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 .
Specification
The abstract of the disclosure is objected to because the first sentence lacks a subject-verb grammatical structure. A corrected abstract of the disclosure is required and must be presented on a separate sheet, apart from any other text. See MPEP § 608.01(b).
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, 4, 5, 7 and their dependent claims are 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.
The term “highly charged air” in claim 1 is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “highly charged” is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention. It is not clear what distinguishes “highly” charged air from “normally” charged air or “lowly” charged air in terms of quantitative assessments.
Claim 1 recites the limitation “a stabilized ozonated water solution” on line 6. It is not clear if this limitation is the same as “a stabilized ozonated water solution” on line 1 of the claim, or not.
Claims 4 & 5 recite the limitation “The cannister of claim 3”. It is not clear if these claims are dependent only on the “cannister” claimed in claim 3, or the entire invention claimed in Claim 1, “a method” overall.
Claim 7 recites the limitation “said stabilized ozonated water generator” on line 5. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 7 recites the limitation “said inert gas” on line 9. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 7 recites the limitation “the contents” on line 10. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
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)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
(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 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1)/(a)(2) as being anticipated by Talamantez et al., (“Talamantez”, US 2019/0275476).
Claims 1-3 are directed to a method type invention group.
Regarding Claims 1-3, Talamantez discloses a method for disinfecting a closed space using a stabilized ozonated water solution, (See Abstract, See paragraph [0028], Talamantez), comprising: mixing highly charged air and substantially particulate free water in a constant pressure differential venturi to create ozonated water, (See paragraph [0012], Talamantez); infusing said ozonated water with an inert gas in a mixing manifold such that said ozonated water is transformed into a stabilized ozonated water solution, (See paragraph [0012], Talamantez), and: storing said stabilized ozonated water solution in a delivery mechanism under pressure from said inert gas such that said stabilized ozonated water is released in mist form at a future time, (See paragraph [0029], Talamantez).
Additional Disclosures Included:
Claim 2: The method of claim 1 wherein the inert gas is CO2, (See paragraph [0032], Talamantez).
Claim 3: The method of claim 1 wherein the delivery mechanism is a cannister, (See paragraph [0028], Talamantez).
Claims 4-7 are rejected under 35 USC 103 as being unpatentable over Talamantez et al., (“Talamantez”, US 2019/0275476), in view of Hengsperger et al., (“Hengsperger”, US 10,005,682).
Claims 4-6 are directed to a method type invention group.
Regarding Claim 4, Talamantez discloses the cannister of claim 3, but does not disclose wherein said cannister has a time release mechanism.
Hengsperger discloses a canister with a time release mechanism, (See column 24, lines 14-26, Hengsperger).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to have modified the method of Talamantez by incorporating wherein said cannister has a time release mechanism as in Hengsperger in order to perform “different ozonation cycles, associated with different types of container or attachment used” which “then can be different depending on the selected ozonation cycle”, (See column 7-13, Hengsperger).
Regarding Claim 5, Talamantez discloses the cannister of claim 3, but does not disclose wherein said cannister has a snap tab top mechanism.
Hengsperger discloses a canister with a snap tab top mechanism, (See column 21, lines 61-65, Hengsperger).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to have modified the method of Talamantez by incorporating wherein said cannister has a snap tab top mechanism as in Hengsperger in order to “modify a stored time count…to keep track of partially completed cycles” and “reset the usage and/or chronological counter in the cartridge”, (See column 21, lines 63-65, column 22, lines 28-35, Hengsperger), to “signal the cartridge upon completion of an ozonation cycle”, (See column 21, lines 21-24, Hengsperger).
Regarding Claim 6, Talamantez discloses the method of claim 1, but does not disclose wherein the delivery mechanism is a self-contained cart.
Hengsperger discloses wherein the delivery mechanism is a self-contained cart, (See column 17, lines 35-67, column 18, lines 1-11, Hengsperger).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to have modified the method of Talamantez by incorporating wherein the delivery mechanism is a self-contained cart as in Hengsperger because “ozonated water can be used to disinfect or sanitize in both commercial and home settings”, (See column 1, lines 31-34, Hengsperger), in which “it is therefore desirable to provide an ozonation system that can dispense ozonated water “on demand” without the need for a continuously recirculating system…thereby doing away with the need for a holding tank”, (See column 2, lines 30-35, Hengsperger), so “when adapted…to a mobile floor scrubber”, it “allows the system to provide ozonated water on demand”, (See column 17, lines 44-45, column 17, lines 10-11, Hengsperger).
Claim 7 is directed to an apparatus type invention.
Regarding Claim 7, Talamantez discloses an apparatus for disinfecting a closed space using stabilized ozonated water, (See Abstract, See paragraph [0028], Talamantez), comprising: a mobile cart; an ozonated water generator, an input source of substantially particulate free water and an input source of pressurized air, (See paragraph [0012], [0036], Talamantez), the output of said stabilized ozonated water generator being connected to a first input of a mixing manifold: a pressurized inert gas vessel, said pressurized inert gas vessel being connected to a second input of said mixing manifold, (See paragraphs [0031] & [0032], Talamantez), and; the output of said mixing manifold being under pressure from said inert gas is connected to a delivery vessel such that the contents of said delivery vessel may be dispersed in one of a plurality of forms, (See paragraphs [0033] & [0034], See paragraphs [0042]-[0045], Talamantez).
Talamantez does not disclose a mobile cart and an internal source of power for the ozonated water generator.
Hengsperger discloses wherein the delivery mechanism is a self-contained cart, (See column 17, lines 35-67, column 18, lines 1-11, Hengsperger), and an internal source of power for the ozonated water generator, (See column 32, lines 61-67, column 33, lines 1-7, Hengsperger).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to have modified the method of Talamantez by incorporating wherein the delivery mechanism is a self-contained cart and an internal source of power for the ozonated water generator as in Hengsperger because “ozonated water can be used to disinfect or sanitize in both commercial and home settings”, (See column 1, lines 31-34, Hengsperger), in which “it is therefore desirable to provide an ozonation system that can dispense ozonated water “on demand” without the need for a continuously recirculating system…thereby doing away with the need for a holding tank”, (See column 2, lines 30-35, Hengsperger), so “when adapted…to a mobile floor scrubber”, it “allows the system to provide ozonated water on demand”, (See column 17, lines 44-45, column 17, lines 10-11, Hengsperger).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JONATHAN M PEO whose telephone number is (571)272-9891. The examiner can normally be reached M-F, 9AM-5PM.
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, Bobby Ramdhanie can be reached at 571-270-3240. 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.
/JONATHAN M PEO/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1779