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 .
Election/Restrictions
Applicant's election with traverse of Group II, claims 50-58, in the reply filed on 11/17/2025 is acknowledged. The traversal is on the ground(s) that the sprayer unit as taught by Curry (Fig. 1, 24) is not a nebulizer and is configured to generate an aerosol spray. This is found persuasive as a one having ordinary skill in the art would recognize “sprayer unit” as being drawn to a generic atomizing device. A nebulizer would be a species under the genus of atomizing devices. However, Examiner respectfully points that the special technical features of a pneumatic nebulizer, peracetic acid solution, and a UV-C light source were known prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention and as evidenced by Bullard et al. (US 20150306269 A1) in view of Curry (WO 0028552 A1). See rejection of claim 1 below.
The requirement is still deemed proper and is therefore made FINAL.
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Claim Objections
Claims 53-54 are objected to because of the following informalities:
Claims 53 and 54, please insert a space before “nm” in line 2.
Appropriate correction is required.
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) 50, 53-56, and 58 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bullard et al. (US 20150306269 A1) in view of Curry (WO 0028552 A1).
Regarding claim 50, Bullard teaches a method (Fig. 9, method for using sanitation system 200, [0062]), comprising: receiving, from a liquid peracetic acid source, an amount of peracetic acid solution via a liquid inlet of a pneumatic nebulizer (Fig. 6, nebulizer 242 configured to dissociate chemical solution into mist between 4-50 microns, [0045-0046] wherein the solution may be peroxyacetic acid [0049] and may be received a liquid inlet proximal to vortex region V, Fig. 7, [0047]);
at the pneumatic nebulizer, nebulizing the peracetic acid solution to an aerosol of peracetic acid droplets (Fig. 7, [0045-0047], Fig. 9, step 904);
at the pneumatic nebulizer, evaporating the aerosol of peracetic acid droplets to peracetic acid vapour (Fig. 8b, fan 214 located downstream of nebulizer 242 and provides motive force to nebulized agent towards a desiccant subsystem = vaporization understood to occur due to the fan providing forced convection around aerosols which enhances convective mass transfer [0057]);
propelling the peracetic acid vapour away from an outlet of the pneumatic nebulizer in a predetermined direction in a closed space (Fig, 9, step 906, vapor is propelled towards desiccant subsystem and towards outlet 204, Fig. 6, [0065]); and
projecting UV radiation in the predetermined direction (Fig. 9, step 908).
While Bullard contemplates that the UV radiation should have a sufficiently low wavelength to cause water to ionize into hydroxyl radicals [0006] and can be at a specific wavelength set [0019], Bullard does not explicitly teach wherein the use of UV-C radiation.
Curry teaches a decontamination device and method [title, abstract] comprising a nebulizer (Fig. 1, 24) configured to atomize a cleaning fluid [0088], wherein the cleaning solution (Fig. 1, 20) may comprise a peracetic acid solution (page 10, para 1). Curry further teaches wherein the atomized cleaning solution may be chemically activated (page 14, para 2) by an ultraviolet light source (Fig. 1, 26) having a wavelength within the range of 200-300 nm (well understood in the art to be within the UV-C light spectrum of 100-280 nm) to yield hydroxyl radicals and oxidize organic contaminants (page 26, para 1).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the UV light as taught by Bullard to emit UV radiation in the UV-C spectrum of 200-300 nm since Curry teaches this wavelength to generate hydroxyl radicals when exposed to an atomized sterilant and this involves the combination of elements to yield a predictable result with a reasonable expectation of success. See MPEP 2143(I)(A) and 2143(I)(G).
Regarding claim 53, Modified Bullard teaches the method of claim 50, wherein the UV-C radiation has a wavelength of 100-280nm (Curry, page 26, para 1).
Regarding claim 54, The method of claim 50, wherein the UV-C radiation has a wavelength of about 254nm (Curry, page 26, para 1).
Regarding claim 55, Modified Bullard teaches the method of claim 50, wherein the aerosol of peracetic acid droplets includes a majority of droplets, by number, of size 4 m or less (Bullard, aerosolized solution can be 4 microns or less [0024-0025], [0045]).
Regarding claim 56, Modified Bullard teaches the method of claim 50, further comprising: introducing humidity into the closed space (Bullard, Fig. 9, step 910 the airstream including the vaporized, aerosolized mist and hydroxyl radicals are introduced into an eclosed space [0040], [0067] = understood to be introducing humidity into the space).
Regarding claim 58, Modified Bullard teaches the method of claim 50, wherein a fan is used for the evaporating of the aerosol of peracetic acid droplets to peracetic acid vapour and the propelling of the peracetic acid vapour away from an outlet of the pneumatic nebulizer in the predetermined direction (Bullard, Fig. 8b, fan 214 located downstream of nebulizer 242 and provides motive force to nebulized agent towards a desiccant subsystem = vaporization initiated by forced air convection provided by fan [0057]).
Claim(s) 51-52 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bullard et al. (US 20150306269 A1) in view of Curry (WO 0028552 A1), as applied to claim 1, further in view of Burger (US 20120009085 A1).
Regarding claim 51, Bullard teaches the method of claim 50, wherein peracetic acid is used as a disinfecting solution to be nebulized [0049] but does not teach wherein the liquid peracetic acid is 2%w/w - 15%w/w aqueous peracetic acid solution.
Burger teaches a sterilization system and method with a liquid sterilant [abstract] configured to be vaporized, wherein the liquid sterilant can be a solution with a peracetic acid concentration of 2-7 wt% [0024].
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to substitute the peracetic acid solution as taught by Bullard with the peracetic acid solution with a concentration of 2-7 wt% as taught by Burger since these are recognized as equivalents (sterilant) intended for the same purpose (sterilizing an enclosed space). See MPEP 2144.06(II).
Regarding claim 52, Modified Bullard teaches the method of claim 50, wherein the liquid peracetic acid is 5%w/w aqueous peracetic acid solution (Burger, [0024]).
Claim(s) 57 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bullard et al. (US 20150306269 A1) in view of Curry (WO 0028552 A1), as applied to claim 1, further in view of Riccardi et al. (US 20110114744 A1).
Regarding claim 57, Modified Bullard teaches the method of claim 50, wherein a fan is used for the evaporating of the aerosol of peracetic acid droplets to peracetic acid vapour and the propelling of the peracetic acid vapour away from an outlet of the pneumatic nebulizer in the predetermined direction (Bullard, Fig. 8b, fan 214 located downstream of nebulizer 242 and provides motive force to nebulized agent towards a desiccant subsystem = convection of aerosols initiated by said motive force understood to be vaporizing the aerosols [0057]) but does not teach wherein compressed gas is used for the evaporating and propelling.
Riccardi teaches a method and apparatus for generating and distributing aerosols [abstract] including transducers (Fig. 6, 10) configured to generate aerosols and a pressurized air means to deliver the aerosols to a treated area [0226]. Riccardi further teaches wherein high-capacity air gas compressors can be used to move the aerosols into the treatment space [0432].
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the method and system as taught by Bullard to include the air compressor as taught by Riccardi to provide motive force to the aerosols generated by nebulizer to propel the aerosols (and evaporate the aerosols via convective mass transfer)) into the enclosed space and this involves the combination of elements to yield a predictable result with a reasonable expectation of success. See MPEP 2143(I)(A).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Nebyate Seged whose telephone number is (703)756-4611. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8-5:00 pm (EST).
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.
/N.S.S./Examiner, Art Unit 1758
/MARIS R KESSEL/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1758