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 05/07/2026 is acknowledged.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement filed 4/9/24 fails to comply with 37 CFR 1.98(a)(2), which requires a legible copy of each cited foreign patent document; each non-patent literature publication or that portion which caused it to be listed; and all other information or that portion which caused it to be listed. It has been placed in the application file, but the information referred to therein has not been considered.
There is no translated copy or explanation of relevance of JP20005329317A.
Claim Objections
Claim 5 is objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 5 should recite “from the reservoir to the dispersal device” for the best antecedent basis.
Appropriate correction is required.
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, 6, and 8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Mullins (US 2016/0206768).
Regarding claim 1, Mullins (US 2016/0206768) teaches –
A system for producing atmospheric gaseous iodine (Figs. 1-6 abstract, an iodine solution is dispersed in an atmosphere), comprising:
an airless reservoir for holding an iodine (par. 17, see fig. 5 showing container 525 which is closed to the atmosphere and would exclude air when full of iodine in use; par. 106 discloses this canister 500 is for use in figs. 3 and 4 and fillable by the station in figs. 1 and 2 including canisters 340-342);
an iodine source connected to the reservoir for providing the iodine to the reservoir (par. 17 teaches the iodine tanks are mated to a portable filling station which is shown in figs. 1 and 2; specifically tanks 150 hold iodine solution for dispensing into the canisters, par. 87 and 106);
a dispersal device for dispersing the iodine from the reservoir into an atmosphere (Fig. 3 adjustable air outlets 301 and associated tubes 310; par. 96); and
an electronic controller connected to the iodine source and the dispersal device for controlling the iodine source and the dispersal device (programmable controller 330, par. 100).
Regarding claim 6, Mullins further teaches a reservoir peristaltic pump moves the iodine from the reservoir to the dispersal device (Fig. 1 peristaltic pumps 212 and 242, pars. 92-93).
Regarding claim 8, Mullins further teaches the iodine source is located remotely from the iodine reservoir and the dispersal device (fig. 1 and fig. 3 show the respective dispensing station for filling the canisters for dispersion, pars. 87 and 106).
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.
Claims 2 and 5 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mullins (US 2016/0206768) as applied to claim 1 above and further in view of Sparks (US 2007/0224080).
Regarding claim 2, Mullins further teaches the reservoir receives an airless aqueous iodine and further comprises ultrasonic atomizer for sonicating the airless aqueous iodine (pars. 69, 81, 96; Fig. 3 ultrasonic sonic humidifier 375 is associated with the canisters 340-342 for aerosolization)
the iodine source comprises an airless aqueous iodine bladder and an iodine source peristaltic pump (par. 128 discloses the source can be bladders, par. 86-87 teaches peristaltic pumps); and
the electronic controller is further connected to the ultrasonic atomizer (programmable controller 300 controls all the system components, par. 100).
Mullins appears to be silent with regards to the specific structure of the ultrasonic sonicator and therefore an ordinary artisan would naturally look to the prior art to search for an appropriates means of ultrasonic aerosolization.
Sparks (US 2007/0224080) teaches a sanitization device for an environment (title) that utilizes a sonic frequency disc for sonicating a sanitizing solution (claim 1, ultrasonically vibratable disc for generating ultrasonic energy to form a fog). 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 Mullins such that the ultrasonic atomizer includes a disc as taught by Sparks to arrive at the claimed invention. One would have been motivated to do so to successfully implement the ultrasonic aerosolization device of Mullins according to means known in the art to arrive at a successful invention. The combination of familiar prior art elements, including known ultrasonic aerosolization means in systems in need of them, according to known means to arrive at results that are nothing more than predictable is prima facie obvious. MPEP 2143(I)(A).
Regarding claim 5, Sparks further teaches a fan (par. 54, Fig. 1 fan 57) for moving the iodine from the reservoir to the dispersal device (par. 54). It would have been further obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the device disclosed by Mullins such that the reservoir uses a fan to move the iodine from the reservoir to the dispersal device as taught by Sparks to arrive at the claimed invention. One would have been motivated to do so to propel the sanitizing fluid to the outlet according to known effective means in the art for doing so. The combination of familiar prior art elements, including fans for distribution in environmental sanitizing systems, according to known means to arrive at results that are nothing more than predictable is prima facie obvious. MPEP 2143(I)(A).
Claim 4 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mullins (US 2016/0206768) as applied to claim 1 above and further in view of Seibt (US 2016/0145845).
Regarding claim 4, Mullins appears to be silent with regards to a gaseous iodine dispersal ring.
Seibt (US 2016/0145845) teaches as distribution structure that includes a perforated gaseous dispersal ring (Fig. 1A spray ring 12, par. 46). 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 Mullins such that the dispersal device includes a perforated ring as taught by Seibt to arrive at the claimed invention. One would have been motivated to do so in order to distribute the gas according to known effective means to arrive at an improve device. The combination of familiar prior art elements according to known means to arrive at results that are nothing more than predictable is prima facie obvious. MPEP 2143(I)(A).
Claim 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mullins (US 2016/0206768) as applied to claim 1 above and further in view of Blum (US 2021/0386900).
Regarding claim 7, Mullins appears to be silent with regards to the system being wall mounted and integrated with a central ventilation system.
Blum (US 2021/0386900) teaches a iodine disinfection system (pars. 17, 24, 102) that is mounted to a wall (Fig. 29 shows the device mounted in or directly connected to a duct and therefore is at least indirectly attached to a wall). 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 Mullins such that it is wall mounted and integrated to a central ventilation system as taught by Blum to arrive at the claimed invention. One would have been motivated to do so to sterilize the air at a centralized location to ensure sterility of the environment more efficiently.
Claim 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mullins (US 2016/0206768).
Regarding claim 9, Mullins appears to be silent with regards to the iodine source being replaceable canisters, however this modification would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention as it is only the modification of the source to be separable from the device which is nothing more than obvious. MPEP 2144.04(V)(C).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 3 is objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
The prior art, alone or in combination fails to teach or fairly suggest each and every limitation of the claimed invention. The prior art considered to be the closest prior art is Sheikh (US 3,547,576).
Sheikh teaches using iodine that is sublimated into air for the treatment of an environment (Fig. 1 container 26 for iodine; Cols 1 line 23-33, 59-72). Sheikh is silent with regards to a cooled iodine dispenser with a valve connecting the dispenser and the heat plate to allow passage to the heat plate and the gaseous iodine being transported from the heat plate to the reservoir). Therefore claim 3 is allowable over the prior art.
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
Prosecution Insights