, METHODS, AND APPARATUSES FOR DISINFECTION AND DECONTAMINATION

Final Rejection §103
Filed
Mar 21, 2023
Examiner
CONLEY, SEAN EVERETT
Art Unit
1799
Tech Center
1700 — Chemical & Materials Engineering
Assignee
Chorus LLC
OA Round
2 (Final)
70%
Grant Probability
Favorable
3-4
OA Rounds
2y 8m
To Grant
82%
With Interview

Examiner Intelligence

Grants 70% — above average
70%
Career Allow Rate
635 granted / 903 resolved
+5.3% vs TC avg
Moderate +12% lift
Without
With
+11.5%
Interview Lift
resolved cases with interview
Typical timeline
2y 8m
Avg Prosecution
16 currently pending
Career history
919
Total Applications
across all art units

Statute-Specific Performance

§101
0.8%
-39.2% vs TC avg
§103
39.9%
-0.1% vs TC avg
§102
30.8%
-9.2% vs TC avg
§112
21.5%
-18.5% vs TC avg
Black line = Tech Center average estimate • Based on career data from 903 resolved cases

Office Action

§103
DETAILED ACTION Response to Amendment 1. The amendment filed 3/3/26 has been received and considered for examination. Claims 19-22, 31, 33-66, 38-42, and 44-48 remain pending. Response to Arguments 2. Applicant’s arguments filed 3/3/26 have been considered but are moot in view of the new grounds of rejection necessitated by the amendments filed therewith. Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103 3. 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. 4. Claim(s) 19-22, 31, 33-36, 38-42, and 44-45 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sakaki (US 2014/0205500 A1) in view of Aamodt et al. (KR-20140032933-A – English translation) Regarding claim 19, Sakaki disclose a network of systems (see figure 1) for generating and monitoring an antimicrobial, comprising: a plurality of systems (one in each room) for generating and monitoring an antimicrobial, including: a microcontroller (primary controller); a sensing system (temperature-humidity sensors); wherein the microcontroller includes a communication device capable of communication between the plurality of systems, and wherein the communication device establishes distributed control of each system's microcontroller (see para [0011]-[0022], [0028]-[0047]). However, Sakaki does not appear to disclose an antimicrobial concentration sensor. Aamodt et al. discloses a system (100) for spraying a disinfectant solution of peracetic acid into rooms of a building on order to sterilize the space. The system includes multiple sensors including a concentration sensor (S9, S10) that measures the concentration of the disinfectant sprayed into the room and provides feedback to the controller to ensure that sufficient concentrations are delivered during a sterilization cycle (see translation). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the system of Sakaki and include an antimicrobial concentration sensor in the rooms in order to ensure that sufficient concentration of disinfectant is being sprayed into the rooms during sterilization as taught by Aamodt et al. Regarding claim 21, this limitation is directed to the function of the apparatus and/or the manner of operating the apparatus, all the structural limitations of the claim has been disclosed by Sakaki and the apparatus of Sakaki is capable of being used with an antimicrobial agent that is chlorine dioxide. As such, it is deemed that the claimed apparatus is not differentiated from the apparatus of Sakaki (see MPEP §2114). NOTE: this is a recitation of intended use, and so long as the prior art structure reads on the instant claimed structure, this limitation would be met because the same structure would be capable of the same function; in this case, the invention of Sakaki is capable of being used to generate a spray of chlorine dioxide. Regarding claim 22, Sakaki discloses that the primary controllers include communication means for communicating with a repeater (para [0038]-[0042] and permits adjusting individual systems to achieve a uniform disinfection or control operating times of each of the systems (see para [0043]-[0048]). Regarding claims 33, Sakai discloses that the antimicrobial is an airborne dry fog having small droplets (see para [0029], [0033]-[0036]). Regarding claims 20 and 31, the primary controllers disclosed by Sakaki are capable of being controlled by machine learning algorithms or artificial intelligence to alter system performance as the primary controllers are programmable. Regarding claim 34-35 and 40-41, Sakaki disclose a network of systems (see figure 1) for generating and monitoring an antimicrobial, comprising: a plurality of systems (one in each room) for generating and monitoring an antimicrobial, including: a microcontroller (primary controller); a sensing system (temperature-humidity sensors); wherein the microcontroller includes a communication device capable of communication between the plurality of systems, and wherein the communication device establishes distributed control of each system's microcontroller (see para [0011]-[0022], [0028]-[0047]. The primary controllers disclosed by Sakaki are capable of being controlled by machine learning algorithms or artificial intelligence to alter system performance as the primary controllers are programmable. However, Sakaki does not appear to disclose an antimicrobial concentration sensor. Aamodt et al. discloses a system (100) for spraying a disinfectant solution of peracetic acid into rooms of a building on order to sterilize the space. The system includes multiple sensors including a concentration sensor (S9, S10) that measures the concentration of the disinfectant sprayed into the room and provides feedback to the controller to ensure that sufficient concentrations are delivered during a sterilization cycle (see translation). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the system of Sakaki and include an antimicrobial concentration sensor in the rooms in order to ensure that sufficient concentration of disinfectant is being sprayed into the rooms during sterilization as taught by Aamodt et al. Regarding claims 36 and 42, this limitation is directed to the function of the apparatus and/or the manner of operating the apparatus, all the structural limitations of the claim has been disclosed by Sakaki and the apparatus of Sakaki is capable of being used with an antimicrobial agent that is chlorine dioxide. As such, it is deemed that the claimed apparatus is not differentiated from the apparatus of Sakaki (see MPEP §2114). NOTE: this is a recitation of intended use, and so long as the prior art structure reads on the instant claimed structure, this limitation would be met because the same structure would be capable of the same function; in this case, the invention of Sakaki is capable of being used to generate a spray of chlorine dioxide. Regarding claim 38 and 43-44, Sakai discloses that the antimicrobial is an airborne dry fog having small droplets (see para [0029], [0033]-[0036]). Regarding claims 39 and 45, Sakaki discloses that the primary controllers include communication means for communicating with a repeater (para [0038]-[0042]) and permits adjusting individual systems to achieve a uniform disinfection or control operating times of each of the systems (see para [0043]-[0048]). 5. Claim(s) 46-48 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sakaki in view of Aamodt et al. as applied to claims 19, 34, and 40 above, and further in view of Stewart (US 2021/0308311 A1). Sakaki in view of Aamodt et al. is set froth above with regards to independent claims 19, 34, and 40 and Sakai teaches that each system is confined to a volume under treatment (see figure 1). However, the combination does not appear to teach wherein each system includes two operating modes, the first operating mode being a prevention mode for application in the enclosed volume under treatment during occupation by a human, and the second operating mode being a decontamination mode for application in the enclosed volume under treatment while unoccupied by a human. Stewart discloses a system for decontaminating a room that includes a control system having occupancy sensors (800) for determining if people are present in the room prior to activation of the disinfection devices (see para [0033]-[0034]). The sensors (800) provide information to a controller (600) that operates multiple modes including a prevention mode (where controller 600 does not execute any decontamination operations until after a predetermined period of time from which no motion is detected – see para [0034]) and a decontamination mode that treats the room when it is unoccupied (see figure 9). 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 system of Sakaki and include occupancy sensors connected to the control system in order to have two operating modes (prevention mode and decontamination mode as claimed) in order to safely disinfect the rooms when people are not present as taught Stewart. Conclusion 6. 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. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to SEAN E CONLEY whose telephone number is (571)272-8414. The examiner can normally be reached on M-F, 8:30am-4pm. If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Mike Marcheschi can be reached on 571-272-1374. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300. Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). /SEAN E CONLEY/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1799 Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to SEAN E CONLEY whose telephone number is (571)272-8414. The examiner can normally be reached M-F, 8:30am-4pm. 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, Michael Marcheschi can be reached at 571-272-1374. 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. Sean Conley Search and Classification Examiner TF14 Art Unit 1759
Read full office action

Prosecution Timeline

Mar 21, 2023
Application Filed
Oct 30, 2025
Non-Final Rejection — §103
Mar 03, 2026
Response Filed
Apr 04, 2026
Final Rejection — §103 (current)

Precedent Cases

Applications granted by this same examiner with similar technology

Patent 12599686
STERILIZATION CASE FOR SURGICAL DEVICE
2y 5m to grant Granted Apr 14, 2026
Patent 12595928
SYSTEM FOR DETECTING AND CLEANING AIR POLLUTION IN INDOOR SPACE WITH HEATING, VENTILATION AND AIR CONDITIONING
2y 5m to grant Granted Apr 07, 2026
Patent 12595921
SPACE PURIFICATION DEVICE
2y 5m to grant Granted Apr 07, 2026
Patent 12588679
SYSTEMS, METHODS, AND APPARATUSES FOR DISINFECTION AND DECONTAMINATION
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 31, 2026
Patent 12589172
ULTRAVIOLET DISINFECTION WITH AUGMENTED REALITY MONITORING
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 31, 2026
Study what changed to get past this examiner. Based on 5 most recent grants.

AI Strategy Recommendation

Get an AI-powered prosecution strategy using examiner precedents, rejection analysis, and claim mapping.
Powered by AI — typically takes 5-10 seconds

Prosecution Projections

3-4
Expected OA Rounds
70%
Grant Probability
82%
With Interview (+11.5%)
2y 8m
Median Time to Grant
Moderate
PTA Risk
Based on 903 resolved cases by this examiner. Grant probability derived from career allow rate.

Sign in with your work email

Enter your email to receive a magic link. No password needed.

Personal email addresses (Gmail, Yahoo, etc.) are not accepted.

Free tier: 3 strategy analyses per month