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 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 1-9 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.
Claims 1 and 7 both recite limitations directed towards a humidifying and cleaning unit which interact with a hypochlorous acid water storage unit, and it is not clear whether or not the hypochlorous acid water storage unit is necessarily part of the claimed invention. The unit is claimed passively, however the only limitations of the claim that limit the scope of the claim are directed towards the unit. The humidifying and cleaning unit has no further structure and is described in terms of functional language related to the storage unit, and the controller is claimed in functional relationship to the storage unit. Therefore, it cannot be determined if the storage unit is necessarily part of the claimed invention or if the claimed invention is merely a device intended to be used with the storage unit and is generically useful separate to it. The scope of the claims cannot be determined and the claims are indefinite. For the purpose of examination, it is interpreted that the storage unit is not part of the device.
Claims 1 and 7 are further rejected for reciting the limitation “that is,” as it cannot be determined if the limitation following the phrase “that is,” is intended to be a limitation that further limits the claim or a clarification of the limitation that precedes the term “that is,”. For the purpose of examination, it is interpreted that the limitations before and after the term further limit the claim.
The remaining claims are rejected for being dependent on one of claims 1 and 7 above for at least the reasons above.
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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claim 1-5 and 7-9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Horikiri (JP 2019063420) in view of Masaji (JP4402342).
Regarding claim 1, Horikiri (JP 2019063420) discloses –
A space cleaning device comprising:
a humidifying and cleaning unit (pars. 1, 39 disclose the cleaning and humidification function; Fig. 1 volatilizer 1) configured to
generate hypochlorous acid water micronized by a micronization operation of micronizing the hypochlorous acid water stored in a water storage unit (water supply tank 7), and
causes air flowing inside of the humidifying and cleaning unit to contain the hypochlorous acid water micronized by the micronization operation and release the hypochlorous acid water (par. 39); and
a controller configured to control the micronization operation (Figs. 1-4, control means 13), wherein
the controller is configured to perform a first treatment of draining the hypochlorous acid water stored in the water storage unit and supplying new hypochlorous acid water during the micronization operation, based on time information specified in advance (par. 29, 33 discloses the water supply tank is drained over time and then replaced), that is,
the time information from when the micronization operation is started until a content of the hypochlorous acid contained in the hypochlorous acid water stored in the water storage unit becomes less than or equal to a reference content (pars. 37 disclose that the drainage pump operates to quickly drain the tray 6 until the tray is empty before the tray 6 is filled once more during operation after a predetermined time – the hypochlorous content being 0 at the time the tray 6 is empty). Furthermore, the controller is claimed to merely perform this draining and refilling function based on time information. The time information is claimed to be some duration related to a content of hypochlorous acid in relation to some arbitrary value. Horikiri discloses the draining is performed for a predetermined time to arrive at a predetermined lower water content and a predetermined upper water content, and therefore this limitation is taught or at least suggested.
Regarding the limitation directed towards the hypochlorous acid water being generated by a micronization operation: the volatilization member 8 is a rotating member that agitates the water (par. 28 discloses air flowing through a rotating cylinder to disperse the liquid in air) in an analogous manner to the unit 3c disclosed in the instant application (see instant fig. 5 and instant par. 72). Therefore, the device performs this limitation, or is at least reasonably capable of doing so. The functional language does not modify the structure of the claim to sufficiently distinguish the claimed structure from the prior art device, see MPEP 2114, II.
However, assuming arguendo directed towards this limitation: Masaji (JP4402342) discloses a cleaning device wherein a hypochlorous acid is generated (par. 68) and water is supplied to a rotating body 109 that uses centrifugal force to create micronized fine water droplets (see pars. 2, 18), similar to the function disclosed by Horikiri. 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 Horikiri such that the humidifying and cleaning unit generates hypochlorous acid water by micronizing the water using a centrifugal crushing operation as disclosed by Masaji to arrive at the claimed invention. One would have been motivated to do so to successfully and effectively create fine water droplets for dispersion according to means known in the art to arrive at an improved device. The combination of familiar prior art elements, including means for forming droplets, for the same purpose together as separate, according to known means to arrive at results that are nothing more than predictable is prima facie obvious. MPEP 2143(I)(A).
Regarding claim 2, modified Horikiri further teaches the humidifying and cleaning unit generates the micronized the hypochlorous acid water by the micronization operation of centrifugally crushing and micronizing the hypochlorous acid water pumped from the water storage unit by rotation of a pumping pipe (par. 28 discloses air flowing through a rotating cylinder to disperse the liquid in air, Masaji further teaches this limitation). Furthermore, the apparatus disclosed by Horikiri is well capable of performing this function and is reasonably expected to do so, see MPEP 2114, II.
Regarding claim 3, modified Horikiri further teaches the time information is specified in advance for each concentration of the hypochlorous acid water stored in the water storage unit (par. 37 discloses a single predetermined drain time to arrive at a single predetermined water level that has a set content of hypochlorous acid in the tray 6, reading on this limitation).
Regarding claim 4, the device disclosed by modified Horikiri is well capable of having a pH adjusting agent added to the water in the water storage unit. Neither the water nor the water storage unit is positively claimed as being part of the claimed invention, and Horikiri is well capable of performing the claimed function of receiving a water with a pH adjusting agent therein, MPEP 2114, II.
Regarding claim 5, modified Horikiri further teaches a hypochlorous acid water device configured to hold a hypochlorous acid water including a chloride aqueous solution (water supply tank 7 contains a solution of aqueous hypochlorous acid solution; par. 28), wherein the hypochlorous acid water generation device supplies the hypochlorous acid water to the water storage unit in the first treatment (fig. 2, pars. 27-28). Horikiri appears to be silent with regards to the acid water device generating the hypochlorous acid water by electrolyzing the chloride aqueous solution.
Masaji further teaches generating a hypochlorous solution by electrolyzing a solution (pars. 14, 65). 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 Horikiri such that the hypochlorous acid water device generates hypochlorous acid water by electrolyzing a chloride aqueous solution as taught by Masaji to arrive at the claimed invention. One would have been motivated to do so to produce the acid water as needed and at the point of use to arrive at an improved and more efficient space cleaning device.
Regarding claim 7, Horikiri teaches a space cleaning device comprising:
a humidifying and cleaning unit (pars. 1, 39 disclose the cleaning and humidification function; Fig. 1 volatilizer 1) configured to
generate hypochlorous acid water micronized by a micronization operation of centrifugally crushing and micronizing the hypochlorous acid water pumped from a water storage unit by rotation of a pumping pipe (water supply tank 7, par. 39, par. 28 discloses air flowing through a rotating cylinder to disperse the liquid in air in an analogous manner to the unit 3c disclosed in the instant application, see instant fig. 5 and instant par. 72),
cause air flowing inside to contain and release the hypochlorous acid water micronized by the micronization operation (par. 28 shows the room air sucked into the case by blower 4 being contacted with the micronized water and then being released out from outlet 3); and
a controller configured to control the micronization operation (Figs. 1-4, control means 13), wherein
the controller is configured to cause the water storage unit to execute a wastewater treatment of the hypochlorous acid water stored in the water storage unit during the micronization operation (par. 29, 33 discloses the water supply tank is drained over time and then replaced), based on time information specified in advance, that is, time information until a content of the hypochlorous acid contained in the hypochlorous acid water stored in the water storage unit becomes less than or equal to a reference content (pars. 37 disclose that the drainage pump operates to quickly drain the tray 6 until the tray is empty before the tray 6 is filled once more during operation after a predetermined time – the hypochlorous content being 0 at the time the tray 6 is empty). Furthermore, the controller is claimed to merely perform this draining and refilling function based on time information. The time information is claimed to be some duration related to a content of hypochlorous acid in relation to some arbitrary value. Horikiri discloses the draining is performed for a predetermined time to arrive at a predetermined lower water content and a predetermined upper water content, and therefore this limitation is taught or at least suggested.
Regarding claim 8, modified Horikiri further teaches the time information is specified in advance for each concentration of the hypochlorous acid water stored in the water storage unit (par. 37 discloses a single predetermined drain time to arrive at a single predetermined water level that has a set content of hypochlorous acid in the tray 6, reading on this limitation).
Regarding claim 9, the device disclosed by modified Horikiri is well capable of having a pH adjusting agent added to the water in the water storage unit. Neither the water nor the water storage unit is positively claimed as being part of the claimed invention, and Horikiri is well capable of performing the claimed function of receiving a water with a pH adjusting agent therein, MPEP 2114, II.
Claim 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Horikiri (JP 2019063420) in view of Masaji (JP4402342) as applied to claim 5 above and further in view of Harris (US 2018/0362374).
Regarding claim 6, modified Horikiri further teaches the space cleaning device
the hypochlorous acid water generation device is connected to the space cleaning device installed in a predetermined target space, being able to supply the hypochlorous acid water (par. 28 discloses the treated air containing the solution being discharged into a particular part of the room); and
Modified Horikiri appears to be silent with regards to a plurality of space cleaning devices being connected to the hypochlorous acid water generation device and the first and second of the plurality of space cleaning devices being started at different times.
Harris (US 2018/0362374) discloses a treatment apparatus where there are multiple cleaning devices connected to a single generation device (par. 62 discloses multiple diffusers for an ozone generator for treatment of a fluid). 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 Horikiri such that there are multiple space cleaning devices as taught by Harris to arrive at the claimed invention. One would have been motivated to successfully treat multiple distinct locations as desired to arrive at a more effective cleaning and disinfecting device.
Further regarding the limitation directed towards the operation start timings of first and second space cleaning devices are different from each other: 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 modified Horikiri such that the operation start timings are different than each other, as this modification would be merely obvious to try. There is a known need to treat a space with hypochlorous acid as claimed, and there are only a finite number of identifiable and predictable solutions to the treatment of the space, including starting the devices at the same time or starting them at different times. This solution of starting the plurality of cleaning devices at distinct times could have been pursued by an ordinary artisan with a reasonable expectation of success, with the results being nothing more than expected and ordinary, including a more expansive treatment of a target space as desired. See MPEP 2143(I)(E).
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