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 Objections
Claims 1, 2, and 7 are objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 1 should recite “vapor generated by means of an inside of the body part” for the best antecedent basis.
Claim 2 should recite “an
Claim 7 should recite “spaced apart from a top of the discharge part” for grammatical purposes.
None of the issues raise concerns about the scope of the claims.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
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.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier.
Such claim limitations are (nonstructural term underlined for clarity):
Heating part … to heat the vaporization part;
discharge part … to induce the hydrogen peroxide vapor generated from the vaporization part to be discharged.
Solution supply part … to supply the hydrogen peroxide solution
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
Looking to the disclosure it appears the corresponding structure is, respectively:
Heating rods, and equivalents, as set forth in par. 43
A vent similar to 500 in the figures, and equivalents
A tank with a hose, nozzle, and pump, and equivalents, as set forth in par. 50
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
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 3-5 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 “gradually narrow” in claim 3 is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “gradually narrow” 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 can’t be determined from the claim what “gradually” requires, and how quickly or slowly the part must become narrow in order to satisfy the claimed limitation. For the purpose of examination, it is interpreted that the discharge part becomes “diminished in size to the top from the bottom”.
The term “easily discharge” in claim 4 is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “easily” 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 can’t be determined from the claim what “easily” requires, or how easy or hard the discharging must be in order to necessarily satisfy the claim.
Claim 5 recites the limitation "the discharge fan" in line 1 of the claim. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. For the purpose of examination, it is interpreted there is some fan positioned as claimed.
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.
Claims 1, 3, and 6-7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Yoo (KR 20200141286).
Regarding claim 1, Yoo (KR 20200141286) discloses –
A hydrogen peroxide vaporizer for use in a sterilizer for performing sterilization with hydrogen peroxide vapor generated by means of the vaporization of a hydrogen peroxide solution (Abstract), the hydrogen peroxide vaporizer comprising:
a body part having the shape of a hollow column (Figs. 1-7 vaporization generating device 170);
a vaporization part disposed on one side of the inside of the body part and having a predetermined capacity to accommodate the hydrogen peroxide solution (vaporization unit 240);
support parts for supporting the vaporization part to allow the vaporization part to be spaced apart from the inside of the body part by a predetermined distance (see fig. 2, the legs supporting the vaporization unit 240);
a heating part disposed on one side of the vaporization part to heat the vaporization part (the vaporization unit 240 includes a hot plate for heating the solution into a vapor; par. 61, there is also a heating unit 250 which alternatively performs the function of heating the peroxide liquid; par. 62); and
a discharge part disposed on top of the body part to induce the hydrogen peroxide vapor generated from the vaporization part to be discharged (upper cover 220 and discharge port 280 read on the discharge part).
Regarding claim 3, Yoo further teaches the discharge part becomes more narrow to the top from the bottom thereof (the top of the discharge port 280 is more narrow than the bottom including the upper cover 220).
Regarding claim 6, Yoo further teaches a solution supply part disposed on one side of the body (solution supply pipe 270, which must be pumped or otherwise provided an amount of solution from a source) part to supply the hydrogen peroxide solution to the vaporization part (par. 64).
Regarding claim 7, Yoo further teaches a diffusion fan disposed spaced apart from a top of the discharge part by a predetermined distance (Fig. 1 shows circulation fan 140 spaced apart from the unit 170 in a fixed and thus predetermined manner).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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 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 2 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yoo (KR 20200141286) as applied to claim 1 above and further in view of Shibauchi (US 5,078,976).
Regarding claim 2, Yoo is set forth above with regards to claim 1 but appears to be silent with regards to protrusions or partition walls.
Shibauchi (US 5,078,976) teaches a vaporizer for hydrogen peroxide (abstract, Col. 5 lines 29-31) where a vaporization part includes protrusions or partition walls on one or more wall surfaces thereof to increase contact area with the hydrogen peroxide solution, increasing uniformity of the mixture and reducing condensation (Figs. 1-2 shield discs 9; col. 3 lines 18-34). 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 vaporizing part to have partition walls or protrusions on wall surfaces as taught by Shibauchi to arrive at the claimed invention. One would have been motivated to do so to better and more uniformly heat the vapor and to prevent condensation to arrive at an improved vaporizer.
Claims 4-5 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yoo (KR 20200141286) as applied to claim 1 above and further in view of Mielnik (US 2006/0289490).
Regarding claim 4, Yoo is set forth above with regards to claim 1 but appears to be silent with regards to a discharge fan.
Mielnik (US 2006/0289490) discloses a decontamination system (title) using a discharge fan positioned on a side of the body part (Fig. 1 blower 43 is on a side of unit 41) to discharge hydrogen peroxide vapor to a discharge part (blower forces the peroxide towards vaporizer 49 and then to ducts 30; pars. 14-16). 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 Yoo to include a discharge fan inside the body part to discharge the peroxide vapor to the discharge part as taught by Mielnik to arrive at the claimed invention. One would have been motivated to do so to conveniently and efficiently disperse the peroxide to the target space for use as is known in the art to arrive at an improved device. The combination of familiar prior art elements, such as blowers for use in peroxide sterilizations systems, according to known means for the same use together as separate to arrive at results that are nothing more than predictable is prima facie obvious. MPEP 2143(I)(A).
Regarding claim 5, Yoo is set forth above with regards to claim 1 but appears to be silent with regards to a discharge fan.
Mielnik (US 2006/0289490) discloses a decontamination system (title) using a discharge fan positioned on a side of the body part (Fig. 1 blower 43 is on a side of unit 41) to discharge hydrogen peroxide vapor to a discharge part (blower forces the peroxide towards vaporizer 49 and then to ducts 30; pars. 14-16), where the fan is disposed at a relatively lower position than the vaporization part (see fig. 1 where this orientation is illustrated). 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 Yoo to include a discharge fan inside the body part to discharge the peroxide vapor to the discharge part as taught by Mielnik to arrive at the claimed invention. One would have been motivated to do so to conveniently and efficiently disperse the peroxide to the target space for use as is known in the art to arrive at an improved device. The combination of familiar prior art elements, such as blowers for use in peroxide sterilizations systems, according to known means for the same use together as separate to arrive at results that are nothing more than predictable is prima facie obvious. MPEP 2143(I)(A).
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