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 .
Response to Amendment
1. The amendment filed 19 June 2026 has been received and considered for examination. Claims 1-12, 16, 18, and 20-42 are presently pending, with claims 29-42 withdrawn from consideration and claims 1-12, 16, 18, and 20-28 being examined herein.
2. The provisional non-statutory double patenting rejection is maintained, as only objections or requirements as to form may be held in abeyance per 37 CFR 1.111. All other rejections and objections from the previous Office action are withdrawn in view of Applicant’s amendment.
3. New grounds of rejection under 35 U.S.C. 112(b), 35 U.S.C. 112(d), 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1), and 35 U.S.C. 103 are necessitated by the amendments, as detailed below.
Election/Restrictions
4. Newly submitted claims 29-42 are directed to an invention that is independent or distinct from the invention originally claimed for the following reasons:
Inventions are related as combination (invention originally elected) and subcombination (invention of claims 29-42). Inventions in this relationship are distinct if it can be shown that (1) the combination as claimed does not require the particulars of the subcombination as claimed for patentability, and (2) that the subcombination has utility by itself or in other combinations (MPEP § 806.05(c)). In the instant case, the combination as claimed does not require the particulars of the subcombination as claimed because the photon-enhanced thermionic emission effect is recited as an optional alternative and because structural limitations regarding the duct and the room are not recited. The subcombination has separate utility such as decontaminating air supplied to a room by itself, which extends beyond the utility of “enhancing effectiveness” of reaction products as generally recited in claim 1.
5. Since applicant has received an action on the merits for the originally presented invention, this invention has been constructively elected by original presentation for prosecution on the merits. Accordingly, claims 29-42 are withdrawn from consideration as being directed to a non-elected invention. See 37 CFR 1.142(b) and MPEP § 821.03.
To preserve a right to petition, the reply to this action must distinctly and specifically point out supposed errors in the restriction requirement. Otherwise, the election shall be treated as a final election without traverse. Traversal must be timely. Failure to timely traverse the requirement will result in the loss of right to petition under 37 CFR 1.144. If claims are subsequently added, applicant must indicate which of the subsequently added claims are readable upon the elected invention.
Should applicant traverse on the ground that the inventions are not patentably distinct, applicant should submit evidence or identify such evidence now of record showing the inventions to be obvious variants or clearly admit on the record that this is the case. In either instance, if the examiner finds one of the inventions unpatentable over the prior art, the evidence or admission may be used in a rejection under 35 U.S.C. 103 or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) of the other invention.
Specification
6. The disclosure is objected to because of the following informalities:
in par 0015, “Heating, Ventilation, and Air Conditioning” need not be capitalized.
in par 0100, “Bragg-reflection” should read --Bragg reflection--.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Objections
7. Claim 4 is objected to because of the following informalities: in line 2, “the emissions” should read --the photon emissions--, and “the target and/or substance or area to be treated” should read --the target or substance or area to be treated--, as line 10 of claim 1 presents these strictly as alternatives.
8. Claim 10 is objected to because of the following informalities: in line 2, “electronically, modified oxygen derivatives” should read -- electronically modified oxygen derivatives --.
9. Claim 20 is objected to because of the following informalities: in line 1, “perform the method claim 1” should read --perform the method of claim 1--.
10. Claim 21 is objected to because of the following informalities: the list of alternatives should be separated by semicolons so that limitations such as “presence or absence of high, low, or otherwise concentration of bacteria or non-bacteria, biomass or non-biomass, or microbial content” are readable. Alternatively, Examiner would not mind if the quoted limitation were replaced with --presence or absence of biomass--, for less redundancy.
Claim Interpretation
11. 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.
12. 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.
13. 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 limitation(s) is/are: “oxidizing agent introducing component” and “photon emitting component” in claim 20, interpreted as a “pump, mister, fogger, sprayer, dripline, or any other suitable component” and one or more “x-ray generators, light emitting diodes (LEDs), bulbs, arc lights, plasma lights, lasers, or any other suitable [equivalent]”, respectively, according to Specification par 0003.
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.
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
14. 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.
15. Claims 1-12, 16, 18, and 20-28 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.
16. Regarding claim 1, the limitation “the at least one photon enhanced oxidizing agent derived therefrom” in the first line of page 3 has insufficient antecedent basis, as it is unclear wherefrom a photon enhanced oxidizing agent would be derived in the claimed scenarios in the last paragraph of page 2, e.g., when photon emissions are applied to the target before the oxidizing agent is applied to the target. Examiner recommends revising to “the oxidizing agent” for clarity, as an oxidizing agent is known to be present in all claimed scenarios.
Further, the recitation beginning in the 7th line of page 3 “wherein the photoionization products, photon-enhanced thermionic emission products, multi-photon absorption products, photo-oxidation reaction products, photocatalytic reaction products, photochemical reaction products, and combinations thereof” contains no verb or predicate defining what these products should do or be, thus it is unclear what limitation, if any, is meant by this recitation.
17. Claims 2-12, 16, 18, and 20-28 are indefinite by virtue of their dependence on indefinite claim 1.
18. The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(d):
(d) REFERENCE IN DEPENDENT FORMS.—Subject to subsection (e), a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, fourth paragraph:
Subject to the following paragraph [i.e., the fifth paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112], a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
19. Claim 3 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(d) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, 4th paragraph, as being of improper dependent form for failing to further limit the subject matter of the claim upon which it depends, or for failing to include all the limitations of the claim upon which it depends. Claim 3 recites “applying the photon emissions by an emission source or sources selected from one of an electromagnetic emitting bulb, a light emitting diode, and a laser”, the scope of which overlaps completely with and fails to further limit the scope of the recitation “wherein the photon emissions are applying by at least one light source selected from the group consisting of an electromagnetic radiation emitting bulb, a light emitting diode, and a laser” in lines 13-15 of claim 1. Applicant may cancel the claim(s), amend the claim(s) to place the claim(s) in proper dependent form, rewrite the claim(s) in independent form, or present a sufficient showing that the dependent claim(s) complies with the statutory requirements.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
20. 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.
21. Claims 1-3, 5-6, 8, 10, 12, 16-22, and 24-28 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Dabney (US 20190060492 A1) as evidenced by Takahashi et al (“Photodissociation Processes of Ozone in the Huggins Band at 308-326 nm:
Direct Observation of O(1D2) and O(3Pj) Products”, J. Phys. Chem. 1996, 100, 4084-4089).
22. Regarding claim 1, Dabney discloses a method (method…for providing sterilization, decontamination, and therapeutic treatment, Abstract) for enhancing effectiveness of products (combination of the antimicrobial solution and the certain wavelength of radiation may create a synergistic reaction that causes an effect greater than the radiation or solution separately, Abstract) generated from at least photochemical reactions (hydrogen peroxide in combination with radiation of 360 nm to 500 nm may exhibit a synergistic reaction, par 0040), the reactions comprising one or more species of at least oxidizing agents and reactive oxygen species (hydrogen peroxide, par 0040), the method comprising:
applying at least one oxidizing agent to a target or a substance or area to be treated (a misting, vaporizing, spraying, foaming or other dispensing apparatus to cover a person, an animal, a surface, an enclosure, a room or other structure with an antimicrobial solution, pars 0003-0004; antimicrobial solution may be an H2O2 solution, par 0040);
applying photon emissions at one or more wavelengths in a range from 10 nm to 845 nm to the oxidizing agent, the target, and/or the substance or area to be treated (provide light radiation generally on the dispersing and delivery elements 104 as well as outward where the combined solution is being sprayed, par 0023) wherein the photon emissions are applied by at least one light source selected from the group consisting of an electromagnetic radiation emitting bulb, a light emitting diode, and a laser (radiation source may be, for example, a light, light bulb, LED, or the like, par 0018) before, during, and/or after the oxidizing agent is applied to the target, the substance, or the area to be treated (dispensed antimicrobial solution may then be irradiated with a radiation source providing light radiation at predetermined wavelengths, par 0019);
initiating a reaction between the at least one photon enhanced oxidizing agent and the target and/or substance or area to be treated (an object, animal, person or room is saturated with an antimicrobial solution then exposed to a certain wavelength of radiation…this creates a synergistic reaction, par 0003), thereby producing one or more reaction products selected from the group consisting of at least photochemical reaction products (synergistic reaction between the solution and the radiation, par 0003), wherein the one or more reaction products generate one or more species selected from the group consisting of at least ROS (e.g., hydrogen peroxide in combination with radiation, par 0015).
The limitation wherein wavelengths that photo-dissociate trioxygen are excluded is not explicitly addressed in the disclosure of Dabney, but by virtue of defining an exemplary wavelength range of 360 nm to 600 nm (pars 0015 and 0018) which excludes wavelengths known to dissociate trioxygen, particularly the strong absorption as evidenced by Takahashi in the Hartley band from 200-310 nm and the Huggins band from 310-360 nm (Takahashi pg 4084 col 1), the wavelength range defined and applied by Dabney reads upon the claim.
23. Regarding claim 2, Dabney discloses the method of claim 1, wherein the excluded wavelengths that dissociate trioxygen are selected from the group consisting of: 197-198 nm, 263-264 nm, 307-308 nm, and 1118-1119 nm (solution may be exposed to radiation in a wavelength of 360 nm to 600 nm or any other wavelength that proves effective, pars 0015 and 0018).
24. Regarding claim 3, Dabney discloses the method of claim 1, further comprising applying the photon emissions by an emission source or sources selected from one of: an electromagnetic radiation emitting bulb and a light emitting diode (radiation source may be, for example, a light, light bulb, LED, or the like, par 0018).
25. Regarding claim 5, Dabney discloses the method of claim 1, further comprising applying the at least one oxidizing agent to the target, substance, or area to be treated with an oxidizing agent dispenser or dispensers (antimicrobial solution may be dispensed from one or more spraying sources, par 0019) configured to dispense the oxidizing agent in a desired particle size (aerosolize a liquid through foggers or misters 204 to form a coating of the desired antimicrobial solution on any ambient features or elements of the room, par 0026; particular size would enable targeting of various size areas, par 0046), the oxidizing agent dispenser selected from the group consisting of a pump (one or more pumps, par 0025), a mister (such as a spray nozzle or mister, par 0019), a fogger (foggers or misters 204, pars 0025-0026), an atomizer and a diffuser (devices that aerosolize the combined solution, par 0026).
26. Regarding claim 6, Dabney discloses the method of claim 1, further comprising dispensing one or more additional reactants before during, or after applying the oxidizing agent to aid the oxidizing reaction, the one or more additional reactants selected from the group consisting of least photons (at the same time, or at a predetermined time interval of time after the antimicrobial solution begins dispersing or is completed, one or more lights 206 may be activated to provide light in the wavelengths described above so that the synergistic effect of the combined lights and antimicrobial solution may take place, par 0026).
27. Regarding claim 8, Dabney discloses the method of claim 1, wherein the reaction products are antimicrobial agents (antimicrobial solution and desired wavelengths of light may substantially sterilize and decontaminate the room , par 0027).
28. Regarding claim 10, Dabney discloses the method of claim 1, wherein the reaction products provide other reactive oxygen species (antimicrobials, supercharged solution of hydrogen peroxide, pars 0039-0041).
29. Regarding claim 12, Dabney discloses the method of claim 1, wherein the amount of the at least one oxidizing agent is in a range from less than 1 part per million to 50 percent or more of the volume of the substance (solutions of peroxide compounds may include hydrogen peroxide and/or carbamide peroxide and/or benzoyl peroxide in various organic carriers in concentrations that may range from about 0.001% to about 50% by volume, par 0042).
30. Regarding claim 16, Dabney discloses the method of claim 1, wherein the at least one oxidizing agent comprises at least hydrogen peroxide (par 0040).
31. Regarding claim 18, Dabney discloses the method of claim 1, further comprising dispersing the at least one oxidizing agent when the oxidizing agent is applied to the target or substance or area to be treated (aerosolize the combined solution to fill/coat target room, par 0026).
32. Regarding claim 20, Dabney discloses a system configured to perform the method of claim 1 (method, system, and apparatus for providing sterilization, decontamination, and therapeutic treatment, Abstract), the system comprising:
a target or reaction area (user/passageway 402, pars 0037-0038, FIG. 4), in which the at least one oxidizing agent functions together with photon emissions to perform the oxidation reaction (hydrogen peroxide in combination with radiation of 360 nm to 500 nm may exhibit a synergistic reaction that kills 96% or more of bacteria exposed to this combination for 20 seconds, par 0040),
at least one oxidizing agent introducing component (pump, foggers or misters, pars 0025-0026) configured to apply the at least one oxidizing agent to the reaction area (aerosolize a liquid through foggers or misters 204 to form a coating of the desired antimicrobial solution on any ambient features or elements of the room, par 0026); and
at least one photon emitting component (radiation source may be, for example, a light, light bulb, LED, or the like, par 0018) configured to generate the photon emissions and apply the photon emissions to the at least one oxidizing agent in the reaction area (an object, animal, person or room is saturated with an antimicrobial solution then exposed to a certain wavelength of radiation…this creates a synergistic reaction, par 0003),
wherein products of the oxidation reaction can be collected and separated during the reaction (any excess solution or runoff to be drained from passageway 402 [before or after synergistic effect of antimicrobial solution with light], par 0038).
33. Regarding claim 21, Dabney discloses the system of claim 20, further comprising one or more sensors configured to indicate, detect, or inform one or more properties of the reaction area, a target in the reaction area, or an environment associated with the reaction area (associated motion sensor, par 0038) the one or more properties selected from the group consisting of: presence or absence of non-bacteria/biomass (motion sensor detects when a user walks into system, par 0038).
34. Regarding claim 22, Dabney discloses the system of claim 20, wherein the at least one photon emitting component has photon emissions from 10 nanometers to 845 nanometers (radiation source providing light radiation at predetermined wavelengths, par 0019; wavelength of 360 nm to 600 nm or any other wavelength that proves effective, pars 0015 and 0041).
35. Regarding claim 24, Dabney discloses the method of claim 1, wherein concentration, temperature and/or pH of the at least one oxidizing agent are adjusted or modulated by the device to produce a desired reaction or results (concentrations that may range from about 0.001% to about 50% by volume of the carrier, par 0042; temperature of the solution may be adjusted to increase or optimize its effectiveness, par 0041; pH of the solution may be adjusted so that tissue sensitivity may be minimized while the effectiveness of the solution may not be hampered, par 0041).
36. Regarding claim 25, Dabney discloses the method of claim 1, further comprising affecting the ionization and/or oxidation reaction (system and method may utilize blue light, or another certain predetermined wavelength of radiation that may supercharge the solution, par 0040) by adding of photon emissions of from 10 nm through 845 nm (predetermined wavelengths from about 360 nm to about 600 nm or from about 400 nm to about 500 nm, pars 0018 and 0046).
37. Regarding claim 26, Dabney discloses the method of claim 1, wherein the photon emissions are applied for a duration from 1 second to 30 minutes (exposure from about a few second to a few minutes, par 0040).
38. Regarding claim 27, Dabney discloses the method of claim 1, further comprising applying heating or cooling to modulate the reaction (antimicrobial storage container 106 may contain a heating element that heats or maintains the antimicrobial solution in a predetermined temperature range, par 0021; water supply 102 may be heated or cooled so as to effectively provide the antimicrobial solution at a desired temperature range, par 0021).
39. Regarding claim 28, Dabney discloses the method of claim 1, wherein the pH of the oxidizing agent or substance or area to be treated is adjusted to favor formation of reactive oxygen species (pH of the solution may be adjusted so that tissue sensitivity may be minimized while the effectiveness of the solution may not be hampered, par 0041; supercharged solution of hydrogen peroxide, pars 0039-0041).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
40. 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.
41. Claim 4 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Dabney (US 20190060492 A1) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Lee (US 20090041617 A1, hereinafter Lee ‘617).
Regarding claim 4, Dabney teaches the method of claim 1, wherein photon emissions are applied to the oxidizing agent, the target, and/or the substance or area to be treated (provide light radiation generally on the dispersing and delivery elements 104 as well as outward where the combined solution is being sprayed, par 0023). Although the emissions are taught to “supercharge the solution” (par 0040), Dabney does not explicitly teach that the emissions generate an electrostatic charge to associated particles, molecules and/or atoms.
Lee ‘617 teaches analogous methods for providing microbial control and/or disinfection/remediation of an environment using hydrogen peroxide (Abstract, pars 0045-0046 and 0049-0056) generated by a photocatalytic reaction with ultraviolet light (par 0027) wherein the generated hydrogen peroxide gas molecules are imparted with an electrostatic attraction (pars 0050 and 0065) i.e., an electrostatic charge that associates molecules.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to apply photon emissions in the method of modified Dabney in a manner than is known to generate an electrostatic charge to associated particles, molecules, or atoms as taught by Lee ‘617. Doing so would predictably provide the same effect taught by Lee ‘617, namely to attract the gaseous hydrogen peroxide molecules and degrade one another such that the concentrations are maintained at levels well below the safe limit (Lee pars 0050 and 0065).
42. Claim 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Dabney (US 20190060492 A1) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Flick (US 20110305603 A1).
Regarding claim 7, Dabney teaches the method of claim 1, wherein the photon emissions are taught to “supercharge the solution” (par 0040), the solution including the reaction products. Dabney does not fully teach that the reaction products are themselves used to precipitate and/or agglomerate material out of a liquid, plasma, air, or gas.
Flick teaches an analogous method for generating hydrogen peroxide in the presence of light (Abstract) wherein hydrogen peroxide is described as an excellent oxidizer and disinfectant and purifier and goes on to kill bacteria, algae, etc. in the water, as well as to precipitate hardness (par 0006).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to use the reaction products in the method of Dabney to precipitate and/or agglomerate material out of a liquid as taught by Flick, because this precipitation would advantageously, and with a reasonable expectation of success, remove impurities along with microorganisms (Flick par 0067). See MPEP 2143(I)(G).
43. Claim 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Dabney (US 20190060492 A1) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Lee et al (US 20190167832 A1, hereinafter Lee ‘832) and Warren et al (US 20030100824 A1).
Regarding claim 9, Dabney teaches the method of claim 1, but although Dabney teaches photon emissions by a light, light bulb, LED, or the like (par 0018), Dabney does explicitly not teach generating photon-enhanced thermionic emission (PETE) products and multi photon absorption products.
Lee ‘832 teaches an analogous methods for generating hydrogen peroxide gas (par 0021) for disinfection and microbial control (par 0005) using similar light sources that can include lasers, light emitting diodes, incandescent lamps, arc lamps, standard fluorescent lamps, U.V. lamps, and combinations thereof (par 0100). Lee ‘832 teaches that the photocatalysis process produces free electrons depending on the intensity of light (par 0085), reading upon the claimed photon-enhanced thermionic emission products.
Warren teaches that during a laser pulse interaction with a material, thermionic emission occurs and electrons are ejected (par 0153) and when the laser may have insufficient time to couple into the substrate through photon-phonon interactions, ionization and multiphoton absorption also occur (par 0156).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to apply the photon emissions in the method of Dabney using a laser as taught by Lee ‘832. Doing so would predictably produce photon-enhanced free electrons as taught by Lee ‘832 which advantageously promote hydroxyl radical production over reduction back to water (Lee ‘832 pars 0013-0015), and the laser incidence would be reasonably expected to also generate multiphoton absorption products as taught by Warren.
44. Claim 11 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Dabney (US 20190060492 A1) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Conrad (US 20100119412 A1).
Regarding claim 11, Dabney teaches the method of claim 1 but does not teach adjusting viscosity of the target or substance or area to be treated.
Conrad teaches analogous methods for disinfecting a wide range of compounds and organisms (Abstract) by dispersing aerosolized sprays (pars 0198-0199) wherein disinfection solutions may include reactive oxygen species and/or hydrogen peroxide (pars 0112 and 0114) wherein the viscosity of the oxidizing agent solution can be adjusted to determine droplet size and retention on the target surface (par 0279).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to include within the method of modified Dabney a step of adjusting viscosity of the target or substance to be treated as taught by Conrad, as doing so would predictably enable control of the retention of disinfecting solution on the surface being disinfected in a similar manner.
44. Claim 23 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Dabney (US 20190060492 A1) as applied to claim 22 above, and further in view of Pick et al (US 5,330,722 A).
Regarding claim 23, Dabney teaches the system of claim 22, wherein the at least one photon emitting component is configured to adjust one or more of the generated photon emission wavelengths (predetermined wavelengths from about 360 nm to about 600 nm or from about 400 nm to about 500 nm, Dabney pars 0018 and 0046), frequency, duration (exposure time of the radiation may be about one minute but any desired duration of treatment may be selected, par 0046), or location relative to the target and/or substance or area to be treated (radiation sources may be fixed, adjustable, or moveable, par 0002). Dabney does not teach that any of these adjustments is made on the basis of one or more of the density and light absorbing/reflection/scattering quality of the target, substance, or area to be treated.
Pick teaches an analogous germicidal air purifier that exposes bacteria and viruses to ultraviolet radiation and ozone (Abstract, FIG. 11, col 11 lines 24-68), wherein the duration of exposure required to destroy a microorganism depends on a number of variable factors including humidity, the particle density in the air being treated and distance of a microorganism from a source of radiation (col 2 lines 10-25).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to adjust the duration or location of the photon emissions in the method of modified Dabney based on the particle density of the target air being treated as taught by Pick. Doing so would predictably ensure sufficient destruction of bacteria and viruses in the same manner taught by Pick.
Double Patenting
45. The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
46. A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a nonstatutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13.
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer.
47. Claims 1-12, 16, 18, and 20-28 are provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-3, 5-13, 17-18, 20-25, and 27-30 of copending Application No. 17/973,861 (reference application). Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because of semantic differences that do not distract from the fact that the claims overlap to encompass nearly identical scope.
Below is a comparison of claim language, where claim language that differs is in bold:
Present
Copending App. No. 17/973,861
1. A method for enhancing effectiveness of products generated from one or more reactions selected from the group consisting of photoionization reactions, photon-enhanced thermionic emission (PETE) reactions, multi photon absorption (MPA) reactions, photo-oxidation reactions, photocatalytic reactions, photochemical reactions, and/or a combination thereof,
the reactions comprising one or more species from the group consisting of oxidizing agents, hydrogen, oxygen, electronically modified oxygen derivatives, reactive oxygen species, trioxygen, trioxidane and other free radicals, the method comprising:
applying at least one oxidizing agent to a target or a substance or area to be treated;
applying photon emissions at one or more wavelengths in a range from 0.01 nm to 845 nm to the oxidizing agent, the target or the substance or area to be treated, wherein wavelengths that photo-dissociate trioxygen are excluded, and the photon emissions are applied by at least one light source from the group consisting of an electromagnetic radiation emitting bulb, a light emitting diode, and a laser before, during, and/or after the oxidizing agent is applied to the target;
initiating and creating a reaction between the at least one photon enhanced oxidizing agent and the target and/or substance or area to be treated to produce ionization products, oxidation reaction products, reduction reaction products, photon-enhanced thermionic emission (PETE) products, multi photon absorption products, photo-oxidation reaction products, photocatalytic reaction products, photochemical reaction products, and/or a combination of these reaction products,
wherein the ionization reaction products, photon-enhanced thermionic emission (PETE) products, multi photon absorption products, photo oxidation reaction products, photocatalytic reaction products, photochemical reaction products, and/or combination of these reaction products generate at least one of trioxygen, hydrogen and its ions, oxygen and its ions, hydroxyl radical, ROS, free radicals, x-ray photons, beta particles, hydrons, trioxidane, free electrons and electronically modified oxygen derivatives.
2. The method of claim 1, wherein the excluded wavelengths that dissociate trioxygen are selected from the group consisting of: 197 nm – 198 nm, 263 nm – 264 nm, 307 nm – 308 nm, 402 nm – 403 nm, 452 nm – 453 nm, 599 nm – 600 nm, and 1118 nm – 1119 nm.
3. The method of claim 1, further comprising applying the photon emissions by an emission source or sources selected from one of an: an electromagnetic radiation emitting bulb, a light emitting diode, an electrostatic charge generating device, and a laser.
5. The method of claim 1, further comprising applying the at least one oxidizing agent to the target, substance, or area to be treated with an oxidizing agent dispenser or dispensers with at least one of a pump, a mister, a fogger, an atomizer, a diffuser, a piezoelectric atomizer, and an electrostatic sprayer that dispenses the oxidizing agent in a desired particle size.
6. The method of claim 1, further comprising dispensing additional reactants at different intervals to aid the oxidizing reaction, wherein the additional reactants comprise at least one of enzymes, catalysts, stabilizers, ions, photons, beta particles, hydrons, reactive oxygen species, and flocculants.
7. The method of claim 1, wherein the reaction products are used to precipitate and/or agglomerate material out of a liquid, plasma, air, or gas.
8. The method of claim 1, wherein the reaction products are antimicrobial agents and/or bleaching agents.
9. The method of claim 1, further comprising generating photon-enhanced thermionic emission (PETE) products and multi photon absorption products.
10. The method of claim 1, wherein the reaction products provide hydroxyl radicals, trioxidane, hydrogen and its ions, oxygen and its ions, electronically, modified oxygen derivatives (EMODS), free radicals and/or other reactive oxygen species.
11. The method of claim 1, further comprising adjusting viscosity of the target.
12. The method of claim 1, wherein the amount of the at least one oxidizing agent is in a range from less than 1 part per million to 50 percent or more of the volume of the target and/or substance or area to be treated.
16. The method of claim 1, wherein the at least one oxidizing agent comprises at least one of oxygen (O2), trioxygen (O3), hydrogen (H), hydrogen peroxide (H2O2), inorganic peroxides, Fenton’s reagent, fluorine (F2), chlorine (Cl2), halogens, nitric acid (HNO3), nitrate compounds, sulfuric acid (H2SO4), peroxydisulfuric acid (H2S2O8), peroxymonosulfuric acid (H2SO5), sulfur compounds, hypochlorite, chlorite, chlorate, perchlorate, other analogous halogen compounds, chromic acid, dichromic acid, calcium oxide, chromium trioxide, pyridinium chlorochromate (PCC), chromate, dichromate compounds, hexavalent chromium compounds, potassium permanganate (KMnO4), sodium perborate, permanganate compounds, nitrous oxide (N2O), nitrogen dioxide/dinitrogen tetroxide (NO2/N2O4), urea, potassium nitrate (KNO3), sodium bismuthate (NaBiO3), ceric ammonium nitrate, ceric sulfate, cerium (IV) compounds, peracetic acid, and lead dioxide (PbO2).
20. A system configured to perform the method claim 1, the system comprising:
a target or reaction area, in which the at least one oxidizing agent functions together with photon emissions to perform the ionization reaction and/or the oxidation reaction, so that products of the ionization reaction and/or oxidation reaction can be collected and separated at any time during the reaction sequences.
21. The system of claim 20, further comprising one or more sensors configured to indicate, detect, or inform one or more properties of the target or storage or environment comprising:
pH, photon emissions, pressure, temperature, salinity, density, trioxygen concentration, oxygen and oxygen ions concentration, hydrogen and hydrogen ions concentration, hydron concentration, oxidizing agent concentration, flow rate, microbial content, mass, oxidation or reduction potential, electrical potential, presence of ionizing radiation, presence or absence of bacterial species, presence or absence of corrosive metabolites or otherwise corrosive substance, identification of a gas, presence or absence of an aqueous environment, presence or absence of high, low, or otherwise concentration of bacteria or non-bacteria, biomass or non-biomass, or microbial content, and location of biofilms.
22. The system of claim 20, further comprising at least one photon emitting component, wherein the at least one photon emitting component has photon emissions from 10 nanometers to 845 nanometers.
23. The system of claim 22, wherein the at least one photon emitting component adjusts one or more of the generated photon emission wavelengths, frequency, intensity, duration, or location relative to the target and/or substance or area to be treated on the basis of one or more of the density and light transmission potential of the target.
24. The method of claim 1, wherein concentration, temperature, viscosity, and/or pH of the at least one oxidizing agent are adjusted or modulated by the device to produce a desired reaction or results.
25. The method of claim 1, further comprising affecting or initiating the ionization and/or oxidation reaction by adding of photon emissions of from 0.01 nm through 845 nm.
26. The method of claim 1, wherein the duration of the device generated photon emissions is in a range from 1 second to 30 minutes.
27. The method of claim 1, further comprising applying heating or cooling to modulate the reaction.
28. The method of claim 1, wherein the pH of the oxidizing agent, target, and/or substance or area to be treated is optimized by the device to aid in the formation of a desired reactive oxygen species and/or wherein the pH of the oxidizing agent, target and/or substance or area to be treated is optimized by the device to aid in elimination or reduction in activity of selected reactive oxygen species.
1. A method for enhancing effectiveness of products generated from ionization reactions, photon-enhanced thermionic emission reactions, multi photon absorption reactions, photo-oxidation reactions, photocatalytic reactions, photochemical reactions, and/or a combination of these reactions,
the reactions comprising one or more of oxidizing agents, reactive nitrogen species, hydrogen and/or its isotopes, oxygen and/or its isotopes, electronically modified oxygen derivatives, reactive oxygen species, trioxygen, beta particles, hydrons, trioxidane, and other free radicals, the method comprising:
applying at least one oxidizing agent to a target, a substance, or an area to be treated;
applying photon emissions at one or more wavelengths in a range from 0.01 nm to 845 nm to the oxidizing agent, the target, the substance, and/or the area to be treated, wherein wavelengths that photo-dissociate trioxygen are excluded; and
performing an oxidizing reaction between the at least one photon augmented oxidizing agent and the target, the substance, and/or the area to be treated, which produces the ionization reaction products, photon-enhanced thermionic emission reaction products, multi photon absorption reaction products, photo-oxidation reaction products, photocatalytic reaction products, photochemical reaction products, and/or a combination of the reaction products thereof,
wherein the ionization reaction products, photon-enhanced thermionic emission reaction products, multi photon absorption reaction products, photo oxidation reaction products, photocatalytic reaction products, photochemical reaction products, and/or combination of the reaction products thereof generate at least one of trioxygen, hydrogen and its ions, oxygen and its ions, hydroxyl radical, reactive oxygen species, free radicals, x-ray photons, beta particles, hydrons, trioxidane, free electrons, and electronically modified oxygen derivatives.
2. The method of claim 1, wherein the excluded wavelengths that dissociate trioxygen are selected from the group consisting of: 197 nm - 198 nm, 263 nm - 264 nm, 307 nm - 308 nm, 402 nm- 403 nm, 452 nm- 453 nm, 599 nm- 600 nm, and 1118nm-1119 nm.
3. The method of claim 1, wherein the photon emissions are applied by an emission source selected from the group consisting of an x-ray generator, electromagnetic radiation emitting bulb, Light Emitting Diode, and laser.
5. The method of claim 1, wherein the at least one oxidizing agent is applied to the target, the substance, and/or the area to be treated with an oxidizing agent dispenser selected from the group consisting of a pump, mister, fogger, atomizer, diffuser, and electrostatic sprayer.
6. The method of claim 1, further comprising applying additional reactants at various stages to aid the oxidizing reaction, wherein the additional reactants are selected from the group consisting of enzymes, catalysts, stabilizers, ions, photons, beta particles, hydrons, reactive oxygen species, and
flocculants.
7. The method of claim 1, wherein the reaction products are used to precipitate and/or agglomerate material out of a liquid, plasma, air, or gas.
8. The method of claim 1, wherein the reaction products are antimicrobial agents and/or bleaching agents.
9. The method of claim 1, wherein at least one of photon-enhanced thermionic emission products and multi photon absorption products are generated.
10. The method of claim 1, wherein the reaction products are a catalyst, a reactant, or a substance providing hydroxyl radicals, trioxidane, hydrogen and its ions, oxygen and its ions, electronically modified oxygen derivatives, beta particles, hydrons, free radicals, or reactive oxygen species.
12. The method of claim 1, wherein the viscosity of the target is adjusted to aid the reactions.
13. The method of claim 1, wherein the amount of the at least one oxidizing agent is in a range from less than 1 part per million to 50 percent or more of the volume of the target, the substance and/or the area to be treated.
17. The method of claim 1, wherein the at least one oxidizing agent is selected from the group consisting of oxygen (02), trioxygen (03), hydrogen (H), hydrogen peroxide (H202), inorganic peroxides, Fenton's reagent, fluorine (F2), chlorine (Cl2), halogens, nitric acid (HNO3), nitrate compounds, sulfuric acid (H2SO4), peroxydisulfuric acid (H2S208), peroxymonosulfuric acid (H2SOS), sulfur compounds, hypochlorite, chlorite, chlorate, perchlorate, other analogous halogen compounds, chromic acid, dichromic acid, calcium oxide, chromium trioxide, pyridinium chlorochromate (PCC), chromate, dichromate compounds, hexavalent chromium compounds, potassium permanganate (KMnO4), sodium perborate, permanganate compounds, nitrous oxide (N20), nitrogen dioxide/dinitrogen tetroxide (N02/N204), urea, potassium nitrate (KNO3), sodium bismuthate (NaBiO3), ceric ammonium nitrate, ceric sulfate, cerium (IV) compounds, peracetic acid, and lead dioxide (PbO2) and any other oxidizing agent or oxidizing agents.
21. A system configured to perform the method of claim 1, comprising:
a reaction area, in which the at least one oxidizing agent functions together with photon emissions to perform the ionization reaction and/or the oxidation reaction, so that products of the ionization reaction and/or oxidation reaction can be collected and separated at any time during the reaction sequences;
at least one oxidizing agent introducing component for applying the at least one oxidizing agent to the target, the substance, and/or the area to be treated; and
at least one photon emission emitting component for creating and dispensing the photon emissions.
22. The system of claim 21, further comprising one or more sensors or other devices to indicate, detect, or inform of one or more of the following properties of the target or storage or environment:
pH, photon emissions, pressure, temperature, salinity, density, trioxygen concentration, oxygen and its ions concentration, hydrogen and its ions concentration, hydron concentration, oxidizing agent concentration, flow rate, microbial content, presence or absence of bacterial species, presence or absence of corrosive metabolites or otherwise corrosive substance, identification of a gas, presence or absence of an aqueous environment, presence or absence of high, low, or otherwise concentration of bacteria or non-bacteria, biomass or non-biomass, or microbial content, and location of biofilms.
23. The system of claim 21, further comprising at least one photon emitting component, wherein the at least one photon emitting component emits, delivers, produces, or otherwise facilitates photon emissions from 0.01 nanometers to 845 nanometers independently, simultaneous, continuously, or intermittently, wherein the at least one photon emitting component is suspended, adjacent to, inside of, surrounding, or associated with a container, structure, area of the at least one oxidizing agent, the target, substance, and/or the area to be treated, and/or supported in a target container, and
wherein the at least one photon emitting component is or is not physically close to the at least one oxidizing agent, the target, the substance, and/or area to be treated.
24. The system of claim 23, wherein the at least one photon emitting component adjusts one or more of: the photon emission wavelengths, frequency, intensity, duration, or location relative to the target, the substance, and/or the area to be treated on the basis of one or more of density, light absorbing, scattering, or reflection quality of the target, the substance, and/or the area to be treated;
the size, shape, or composition of the reaction area; conditions or properties of the environment;
whether the target, the substance, and/or the area to be treated is under aerobic or anaerobic conditions; pH, temperature, or salinity of the target, the substance, and/or the area to be treated;
consortium or population characteristics of any organisms or micro-organisms present in the target, the substance, and/or the area to be treated; microbial content of the target, the substance, and/or the area to be treated; microbial content of any biofilm present in the target, the substance, and/or the area to be treated; the reaction area; or the environment.
25. The method of claim 1, wherein concentration, temperature, viscosity, and/or pH of the at least one oxidizing agent are adjusted to produce a desired reaction or results.
27. The method of claim 1, wherein the oxidation reaction is affected or initiated by the addition of other catalysts including exogenous and/or endogenous photon emissions of from 0.01 nm through 845 nm.
28. The method of claim 1, wherein the duration of the photon emissions is in a range from less than 1 second to 30 minutes, the photon emissions continuous, pulsed, or intermittent.
29. The method of claim 1, wherein the at least one oxidizing agent, target, the substance, and/or
the area to be treated is heated or cooled to activate and/or inactivate enzymes present in the target, the substance, and/or the area to be treated.
30. The method of claim 1, wherein the pH of the oxidizing agent, target, the substance and/or the area to be treated is optimized to aid in formation of a desired reactive oxygen species, and/or wherein the pH of the oxidizing agent, target, the substance, and/or the area to be treated is optimized to aid in elimination or reduction in activity of selected reactive oxygen species.
48. Regarding the textual differences above, the claim language of the present application differs from the reference application mainly in form with no non-obvious differences in scope, apart from a narrowing of the wavelength range of photon emissions that falls within the scope of the reference claims. All limitations in claim 1 of the present application are recited by the reference application, except for “the photon emissions may be applied by at least one light source selected from the group consisting of an electromagnetic radiation emitting bulb, a light emitting diode, or a laser before, during, and/or after the oxidizing agent is applied to the target”, of which the light source is recited in dependent claim 3 of the reference application and the application of light “before, during, and/or after” provides no material limitation to the claim. Further, there is no material difference between “performing an oxidizing reaction” and “initiating and creating a reaction” between an oxidizing agent and a target, as this is known to be an oxidizing reaction.
49. Regarding claim 4, not tabulated above, the reference claims recite products of “photocatalytic reactions” and “photooxidation reactions”, which are understood to generate an electrostatic charge to particles, molecules, and/or atoms, e.g., in producing at least the recited species “trioxygen”. Therefore, the present limitation wherein “the emissions generate an electrostatic charge to associated particles, molecules and/or atoms” is inherently described by an embodiment of the reference claims. This logic also applies to the present claim 7 recitation of the reaction products receive an electrostatic charge that gives these products the inherent capability to precipitate and/or agglomerate other materials from a liquid, plasma, air, or gas.
50. Regarding claim 18, not tabulated above, the reference claims recite wherein the at least one oxidizing agent can be applied to the target, substance, or area to be treated using a mister, fogger, atomizer, diffuser, or electrostatic sprayer (claim 5), which would necessarily comprise “dispersing the at least one oxidizing agent when the oxidizing agent is applied to the target and/or substance or area to be treated”, reading upon the claim.
51. This is a provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejection because the patentably indistinct claims have not in fact been patented.
Response to Arguments
52. Applicant's arguments, see Remarks filed 19 June 2026, with respect to the rejections of claims 1-12,16,18 and 20-28 under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) have been fully considered but they are not persuasive, as new indefiniteness was introduced in the second page of claim 1 by the hanging phrases “the at least one photon enhanced oxidizing agent derived therefrom” and “wherein the photoionization products, photon-enhanced thermionic emission products, multi-photon absorption products, photo-oxidation reaction products, photocatalytic reaction products, photochemical reaction products, and combinations thereof”.
53. Applicant's arguments, see Remarks filed 19 June 2026, with respect to the rejections of claims 1-3, 5-8, 12,16,18 and 20-28 under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) have been fully considered but they are not persuasive, because the wavelengths that are known to dissociate ozone in Hartley band from 200-310 nm and the Huggins band from 310-360 nm as evidenced by Takahashi (pg 4084 col 1) are excluded in the preferred mode of Dabney. Even for claim 2, which is constructed such that the excluded wavelength ranges are listed as Markush alternatives, the disclosure of Dabney of a preferred range of 360-600 nm excludes at least one of the listed ranges to read upon the claim.
54. Applicant's arguments, see Remarks filed 19 June 2026 pages 19-22, with respect to the rejection of claims 4 and 7 under 35 U.S.C. 103 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive because of the above evidence regarding claim 1. The change of scope of claim 7 to remove the electrostatic charge necessitates the change of reference to Flick, who teaches the oxidizer already present (hydrogen peroxide) can be used to precipitate hardness without further process modification (Flick par 0006).
55. Applicant's arguments, see Remarks filed 19 June 2026 pages 19-22, with respect to the rejection of claim 9 under 35 U.S.C. 103 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Applicant asserts that Warren’s high-irradiance pulsed laser is nonanalogous art and cannot be combined with Dabney’s “intended purpose of gentle decontamination”, thus should be disqualified. Examiner disagrees, as Warren is relied upon more as an evidentiary reference that photon-enhanced free electrons are produced in living cells under a strong laser incidence, adding no modification to the tangible method steps. A review of the literature produces few examples where the claimed photon-enhanced thermionic emission is detectable without a specially tuned semiconductor target (and never in a regime of “gentle decontamination” as argued by Applicant), but Examiner further cites Elezzabi (US 9,550,069 B1) as evidence that thermionic emission is known to occur when high-intensity laser pulses produce multiphoton absorption then inherently would produce thermionic emission when pulse duration is long enough to bottleneck absorption mechanisms (col 4 lines 19-55 and col 7 lines 4-13). Examiner maintains that the modification with Lee ‘832 is proper as the use of such a laser is not only analogous to the field of endeavor but it is also suggested by claim 3, and further points out that it would be difficult to defend a method that relies on primary mechanisms of PETE and MPA in the absence of such high power emissions.
56. Applicant's arguments, see Remarks filed 19 June 2026 page 23, with respect to the rejection of claim 11 under 35 U.S.C. 103 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Applicant asserts regarding claim 11 that Conrad teaches adjusting the viscosity of the target, substance, or area to be treated and not of the oxidizing agent, to which the Examiner suggests defining the target/substance/area with more specific structure. As Conrad teaches that the viscosity of the oxidizing agent solution can be adjusted to determine droplet size and retention on the target surface (Conrad par 0279), the viscosity of the surface treated by the droplets is thus adjusted.
57. Applicant's arguments, see Remarks filed 19 June 2026 page 24, with respect to the rejection of claim 23 under 35 U.S.C. 103 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Applicant asserts that the references do not teach that products of the oxidation reaction can be collected and separated during the reaction, to which Examiner points to the Dabney par 0038 teaching that any excess solution or runoff of oxidizing agent is to be drained from passageway 402, which constitutes a collection or separation from the reaction area.
58. Applicant’s request to hold the nonstatutory double patenting rejection over application no. 17/973,861 in abeyance is not granted because only objections or requirements as to form may be held in abeyance per 37 CFR 1.111. Accordingly, the rejection is reiterated above.
Conclusion
59. Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
60. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Eric Talbert whose telephone number is (703)756-5538. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri 8:00-5:00 Eastern Time.
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.
/ERIC TALBERT/Examiner, Art Unit 1758
/MARIS R KESSEL/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1758
Prosecution Insights