DETAILED ACTION
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
This Office Action is responsive to the communication received on 06/01/2023. The claims 1-8 are pending, of which the claim(s) 1 is/are in independent form.
This application claims priority benefits to U.S. Provisional Application Serial No. 63/053,456 filed on July 17, 2020.
Priority
The later-filed application must be an application for a patent for an invention which is also disclosed in the prior application (the parent or original nonprovisional application or provisional application). The disclosure of the invention in the parent application and in the later-filed application must be sufficient to comply with the requirements of 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, except for the best mode requirement. See Transco Products, Inc. v. Performance Contracting, Inc., 38 F.3d 551, 32 USPQ2d 1077 (Fed. Cir. 1994).
The disclosure of the prior-filed application, Application No. 17/313,991 filed on 05/06/2021 and provisional application 63/053,456 filed on 07/17/2020 fail to provide adequate written support or enablement in the manner provided by 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, first paragraph for one or more claims of this application.
Firstly, examiner notes that the subject matter of the claim 1 has 112 support in applicant’s fig. 10 and other figures thereafter and associated description. See paras. 0131- 0133, 0163. While applicant’s Fig. 4 also mentions of some part of the main module such as housing, pump, tank and nozzle of the mobile module, it fails to show a mobile module with two piped connections each for gas outlet and fluid outlet as required in claim 1 as part of the “mobile module”. In fact, the parent applications fail to recite “a mobile module” as claimed at all. Accordingly, the parent applications fail to provide adequate support for the claim limitation of:
“mobile module comprising:
a piped connection for connecting to the fluid outlet of the main module;
a piped connection for connecting to the gas outlet of the main module; and
at least one nozzle operably connected to the piped connection the piped
connection for connecting to the fluid outlet of the main module and the piped
connection for connecting to the gas outlet of the main module.”
Examiner further notes that the CIP parents 17/313,991 and the 63/053,456 only provide figures 1- 9 and associated descriptions, and hence clearly fail to provide 112 support for the element “a mobile module” as claimed.
The CIP parents fail to provide adequate written description support of the entire limitations of the claim 1 and hence claims depended thereon. Therefore, the filing date of the instant application is accorded as of the filing date of the instant application, i.e., 06/01/2023.
Double Patenting
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a nonstatutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13.
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer.
Claims 1 & 5- 8 rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 2 of U.S. Patent No. US 11686485 B2 in view of Adams (US 20130140374 A1).
Regarding claim 1:
Instant Application: 18/204569
Parent Patent: US 11686485 B2
1. A mobile treatment system comprising:
1. A compound distribution system comprising:
[a] a main module comprising:
a housing;
a storage and distribution
assembly for storing a treatment compound comprising:
at least one treatment compound tank;
and a main storage tank configured to receive a first treatment compound from a first treatment compound tank and a second treatment compound from a second treatment compound tank
a pump for pumping treatment compound through a fluid pipe to a fluid outlet
first pump configured to pump
the first treatment compound from the first treatment compound tank to the main storage tank; a second pump configured to pump the second treatment
[b] a mobile module comprising:
a nozzle attached to each
of the at least two room distribution lines
at least one nozzle
The claim 2 of the parent patent (US 11686485 B2, hereinafter parent’485) does not teach the limitations shown above with strikethrough emphasis.
However, they are cured by Adams as set forth below in the art rejection set forth below. Specifically, Adams teaches a mobile treatment system [Figs. 1- 2] comprising a main module with a housing and at least one treatment compound tank 104 and a mobile module comprising: a piped connection [connection to the “liquid hose 126.”] for connecting to the fluid outlet of the main module; a piped connection [connection to the “the gas hose 124 to the atomizing nozzle 128”] for connecting to the gas outlet of the main module; and at least one nozzle [nozzle 128] operably connected to the piped connection the piped connection for connecting to the fluid outlet of the main module and the piped connection for connecting to the gas outlet of the main module ([025, 031, 036, 039, 046], fig. 1).
It would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to (1) combine Adams and claim 2 of the parent’485 because they both related to a mobile treatment system with a main module to output disinfectant mists and (2) modify the claim 2 of the parent’485 to include a missing limitations of the mobile module as in Adams. Doing so would allow to provide rapid application of the spray in the targeted area using the compound distribution system of claim 2 of the parent patent.
Regarding claims 5-8, the claim 2 of the paren’485 in view of Adams teaches/suggests the mobile treatment system of claim 1 further comprising:
an air compressor [item 110/112] housed in the main module in order to allow rapid application of the spray (See, Adams fig. 1);
wherein the at least one treatment compound tank further comprises: a mixing tank; and at least two compound tanks configured to supply treatment compound to the mixing tank (See, Claim 1 of parent’485);
comprising a computer system communicatively coupled to the main module, the computer system comprising: at least one processor; and a storage device communicatively coupled to the at least one processor, the storage device storing instructions which, when executed by the at least one processor, cause the at
least one processor to perform operations comprising: controlling distribution of treatment compound from the main module to the mobile module; and controlling distribution of the treatment compound from the at least one nozzle (See, Claim 2 of the parent’485);
wherein each of the at least one nozzles are configured to dispense a dry mist comprising droplets of less than 20 microns (Adams [046]).
Specification
The disclosure is objected to because of the following informalities:
In [091], lines 4-5 have typographical error for ‘included, stapes may be omitted, or the order of steps may be changed’ and missing period punctuation at the end of the sentence.
In para. 095, line 4, has a typographical error for the word “apricated”.
Appropriate correction is required.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to as failing to comply with 37 CFR 1.84(p)(5) because they do not include the following reference sign(s) mentioned in the description:
Para. 0123, states “part A storage tank 805 and part B storage tank 810.”
Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 1-8 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Regarding claim 1, the claim recites the limitation of:
“a mobile module comprising:
[a] a piped connection for connecting to the fluid outlet of the main module;
[b] a piped connection for connecting to the gas outlet of the main module; and
[c] at least one nozzle operably connected to the piped connection the piped connection for connecting to the fluid outlet of the main module and the piped connection for connecting to the gas outlet of the main module”.
Here, the claim limitation recites two piped connections in steps [a] and [b]. While the claim clarifies each of these steps are for connecting with fluid outlet and gas outlet respectively, the recitation of “the piped connection” (shown with strikethrough emphasis) in step [c] fails to clarify which piped connection is being referred thereby rendering the scope of the claim indefinite. While applicant’s Fig. 10 and para. [0136] state that the tubes 1026 and 1027 are respectively for the liquid line and gas line from the main module 1004 to the mobile module 1000, the first recitation of “the piped connection” in step [c] still fails to specify the scope of the claimed invention.
For the examination purpose, the bolded portion of the step [c] is treated as a redundant element and the nozzle is connected with both piped connections for gas outlet and fluid outlet of the main module.
Examiner recommends in steps [a] and [b] the elements of first piped connection and second piped connection respectively and remove “the piped connection” in step [c].
Regarding claims 2- 8, they are also rejected because of their dependency with rejected claim 1.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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.
Claim(s) 1, 5 - 6, & 8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Adams et al., (US 20130140374 A1) in view of Lee et al. (US 20150368557 A1).
Regarding claim 1, Adams teaches a mobile treatment system [“atomizing sterilizer system 100” to clean target vicinity 132 such as indoor space, wherein “the atomizing sterilizer system 100 can remain transported via vehicle or trailer” and hence can be called a mobile treatment system] comprising: (annotated fig. 1, [030, 039]);
[a] a main module [“atomizing sterilizer system 100 includes a controller 102, a short-term cleaning agent reservoir 104, a rinsing agent reservoir 106, and a long-term cleaning agent reservoir 108”] comprising: a housing; at least one treatment compound tank [one or more of item(s) 104/106/108]; a means for pumping treatment [“receives pressurized cleaning agent in the form of a liquid or rinsing agent in the form of a liquid from liquid hose 126”] compound through a fluid pipe [“a liquid from liquid hose 126 of FIG. 7”] to a fluid outlet; and a gas line [“low of gas from the compressor 110 travels via the gas hose 114 to the controller 102, then via the gas hose 124”] for delivering compressed gas to a gas outlet ([024, 036, 044, 056]); and
[b] a mobile module [item 128 + 158, see as further described in fig. 2] comprising: (Figs. 1-2, [055]);
a piped connection [connection tip of the “liquid hose 126” to the atomizing nozzle 128] for connecting to the fluid outlet of the main module; a piped connection [connection tip of the hose 128 to the atomizing nozzle 128] for connecting to the gas outlet [outlet of ‘gas hose 124 of FIG. 7’] of the main module; and at least one nozzle [“the atomizing nozzle 128” to create fog 130 by using the gas and the cleaning agents 104- 108] operably connected to the piped connection the piped connection for connecting to the fluid outlet [outlet for the “liquid hose 126”] of the main module and the piped connection for connecting to the gas outlet of the main module ([025, 031, 036, 039], fig. 1).
Adam teaches:
[0039] In one embodiment, the atomizing sterilizer system 100 can remain transported via vehicle or trailer and delivered to the target vicinity 132 via extended versions of the hoses 124 and 126. In one embodiment, the control valves 156 and 158 may be situated near the end of the hoses 124 and 126 that connect to the atomizing nozzle 128 in order to allow control of air and gas flow near the target vicinity 132. This configuration provides the advantage of rapid application at the target vicinities 132 because the atomizing sterilizer system 100 need not be located in, or even close to, the target vicinity 132. For example, the atomizing sterilizer system 100 need not be transported during application to multiple apartments, multiple rooms within a residence, multiple residences, multiple commercial structures, multiple rooms within commercial structures, areas above or below structures, other structures, or outdoor environments. Additionally, the atomizing nozzle 128 can reach entrances to HVAC (Heating, Ventilating, and Air Conditioning) or other systems in order to sterilize the system.
PNG
media_image1.png
801
935
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Adams teaches its system 100 to include a mobile module with a nozzle 128 with two hoses connection inputs each for gas outlet 124 and liquid outlet 126.
However, Adams may not teach using a pump for pumping of the treatment compound through a fluid pipe as claimed and shown with strikethrough emphasis.
However, using a pump to help pumping treatment compound through a fluid pipe is well-known in the art. For example, Lee teaches a cleaning apparatus with a main module and a mobile module configured to generate cleaning spray using liquid 36 and gas from a gas line 60 (fig. 6). More specifically, Lee teaches a mobile treatment apparatus comprising: A mobile treatment system comprising: a main module [“a cleaning apparatus 101”] comprising: a housing; at least one treatment compound tank [“a mixing tank 36”]; a pump [pump 43] for pumping treatment compound through a fluid pipe to a fluid outlet (Fig. 6, [066- 068]).
It would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to (1) combine Lee and Adams because they both related to a portable/mobile treatment system to generate treatment spray by mixing gas and liquid and (2) modify the main module of Adams to include a pump for pumping treatment compound through a fluid pipe to a fluid outlet when one or more of its reservoir’s (104, 106, 108) cleaning agents are supplied from other supply tanks as in Lee’s fig. 6. Doing so would allow to further enhance/increase the flow rate of the cleaning agent exiting in the form of fog 130 from the agent reservoir to the atomizing nozzle. Furthermore, Lee teaches additional details for Adams about obtaining additional types of the cleaning agents, by forcefully mixing multiple other agents depending on the cleaning needs, to generate fog 130 (Lee [066]). Accordingly, Adams in view of Lee teaches each elements of the claim and renders invention of this claim obvious to PHOSITA.
Regarding claim 5, Adams in view of Lee further teaches the mobile treatment system of claim 1 further comprising: an air compressor [items 110/112] housed in the main module (Adams, fig. 1).
Regarding claim 6, Adams in view of Lee further teaches the mobile treatment system of claim 1, wherein the at least one treatment compound tank further comprises: a mixing tank; and at least two compound tanks configured to supply treatment compound to the mixing tank (Lee, Fig. 6).
Regarding claim 8, Adams in view of Lee further teaches the mobile treatment system of claim 1 wherein each of the at least one nozzles are configured to dispense a dry mist comprising droplets of less than 20 microns [“the mean diameter of particles within the fog 130 is between 1 and 10 microns.”] (Adams [046]).
Claim(s) 3 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Adams in view of Lee and further in view of Gordon (US 20070284458 A1).
Regarding claim 3, Adams in view of Lee teaches a mobile treatment system but fails to teach its treatment system to include a skid mounted to the housing of the main module.
Gordon teaches a mobile treatment system a skid [“the system 10 is preferably assembled and mounted on a skid 50, as shown by way of example in FIG. 2.”] mounted to the housing of the main module (Fig. 2, [036]).
It would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to (1) combine Gordon and Adams in view of Lee because they both related to mobile treatment system with a main module to generate disinfectant spray and (2) modify the mobile treatment system of Adams in view of Lee to include a skid mounted to its housing as in Gordon. Doing so would allow help to facilitate portability and handling of the system of Adams in view of Lee (Gordon, [036]).
Claim(s) 2 & 7 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Adams in view of Lee and further in view of Rodenbeck et al. (US 20070246550 A1).
Regarding claim 2, Adams in view of Lee teaches a mobile treatment system of claim 1 set forth above.
However, Adams in view of Lee fails to teach the treatment system further comprising: a human machine interface for controlling distribution of the treatment compound.
Rodenbeck teaches a mobile treatment system [“Water delivery system 100”] comprising a main module [lower portion 106] comprising at least one treatment compound tank [hot 110 or cold 114 water supply] and a human machine interface [user input 140/140’ to set “user inputs, such as desired fluid temperature, desired fluid flow rate, desired fluid volume”] for controlling distribution of the treatment compound (Fig. 1, [0138-0139, 0145]).
It would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to (1) combine Rodenbeck and Adams in view of Lee because they both related to a treatment system with a nozzle to output mixed spray and (2) modify the system of Adams in view of Lee to include missing limitations from Rodenbeck. Doing so would allow operating the mobile treatment system of Adams in view of Lee accordance to user’s setting (Rodenbeck [0153]).
Regarding claim 7, Adams in view of Lee further teaches/suggests the mobile treatment system of claim 1, comprise: a computer system [controller 102 can include sensors] communicatively coupled to the main module, the computer system
Adams in view of Lee may or may not teach its computer system to comprise at least one processor; and a storage device communicatively coupled to the at least one processor, the storage device storing instructions which, when executed by the at least one processor, cause the at least one processor to perform the above controlling distribution of treatment compound.
Rodenbeck teaches a mixing system [system 100] comprising: a computer system that comprises at least one processor [“Controller 166 includes a processor 168”]; and a storage device communicatively coupled to the at least one processor, the storage device [memory 170] storing instructions which, when executed by the at least one processor, cause the at least one processor to controlling distribution of treatment compound from the main module [“Lower portion 150”] to the mobile module [upper portion, above the sink]; and controlling distribution of the treatment compound [hot 110/cold 114] from the at least one nozzle (Fig. 13, [0149-0150]).
It would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to (1) combine Rodenbeck and Adams in view of Lee because they both related to a treatment system with a nozzle to output mixed spray and (2) modify the computer system of Adams in view of Lee to include a processor and memory to execute its control of the treatment system as in Rodenbeck. Doing so would allow controlling of the treatment system of Adams in view of Lee in automatic manners (Rodenbeck [303]).
Claim(s) 4 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Adams in view of Lee and further in view of Baltz et al. (US 20130277463 A1).
Regarding claim 4, Adams in view of Lee teaches its system to utilize the sensor data to control the operation of the treatment system.
However, Adams in view of Lee fails to teach its system to include a generator in the main module.
Baltz teaches mobile treatment system [“the electrostatic spray tool system 10”] with a main module with valve assembly 64, wherein the treatment system comprising a generator [“the turbine generator 204 may internally limit its output voltage to the desired level”] housed in the main module ([023, 027, 031-032], fig. 4).
It would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to (1) combine Baltz and Adams in view of Lee because they both related to a spray tool with electronically controlled valves and (2) modify the main module of Adams in view of Lee to include a generator as in Baltz. Doing so would allow to provide operating power to operate the electronic valves and sensors of the Adams in view of Lee (Baltz, [0022]).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
1) Dorkin et al. (US 6478240 B1) substantially teaches invention of the claim 1 including a main module and a mobile module [portion below valves 19 & 20] with two pipped connections [for pipes 10 & 11] and a nozzle [‘a gas-dynamic nozzle (1) connected with a gas and liquid mixing chamber (2),”] (Fig. 1, Abstract, Col 5 lines 45- 65, Col.8, lines 1- 10).
2) Malcolm (GB 2598637 A) teaches a disinfecting apparatus comprises a generation unit and a fogging assembly (Abstract).
Contacts
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to SANTOSH R. POUDEL whose telephone number is (571)272-2347. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday (8:30 am - 5:00 pm).
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, Thomas Lee can be reached on 571-272-3667. 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.
/SANTOSH R POUDEL/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2115