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 without traverse of claims 1-9 in the reply filed on 11/13/2025 is acknowledged.
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Claim Objections
Claims 1, 7, and 9 are objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 1, line 6: change “the upper part” to “an upper part”
Claim 7, line 2: change “to change” to “changes”
Claim 9, line 3: change “place in a” to “placed in an”
Appropriate correction is required.
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 1-2, 4, 6, and 8 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.
Claim 1 recites the limitation "the inhaled air" in line 8. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim(s) 1 and 2 recite the term “large amount of plasma ions” which is a relative term that renders the claims indefinite. The term “large” is not defined by the claims, 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.
Claim 2 recites the limitation "the outside" in line 4. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 4 recites the limitation "a predetermined particle size is 40 microns" in line 2 which renders the claim unclear and indefinite since claim 4 does not recite a particle. Claim 4 depends on claim 1 but it is noted that claim 2 recites “nano and micro particles.” It is suggested that applicant amend claim 4 to depend from claim 2 and further recite that the predetermine microparticle size is 40 microns. Nanoparticles are understood to be 1 to 100 nm and microparticles are understood to be 1 to 1000 microns. For examination purposes, the recitation will be interpreted to describe any particles in the system.
Claim 8 recites the limitation "the support rod" in line 2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim and is unclear if the applicant is referring to each of the four support rods as recited in claim 5, or a singular rod. For examination purposes, the former interpretation will be applied.
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(s) 1-2, 7, and 9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Takaoka (JP 2018143593 A) in view of Lee (KR 101910152 B1).
Regarding claim 1, Takaoka teaches a plasma and hydrogen peroxide combined airborne sterilizer (Fig. 1, device 1, abstract) comprising:
a plasma generator (Fig. 1, plasma generator 60) having one or more plasma modules (electrodes 61) to generate plasma ions through plasma discharge to external air and hydrogen peroxide (Fig. 1, container 40 contains liquid hydrogen peroxide to scrub contaminated air, page 6, para 1-7),
a control unit to control a first plasma module of the plasma generator, the first plasma module generates plasma ions in the upper part of a housing (Fig. 1, 70), wherein the plasma and peroxide combined airborne sterilizer is configured to control the plasma generator to generate a large amount of plasma ions through the inhaled air and the hydrogen peroxide in a second operation mode (plasma and peroxide circulated via controller, page 7, para 3-5). Takaoka teaches wherein the peroxide is liquid and introduced via a pump Fig. 1, circulation pump 50, page 6, para 6-7) but does not teach wherein the peroxide is vaporized and introduced through a suction fan.
One having ordinary skill in the art would be concerned with the increasing the efficiency of purifying the contaminated air, motivating one to turn towards Lee. Lee teaches a hydrogen peroxide aerosol device configured to sterilize a space [abstract] comprising a pressurized air supply unit (Fig. 4, 113) connected to an atomizing spray unit (Fig. 4, 115) connected to a supply of hydrogen peroxide solution (Fig. 4, 111) and a plasma generator (Fig. 4, 103) Lee teaches the plasma generator and spray unit to generate ionized, hydrogen peroxide particles and improve the sterilization effect of hydrogen peroxide (page 6, para 1-2).
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 airborne sterilizer as taught by Takaoka with the atomizing spray unit as taught by Lee to improve the sterilization efficiency of hydrogen peroxide sterilization 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 2, Modified Takaoka teaches the plasma and VHP combined airborne sterilizer of claim 1, wherein the plasma and VHP combined airborne sterilizer of the control unit controls an exhaust unit (Lee, spray unit 115) to vaporize hydrogen peroxide into nano and micro particles in a first operation mode (Lee, page 4, spray unit atomizes peroxide into particles less than 15 microns), the suction fan to inhale hydrogen peroxide and air circulated from the outside (Takaoka, fan 20 recirculates plasma and understood to be capable of circulating atomized peroxide, page 5, para 2-3), and the plasma generator to generate a large amount of plasma ions (Lee, page 6, para 10).
Regarding claim 7, Modified Takaoka teaches the plasma and VHP combined airborne sterilizer of claim 1, wherein the control unit changes from the first operation mode to the second operation mode when an external humidity amount is greater than a threshold value (Lee, controller 120 connected to humidity sensor 121 to switch modes when humidity threshold is reached, page 4, para 5; page 6, para 1).
Regarding claim 9, Modified Takaoka teaches the plasma and VHP combined airborne sterilizer of claim 1, wherein the first plasma module and a second plasma module face each other at a predetermined interval (Fig. 1, electrodes 61) but does not teach wherein the first plasma module, the second plasma module, and a third plasma module are spaced apart from each other at a predetermined interval and placed in a 'n' shape.
One having ordinary skill in the art would recognize that introducing a third plasma module into the plasma and VHP combined air sterilizer as taught by Modified Takaoka (Takaoka, Fig. 1, electrodes 61) would produce more plasma, increasing the sterilizing effect on the contaminated air. 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 plasma and VHP combined air sterilizer as taught by Modified Takaoka to include a third electrode to increase the generation of plasma and the sterilization efficiency of the device and this involves the duplication of parts which has already been found to be obvious (MPEP 2144.04 (V)(B)).
One having ordinary skill in the art would also recognize that the arrangement of the third electrode such that the arrangement of the three electrodes makes an “n” shape would not alter the functionality of the plasma and VHP combined air sterilizer as taught by Modified Takaoka and would be an obvious matter of design choice. Therefore, it would be obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to rearrange the third electrode such that the arrangement of the three electrodes makes an “n” shape since this involves the rearrangement of parts which has already been found to be obvious (MPEP 2144.04 (V)(C)).
Claim(s) 3 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Takaoka (JP 2018143593 A) in view of Lee (KR 101910152 B1), as applied to claim 1, further in view of Seo (KR 101086143 B1).
Regarding claim 3, Modified Takaoka teaches the plasma and VHP combined airborne sterilizer of claim 1, wherein the plasma and VHP combined airborne sterilizer further comprises a first pre-filter (Takaoka, Fig. 1, filter 30) configured to pre-treat inhaled area but does not teach a second, a second electrostatic type filter, and a third carbon filter.
One having ordinary skill in the art would be concerned with removing as many contaminants form the inhaled air stream, motivating one to turn towards Seo. Seo teaches a UV air sterilizer (Fig. 4, abstract) with a filter housing (240) including a prefilter (244), an electrostatic precipitator (245), and an activated carbon filter 9246) to remove foreign matter from an incoming air stream (page 5, para 4).
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 airborne sterilizer as taught by Modified Takaoka with the electrostatic precipitator and activated carbon filter as taught by Seo to further improve the removal of contaminants from an incoming air stream and this involves the combination of elements to yield a predictable result with a reasonable expectation of success. See MPEP 2143(I)(A).
Claim 4 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Takaoka (JP 2018143593 A) in view of Lee (KR 101910152 B1), as applied to claim 1, further in view of Bettilyon et al. (US 20200405894 A1).
Regarding claim 4, Modified Takaoka teaches the plasma and VHP combined airborne sterilizer of claim 1, wherein a predetermined particle size of aerosolized hydrogen peroxide is 15 microns (Lee, page 4, spray unit atomizes peroxide into particles less than 15 microns not 40 microns.
One having ordinary skill in the art would be concerned with optimizing the particle size of hydrogen peroxide to kill pathogens in the air, motivating one to turn towards Bettilyon. Bettilyon teaches a system for air purification including exposing a space to an aerosolized disinfection solution [0002] wherein the particle size of the aerosolized solution is between 20 and 40 microns.
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 particle size of hydrogen peroxide aerosols as taught by Modified Takaoka to be within 20 and 40 microns as taught by Bettilyon to optimize the surface area of contact between the disinfectant and pathogens in the area and this involves the combination of elements to yield a predictable result with a reasonable expectation of success. See MPEP 2143(I)(A).
Claim(s) 5-6 and 8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Takaoka (JP 2018143593 A) in view of Lee (KR 101910152 B1), as applied to claim 1, further in view of Varma et al. (US 20220186952 A1).
Regarding claim 5, Modified Takaoka teaches the plasma and VHP combined airborne sterilizer of claim 1 wherein a housing (Tankaoka, Fig. 1, 10) comprises and inlet and outlet but does not teach wherein the sterilizer further comprises four support rods connected to the housing and spaced apart from each other at predetermined intervals.
Varma teaches an air cleaning apparatus comprising a housing (Fig. 1, 20) with three, equally spaced air conduits (Fig. 1, conduits 70 understood to be support rods) that support a sterilization chamber (Fig. 2, 100) within the housing and impart a vortex flow pattern on the air while it passes therethrough [0024]. The sterilization chamber includes an ionizer and an electrostatic precipitator to decontaminate the inhaled air [0025].
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 airborne sterilizer as taught by Modified Takaoka to include the conduits as taught by Varma to generate a vortex pattern on the inhaled air and maximize the residence time of the contaminated air with the plasma and VHP aerosols and this involves the combination of elements to yield a predictable result with a reasonable expectation of success. See MPEP 2143 (I)(A).
It would have also been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the three support rods as taught by Modified Takaoka above to include a fourth support rod to increase the turbulent air flow within the combined p1lasma and VHP sterilizer and this involves the duplication of parts which has already been found to be obvious (MPEP 2144.04 (V)(B)).
Regarding claim 6, Modified Takaoka teaches the plasma and VHP combined airborne sterilizer of claim 5 including four support rods (Varma, Fig. 1-2, 70) but does not teach wherein each of the four support rods is a plasma and VHP combined airborne sterilizer characterized by an openable cover at the top and bottom of the support rod.
Varma further teaches an embodiment of the air cleaning apparatus (Fig. 5) with an external shroud (Fig. 5, 31) surrounding the housing (Fig. 2, 20) and the air outlet (Fig. 2, 60) with a cap (Fig. 5, 61) attached to the of said shroud and the support rods (70). The shroud and cap are designed to protect the support rods 70 and mitigate the concentration of contaminated air entering the air cleaning apparatus [0023].
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 airborne sterilizer as taught by Takaoka with the shroud and cap at each of the ends of the support rods as taught by Varma to mitigate the concentration of contaminated air entering the air cleaning apparatus 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 8, Modified Takaoka teaches the plasma and VHP combined airborne sterilizer of claim 5, wherein the diameter of the support rod is the same as the diameter of a discharge part (Varma, support rods 70 are also discharge ports therefore the diameter of the rods is understood to be equal to a discharge port).
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