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 Interpretation
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.
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.
Claim 8 is 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.
Claim 8 recites the limitation "the cabin interior" in line 4. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1-3, 6, 8, 11, 12, 14-17 and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Hirsch et al. (U.S. Publication No. 2022/0168455).
Hirsch discloses a method of cleaning an enclosed space by in situ generation and distribution of hypochlorous acid into the enclosed space (Abstract; paragraph 32), the method comprising:
Selecting an apparatus comprising a container; placing the apparatus in the enclosed space (Figures 1, 10 and 11);
Activating generation of hypochlorous acid from the container of the apparatus (paragraph 32);
Distributing hypochlorous acid throughout the enclosed space as the hypochlorous acid is generated (paragraphs 28, 32 and 46); and
Allowing the distributed hypochlorous acid to dwell in the enclosed space for an effective time (paragraphs 28 and 29).
Concerning claim 2, Hirsch also discloses electrolyzing a solution comprising chloride ions in the container of the apparatus to release hypochlorous acid (paragraph 32).
Regarding claim 3, Hirsch further discloses agitating the electrolyzing solution in the container to create fine air-borne liquid droplets and vapor comprising hypochlorous acid such as to emit the fine air-borne liquid droplets and vapor from the container and into the enclosed space (paragraphs 28, 34 and 48-53).
With respect to claim 6, the reference continues to disclose that the step of agitating the electrolyzing solution in the container to create fine air-borne liquid droplets and vapor comprises using an atomizer taking suction from the solution in the container to create and disperse fine air-borne liquid droplets and vapor in the enclosed space (paragraphs 50-52).
Concerning claim 8, Hirsch also discloses electrolyzing a solution comprising chloride ions in a concentration that permits an evolution of HOCl at a rate sufficient for cleaning the cabin interior in 10 to 30 minutes (paragraphs 28 and 32).
Regarding claim 11, Hirsch discloses allowing the hypochlorous acid to dwell from about 5-20 minutes (paragraph 28).
With respect to claim 12, the cleaning of Hirsch will intrinsically neutralize or partially remediate malodor in the enclosed space (paragraphs 3 and 28-32).
Concerning claims 14 & 15, Hirsch discloses that the apparatus is communicating with applications software on an electronic device or a cloud computing system remote from the apparatus that is accessible and controllable by an operator (paragraphs 61 & 62).
Regarding claim 16, Hirsch also discloses that the applications software on the electronic device or the cloud computing system is configured for storing stores identifying data about the enclosed space being cleaned, and storing date of cleaning, time of cleaning, and operator identifying data (paragraph 61; Figure 13).
With respect to claim 17, Hirsch further discloses that the electronics software on an electronic device is configured for providing alerts to an operator (paragraph 61).
Concerning claim 19, the reference continues to disclose sensing a concentration of hypochlorous acid in the enclosed space (paragraphs 31 and 61).
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.
Claim 4 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hirsch et al. (U.S. Publication No. 2022/0168455) in view of Nakamoto (U.S. Publication No. 2019/0240629).
Hirsch is relied upon as set forth above. Hirsch does not appear to disclose bubbling a gas or gas mixture at a controlled rate through the electrolyzing solution at a rate that causes the generated hypochlorous acid to become air-borne as fine air-borne liquid droplets and vapor. Nakamoto discloses a method of generating hypochlorous acid (paragraph 147) by selecting an apparatus comprising a container, and activating generation of hypochlorous acid from the container of the apparatus by agitation to create fine air-borne liquid droplets and vapor of the hypochlorous acid (paragraphs 1 and 6-32; Figures 1-4). The reference continues to disclose bubbling a gas or gas mixture at a controlled rate through the electrolyzing solution at a rate that causes the generated hypochlorous acid to become air-borne as fine air-borne liquid droplets and vapor in order to increase the amount of liquid droplets in the solution (paragraphs 49, 59-63, 77 and 82). As such, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to bubble a gas or gas mixture at a controlled rate through the electrolyzing solution of Hirsch at a rate that causes the generated hypochlorous acid to become air-borne as fine air-borne liquid droplets and vapor in order to increase the amount of liquid droplets in the solution as exemplified by Nakamoto.
Thus, claim 4 is not patentable over Hirsch in view of Nakamoto.
Claim 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hirsch et al. (U.S. Publication No. 2022/0168455) in view of Burd (U.S. Publication No. 2022/0347399).
Hirsch is relied upon as set forth above. Hirsch does not appear to disclose using ultrasonic vibration of the solution to create the fine air-borne liquid droplets and vapor. Burd discloses a method of cleaning an enclosed space by generating and distributing hypochlorous acid into said enclosed space as fine air-borne liquid droplets (Abstract; Figure 3). The reference continues to disclose using ultrasonic vibration of a hypochlorous acid solution to create the fine air-borne liquid droplets and vapor (paragraphs 3, 4, 10 and 11) because ultrasonic vibrations can be controlled in order to control the size of the air-borne droplets (paragraph 22). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to utilize ultrasonic vibration of the solution of Hirsch to create the fine air-borne liquid droplets and vapor because ultrasonic vibrations can be controlled in order to control the size of the air-borne droplets as exemplified by Burd.
Thus, claim 5 is not patentable over Hirsch in view of Burd.
Claim 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hirsch et al. (U.S. Publication No. 2022/0168455) in view of Yamashiro et al. (U.S. Publication No. 2022/0008585).
Hirsch is relied upon as set forth above. Hirsch does not appear to disclose that the enclosed space includes air ducts to be cleaned, and the method further comprises establishing fluid communication between the enclosed space and the air ducts such that hypochlorous acid circulates into the air ducts to clean the air ducts. Yamashiro discloses a method of cleaning an enclosed space with fine airborne liquid droplets comprising hypochlorous acid (Abstract). The reference continues to disclose that the enclosed space includes air ducts to be cleaned, and the method further comprises establishing fluid communication between the enclosed space and the air ducts such that hypochlorous acid circulates into the air ducts to clean the air ducts in order to utilize the method with an airplane and distribute the hypochlorous acid throughout the entirety of the airplane by using said air ducts (paragraph 29; Figure 4). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to utilize the method of Hirsch on an enclosed space that includes air ducts to be cleaned, in which the method establishes fluid communication between the enclosed space and the air ducts such that hypochlorous acid circulates into the air ducts to clean the air ducts in order to utilize the method with an airplane and distribute the hypochlorous acid throughout the entirety of the airplane by using said air ducts as exemplified by Yamashiro.
Thus, claim 7 is not patentable over Hirsch in view of Yamashiro.
Claims 9 and 10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hirsch et al. (U.S. Publication No. 2022/0168455).
Hirsch is relied upon as set forth above. While Hirsch discloses that the droplets can have an average droplet size of 10-100 microns (paragraph 52), thus acknowledging that the droplet size is a result effective variable; the reference does not specifically disclose that the average droplet size is greater than 40 microns, or less than 40 microns. Nonetheless, the Courts have held that "where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation." See In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456,105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955). The discovery of an optimum value of a known result effective variable, without producing any new or unexpected results, is within the ambit of a person of ordinary skill in the art. See In re Boesch, 205 USPQ 215 (CCPA 1980) (see MPEP § 2144.05, II.). As such, it would have been well within the purview of one of ordinary skill in the art to provide the average droplet size of the hypochlorous acid solution to either greater than 40 microns, or less than 40 microns dependent upon the particular application based on various environmental factors such as room size, temperature and humidity of the room, concentration of the solution, etc.; as such is considered a result effective variable that one of ordinary skill would optimize through routine experimentation to provide for a successful cleaning of the enclosed space for said given application.
Thus, claims 9 & 10 do not provide a patentable distinction over Hirsch. Therefore, claims 9 & 10 are not patentable over Hirsch as well.
Claims 13, 18 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hirsch et al. (U.S. Publication No. 2022/0168455) in view of Baeg et al. (U.S. Publication No. 2022/0133932).
Concerning claims 13 & 20, Hirsch is relied upon as set forth above. While Hirsch discloses sending a notification via the applications software on an electronic device when the effective time is reached (paragraph 61), the reference does not appear to disclose automatically powering down the apparatus to stop the generation of hypochlorous acid when the effective time is reached after the dwell time. Baeg discloses a method of cleaning an enclosed space by generating hypochlorous acid and delivering said acid to said enclosed space in the form of air-borne liquid droplets and vapor (Abstract; Figures 1-4), wherein the hypochlorous acid dwells in the enclosed space for an effective time (paragraphs 83, 90 and 108-110). The reference continues to disclose automatically powering down the apparatus to stop the generation of hypochlorous acid when the effective time is reached after the dwell time in order to prevent unnecessary waste of materials and energy (paragraphs 103-105 and 108-110; Claims 17 & 18). As such, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to automatically power down the apparatus in Hirsch to stop the generation of hypochlorous acid when the effective time is reached after the dwell time in order to prevent unnecessary waste of materials and energy as exemplified by Baeg.
Thus, claims 13 & 20 are not patentable over Hirsch in view of Baeg.
Regarding claim 18, Hirsch does not appear to disclose that the electronic device is configured for allowing remote activating of generation of hypochlorous acid by an operator. Nonetheless, Baeg continues to disclose that an electronic device is configured for allowing remote activating of generation of hypochlorous acid by an operator in order to allow an operator to start the cleaning cycle remotely (paragraph 71). Thus, 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 electronic device of Hirsch to allow remote activation of generation of hypochlorous acid by an operator in order to allow an operator to start the cleaning cycle remotely as exemplified by Baeg.
As such, claim 18 is not patentable over Hirsch in view of Baeg as well.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to KEVIN C JOYNER whose telephone number is (571)272-2709. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 8:00AM-4:30PM.
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.
/KEVIN JOYNER/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1799