DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
1. 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
2. Applicant's election with traverse of claims 1-12 and 16-28 in the reply filed on 15 January 2026 is acknowledged. The traversal is on the ground(s) that the choice of species is too narrow to capture the scope of the invention, as the common inventive concept of all claims involves enhancing oxidizing reactions by applying photonic excitation energy. This is not found persuasive because Examiner finds the broad category of oxidizing reactions to contain many types of reagents that can be non-obvious variants and the broad category of photon emissions to encompass many wavelengths that can be non-obvious to one another in certain applications. Examiner clarifies that the election of Species 2a, directed toward antimicrobial ion generation for air ducts from a group of various targets/applications for the enhanced oxidation products, is helpful for determining the appropriate field of endeavor for examination and will be considered on a level of generality inclusive of antimicrobial ion generation in air.
The requirement is still deemed proper and is therefore made FINAL.
Claims 13-15 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b), as being drawn to nonelected species, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Applicant timely traversed the restriction (election) requirement in the reply filed on 15 January 2026.
Specification
3. The disclosure is objected to because of the following informalities:
Several well-known technical terms used throughout need not be capitalized, including colony forming units (par 0016), hydrogen (par 0029), photon augmented oxidizing agents (par 0095), x-ray (par 0100), total external reflection (par 0100), reactive oxygen species (par 0104), peroxide (par 0107), enhanced oxidizing agent (par 0138).
In par 0016, the acronym “MPA” should be defined upon first use.
Table 2 (par 0079) includes scanned text that is illegible.
In par 0098, “2000 F” should read --2000 °F-- and “1000 F” should read --1000 °F--.
In par 0098, the acronym “SRBs” should be defined upon first use.
In par 0104, “Ultra-Violet” should read “Ultraviolet” and “Reactive nitrogen species (RNS) is a subset of reactive oxygen species Trioxygen” should likely read --Reactive nitrogen species (RNS) is a subset of reactive oxygen species. Trioxygen”.
Appropriate correction is required.
4. The lengthy specification has not been checked to the extent necessary to determine the presence of all possible minor errors. Applicant’s cooperation is requested in correcting any errors of which applicant may become aware in the specification.
Claim Objections
5. Claim 1 is objected to because of the following informalities: in lines 14, “the target and/or substance or area to be treated” should read --the target or substance or area to be treated--, as line 8 presents these strictly as alternatives.
6. Claim 3 is objected to because of the following informalities: in line 2, “selected from one of an: x-ray generator” should read --selected from the group consisting of: an x-ray generator--, to clearly express a single choice from a closed list of alternatives.
7. Claim 4 is objected to because of the following informalities: in line 2, “the emissions” should read --the photon emissions--.
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. Claims 12, 17-19, and 23 are objected to because of the following informalities: instances of “the target and/or substance or area to be treated” should read --the target or substance or area to be treated--, as line 8 of claim 1 presents these strictly as alternatives.
10. Claim 17 is further objected to because of the following informalities: in line 5, “micro-organism” should read --microorganisms--.
11. 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--.
12. 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.
13. Claim 22 is objected to because of the following informalities: “wherein the at least one photon emitting component has photon emissions from 0.01 nm to 845 nm” should read --wherein the photon emitting component is generates the photon emissions, wherein the photon emissions have a wavelength from 0.01 nm to 845 nm--.
Appropriate correction is required.
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 and 16-28 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 reactions comprising one or more of oxidizing agents, 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” appears to recite these reaction constituents as a list of alternatives but includes the open transitional phrase “comprising” and the conjunction “and”. Thus, it is unclear whether the claim requires one or more of each of the claimed species, as indicated by the plain meaning of the language, or simply requires one or more of the alternatives. For purposes of examination, the list is interpreted as a Markush grouping of alternatives, which can be made proper by following acceptable formats as outlined in MPEP 2117.
Claim 1 recites the limitation "the device" in line 12. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Further, the limitation wherein the photon emissions “may be applied by the device…before, during, and/or after the oxidizing agent is applied to the target” is treated as an optional limitation, but it is unclear to which of the following limitations the conditional term “may” actually applies. For purposes of examination, the entire quoted limitation is treated as optional and not required by the claim, in part because “the target” only carries patentable weight in instances of the method wherein the target is chosen from the list of alternatives in line 8 of the claim.
17. Claims 2-12 and 16-28 are indefinite by virtue of their dependence on indefinite claim 1.
18. Claim 4 recites the limitation “associated particles, molecules, and/or atoms”. As it is unclear which particles, molecules, and/or atoms would be considered “associated”, the scope of the limitation is indefinite.
19. Regarding claim 5, the limitation “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” appears as a list of alternatives, but it is unclear whether the functional phrase “that dispenses the oxidizing agent” applies only to the electrostatic sprayer or to any alternative listed. Further, the conjunction “and” denotes that all of these alternatives should be required by the claim, contradicting the Specification which denotes these as alternatives (e.g., par 0041). Thus, the claim is interpreted as an improper Markush grouping of a closed list of alternatives and should be revised e.g., according to MPEP 2117.
20. Claim 6 recites the limitation “at different intervals”, and it is unclear what is meant by the limitation as the instant Specification only references such intervals with regard to timed PEOA delays (par 0139). For examination purposes, the claim is interpreted such that the additional reactants may be dispensed at various stages of the method according to paragraph 0180.
Claim 6 further recites the limitation “wherein the additional reactants comprise at least one of enzymes, catalysts, stabilizers, ions, photons, beta particles, hydrons, reactive oxygen species, and flocculants”. The conjunction “and” denotes that all of these alternatives should be required by the claim, contradicting the Specification which denotes these as alternatives (e.g., par 0180). Thus, the scope of which alternatives are required by the claim is indefinite. See MPEP 2173.05(h) for proper format of alternative limitations.
21. Claim 11 recites the limitation "the target". There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim, as a target is not required in all instances of the method of claim 1. In the instances where a substance or area to be treated are chosen from the listed alternatives in line 8 of claim 1, it is unclear what adjusting a viscosity would entail.
22. Claim 12 recites the limitation "the amount" in line 1 and “the volume” in line 2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for these limitations in the claim, as none of the target/substance/area are defined to have a volume, and it is unclear what measurable form i.e. units this amount would assume considering that it must equate to a partial volume.
23. Claim 16 recites the limitation “other analogous halogen compounds”, which renders the claim indefinite because the claim includes elements not actually disclosed (as those having ordinary skill in the art may reasonably disagree what constitutes “analogous”), thereby rendering the scope of the claim unascertainable. See MPEP § 2173.05(d).
24. Claim 19 recites the series “pH, temperature, salinity” without including a conjunction, and it is unclear whether the clause would require all of these or only one of these to meet the claim. Examiner recommends inserting an “and” or “or” before salinity as appropriate and will interprets this as an “or” for purposes of examination.
25. Regarding claim 20, it is unclear whether the limitation “a target or reaction area” intends to refer to the same target or area introduced in line 8 of claim 1 or to a different target/area. Likewise, it is unclear whether the limitation “photon emissions” in lines 2-3 refer to the same photon emissions of the method of claim 1 or to different/additional photon emissions. Further, the claim recites the limitation "the reaction sequences" in the last line, and there is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
26. Claim 21 recites the limitation "the target or storage or environment" in line 2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim, as no definite storage or environment spaces have been established.
Claim 21 further recites a list of one or more properties “comprising: pH…and location of biofilms”. The open term “comprising” indicates that the claim is open to unrecited alternatives, but the scope of all possible alternatives is unascertainable. Further, the terms “non-bacteria” and “non-biomass” have an indefinite meaning, though are interpreted broadly as anything that is not bacteria and anything that is not biomass, respectively, for examination purposes. See MPEP 2173.05(h) for proper format of alternative limitations.
27. Claim 23 recites the limitation "the target". There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim, as a target is not required in all instances of the method of claim 1 or the system of claim 20. In the instances where a substance or area to be treated are chosen from the listed alternatives, it is unclear what property of density or light transmission potential the adjustment would be based on.
28. Claim 26 recites the limitation "the duration of the device generated photon emissions". There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim, as it is unclear whether there is a distinction between these device generated photon emissions and the photon emissions recited in line 9 of claim 1, or whether multiple durations may be possible in the implementation of the claimed method.
29. Claim 28 recites the limitation "selected reactive oxygen species" in lines 4-5. It is unclear whether this includes all of the reactive oxygen species introduced in claim 1, only the desired reactive oxygen species introduced in line 2 of the claim, or some unknown subset, so the claim scope is indefinite.
Further, claim 28 recites wherein a pH is “optimized”, which is a subjective term as those of ordinary skill in the art may reasonably disagree what optimized conditions might be. Therefore, the scope of claimed conditions is indefinite.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
30. 35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
31. Claims 17 and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. Claim 17 recites a series of alternatives including steps of “determining if one or more properties of the target or substance or area to be treated is under aerobic or anaerobic conditions” and “determining consortium or population characteristics of organisms or microorganisms present”, actions that do not have a tangible form or result. Claim 19 recites a “determining and selecting” step wherein such determination/selection is made “on the basis of any one or more of” a series of alternative characteristics, some directly measured and some indirectly determined, similar to that listed above regarding claim 17. These abstract ideas do not fit neatly into one of the four statutory categories and are analyzed for patent eligibility as follows.
32. In accordance with MPEP 2106, the claims are found to recite statutory subject matter outside of the limitations in question (Step 1: Yes) and are analyzed to determine if the claims recite any concepts that equate to an abstract idea, law of nature, or natural phenomenon (Step 2A: Prong 1). In the instant application, the “determining” and “selecting” steps in the context of this claim refer to mental processes, method steps that can be performed in the human mind and treated equally under the judicial exception to an abstract idea. See MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(III). Accordingly, the claims recite abstract ideas (Step 2A, Prong 1: Yes). For the purposes of analysis, these two instances of a judicial exception are treated together in accordance with MPEP 2106.04(II)(B). Examiner notes that some uses of “determining” such as “determining pH of the target” direct to a tangible measurement action, i.e., not an abstract idea, but that “determining if one or more properties of the target or substance or area to be treated is under aerobic or anaerobic conditions” and “determining consortium or population characteristics of organisms or microorganisms present” include an act of categorizing based on raw data gathered that is akin to making a decision, i.e., are properly treated as a mental process according to MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(III).
33. This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because the claims do not recite any additional elements that reflect an improvement to technology or apply the judicial exception in some other meaningful way (Step 2A, Prong 2: No). In claim 17, the steps of “determining if one or more properties of the target or substance or area to be treated is under aerobic or anaerobic conditions” and “determining consortium or population characteristics of organisms or microorganisms present” is not applied in any material way to the reaction that is the thrust of the method, thus these appear to be insignificant extra-solution activities. See MPEP 2106.05(g). In claim 19, the mental processes of determining and selecting on the basis of listed conditions result in a choice of setting for “at least one of the photon emission wavelengths, frequency, intensity, duration, or location” but offers no correlation to how the selection would be affected by any of the measured variables. Thus, the determining and selecting step is stated with a high degree of generality and would be considered generally linking the abstract idea to the field of endeavor and not a particular practical application. See MPEP 2106.05(h). Further, the claim language fails to recite details of how a solution to a problem is accomplished using the determination and selection steps, simply amounting to a recitation of the words “apply it” to the stated control problem. See MPEP 2106.05(f). To overcome this, Examiner recommends reciting a specific cause-and-effect relationship between each measured environmental condition and the resultant selection of photon emission properties.
34. The claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because all elements required for the execution of the claimed method appear well-understood, routine, and conventional within the air sterilization arts. (Step 2B: No). See MPEP 2106.05(h). At least the following elements are taught by Dabney (US 20190060492 A1), including oxidizing agents (e.g., hydrogen peroxide, par 0015), synergistic radiation (par 0002), and a light source such as a bulb or LED (par 0018). Therefore, the claims do not amount to significantly more than the judicial exception itself and, as such, are not patent eligible.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
35. 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.
36. 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).
37. 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 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 0.01 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);
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 (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) to produce at least photochemical reaction products (synergistic reaction between the solution and the radiation, par 0003), wherein the photochemical reaction products generate at least ROS (e.g., hydrogen peroxide in combination with radiation, par 0015).
The limitations wherein wavelengths that photo-dissociate trioxygen may be excluded, and the photon emissions may be applied by the device to the oxidizing agent before, during, and/or after the oxidizing agent is applied to the target are interpreted as optional and not required by the claim, as they are led by the conditional term “may”.
38. Regarding claim 2, Dabney discloses the method of claim 1, wherein the excluded wavelengths invoked from claim 1 above are considered an optional limitation and thus are not required by the claim.
39. 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).
40. 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) with at least one 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) that dispenses 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).
41. Regarding claim 6, Dabney discloses 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 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).
42. 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).
43. Regarding claim 10, Dabney discloses the method of claim 1, wherein the reaction products provide other reactive oxygen species (supercharged solution of hydrogen peroxide, par 0040).
44. 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).
45. Regarding claim 16, Dabney discloses the method of claim 1, wherein the at least one oxidizing agent comprises at least hydrogen peroxide (par 0040).
46. Regarding claim 17, Dabney discloses the method of claim 1, further comprising determining pH of the target and/or substance or area to be treated (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), and/or determining temperature of the target and/or substance or area to be treated (temperature of the solution may be adjusted to increase or optimize its effectiveness, par 0041; solution applied to target area may work best at a temperature of about 57 degrees Celsius, pars 0015 and 0019).
47. 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 and/or substance or area to be treated (aerosolize the combined solution to fill/coat target room, par 0026).
48. Regarding claim 19, Dabney discloses the method of claim 1, further comprising determining and selecting at least one of the photon emission wavelengths or duration on the basis of conditions or properties of the environment of the target and/or substance or area to be treated (solution may be exposed to radiation in a wavelength of 360 nm to 600 nm or any other wavelength that proves effective for a certain time that may range from 1 second to greater than 1 minute, par 0015), or location relative to the target and/or substance or area to be treated on the basis of conditions or properties of the environment of the target and/or substance or area to be treated (lights 406 may be formed on walls 410 and nozzles 408 may be positioned at a top portion of passageway 402, or any other desired locations in passageway, par 0037).
49. Regarding claim 20, Dabney discloses a system (system 400, par 0038, FIG. 4) 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), so that products of the ionization reaction and/or oxidation reaction can be collected and separated at any time during the reaction sequences (any excess solution or runoff to be drained from passageway 402 [before or after synergistic effect of antimicrobial solution with light], par 0038).
50. 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 target or storage or environment (associated motion sensor, par 0038) comprising: presence or absence of non-bacteria/biomass (motion sensor detects when a user walks into system, par 0038).
51. Regarding claim 22, Dabney discloses the system of claim 20, further comprising at least one photon emitting component (radiation source providing light radiation at predetermined wavelengths, par 0019), wherein the at least one photon emitting component has photon emissions from 0.01 nanometers to 845 nanometers (wavelength of 360 nm to 600 nm or any other wavelength that proves effective, pars 0015 and 0041).
52. 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).
53. 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 0.01 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).
54. Regarding claim 26, Dabney discloses the method of claim 1, wherein the duration of the device generated photon emissions is in a range from 1 second to 30 minutes (exposure from about a few second to a few minutes, par 0040).
55. 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).
56. Regarding claim 28, Dabney teaches 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 reduction in activity of selected 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).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
57. 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.
58. 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 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).
59. 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 Neister et al (US 20170304472 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 receive an electrostatic charge and are used to precipitate and/or agglomerate material out of a liquid, plasma, air, or gas.
Neister teaches an analogous method for disinfecting and sterilizing air and surfaces (Abstract) producing an oxidizing agent in an airflow (oxidized air/ozone, pars 0036 and 0077) wherein the reaction products in the airflow flow through a high E field electrostatic precipitator to remove particulates and reduce any ozone to oxygen (par 0103).
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 to the reaction products in the method of Dabney an electrostatic charge as taught by Neister. Doing so would predictably provide the same capability to precipitate and/or agglomerate material out of the air/gas flow, advantageously removing particulates and reducing harmful ozone as taught by Neister.
60. 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.
61. 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 Dabney does not teach adjusting viscosity of the target.
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 Dabney adjusting viscosity of the target 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.
62. 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 adjusts 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, 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 transmission potential of the target.
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 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
63. 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).
64. 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.
65. Claims 1-12 and 16-28 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 ionization reactions, photon-enhanced thermionic emission (PETE) reactions, multi photon absorption (MPA) reactions, photo-oxidation reactions, photocatalytic reactions, photochemical reactions, and/or a combination of these reactions, the reactions comprising one or more of oxidizing agents, 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 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, and/or the substance or area to be treated, wherein wavelengths that photo-dissociate trioxygen may be excluded, and the photon emissions may be applied by the device to the oxidizing agent 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: x-ray generator, 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 receive an electrostatic charge and 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), beta particles, hydrons, 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).
17. The method of claim 1, further comprising determining if one or more properties of the target and/or substance or area to be treated is under aerobic or anaerobic conditions, determining pH of the target and/or substance or area to be treated, determining temperature of the target and/or substance or area to be treated, determining salinity of the target and/or substance or area to be treated, determining consortium or population characteristics of organisms or micro-organism present, determining content of the target and/or substance or area to be treated, and/or determining content of any biofilms associated with the target and/or substance or area to be treated .
19. The method of claim 1, further comprising determining and selecting at least one of the photon emission wavelengths, frequency, intensity, duration, or location relative to the target and/or substance or area to be treated on the basis of any one or more of:
density and radiation absorption, scattering or reflection quality of the target and/or substance or area to be treated; a size, shape, or composition of a container containing the target and/or substance or area to be treated; conditions or properties of the environment of the target and/or substance or area to be treated; whether the target and/or substance or area to be treated is under aerobic or anaerobic conditions; pH, temperature, salinity of the target and/or substance or area to be treated;
consortium or population characteristics of any organisms or microorganisms present in the target and/or substance or area to be treated; microbial content of the target and/or substance or area to be treated; and microbial content of any biofilm present in the target and/or substance or area to be treated.
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 0.01 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.
18. The method of claim 1, further comprising determining the formulation of the at least one oxidizing agent, wherein the formulation is based on one or more properties of whether the target, the substance, and/or the area to be treated is under aerobic or anaerobic conditions, pH of the target, the substance, and/or the area to be treated, temperature of the target, the substance, and/or the area to be treated, salinity of the target, the substance, and/or the area to be treated, consortium or population characteristics of organisms or micro-organism present, content of the target, the substance, and/or
the area to be treated, or content of any biofilms associated with the target, the substance, and/or the area to be treated .
20. The method of claim 1, wherein at least one of the photon emission wavelength, frequency, intensity, duration, or location relative to the target, the substance and/or the area to be treated is determined on the basis of any one or more of:
the density and radiation absorbing, scattering or reflection quality of the target, the substance, and/or the area to be treated; the size, shape, or composition of a container containing the target, the substance, and/or the area to be treated; conditions or properties of the environment of the target, the substance, and/or the area to be treated;
whether the target, the substance, and/or the area to be treated is under aerobic or anaerobic conditions; pH, temperature, salinity of the target, the substance, and/or the area to be treated; consortium or population characteristics of any organisms or microorganisms 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; or a container containing the target, the substance, and/or the area to be treated.
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.
66. 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. All limitations in claim 1 of the present application are recited by the reference application, except for “the photon emissions may be applied by the device to the oxidizing agent before, during, and/or after the oxidizing agent is applied to the target”, which is a conditional phrase that adds no weight; since photon emissions are applied in the reference claim, these emissions must be applied before, during, and/or after as this describes all temporal possibilities for applying these emissions. 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. Reciting “the device” without providing specific device structure and reciting additional alternative limitations are deemed not to materially affect the scope.
67. 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 “wherein the reaction products receive an electrostatic charge”.
68. 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.
69. This is a provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejection because the patentably indistinct claims have not in fact been patented.
Conclusion
70. 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