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 .
DETAILED ACTION
Election/Restrictions
Applicant's election with traverse of Species A in the reply filed on 5/12/2026 is acknowledged. The traversal is on the ground(s) that “subject matter is directed to modularity and adaptability rather than to separate fixed configuration” and “claim 6 cuts across the alleged species”. This is not found persuasive because the specification does not particularly disclose a configuration where two or more different inlet or outlet modules are utilized together (see published application, Figures 1a-6b, [0023]-[0025] and [0069]-[0071] which only sets forth individual/independent embodiment where only each/one inlet/outlet module configuration is utilized) and because the claim language (i.e. “group that includes”) in claim 6 does not limit the configuration to only having two different outlet modules.
The requirement is still deemed proper and is therefore made FINAL.
However, upon reconsideration, the Species B has been rejoined and claims 1-4, 6-8 and 10-15 are being examined. Thus, Claims 5 and 9 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b), as being drawn to a nonelected species, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Applicant timely traversed the restriction (election) requirement in the reply filed on 5/12/2026.
Claim Objections
Claims 1-4, 6-8, and 10-15 are objected to because of the following informalities:
in line 10 of Claim 1, delete both instances of “H2O2” and -- H202--;
in line 13 of Claim 1, delete both instances of “H2O2” and -- H202--;
in line 2 of Claim 1,
delete “the discharge arrangement comprises”,
insert --at least one-- before “detachable”, and
delete “, which”;
in line 4 of Claim 4, insert --at least one-- before “decontamination”;
in line 2 of Claim 6, insert --decontamination-- before “system”;
in line 3 of Claim 8,
insert --at least one decontamination-- before “unit”,
insert --the-- between “via” and “air channel”;
in line 3 of Claim 10, insert --at least one decontamination-- before “unit”;
in line 2 of Claim 12, insert --the-- between “wherein” and “at least two”;
in line 3 of Claim 12, insert --at least one decontamination-- before “unit”;
in line 2 of Claim 13, insert --at least one detachable-- before “outlet”;
in line 3 of Claim 13, insert --at least one-- before “decontamination unit”;
in line 2 of Claim 14, insert --at least one detachable-- before “inlet”;
in line 3 of Claim 14, insert --at least one decontamination-- before “unit”;
in line 2 of Claim 15, insert --at least one decontamination-- before “unit”;
in line 3 of Claim 15, delete “H2O2” and -- H202--.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitation(s) is/are: “H2O2 supply device” in claim 1; “control means” in claim 10.
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. The following structure(s) corresponds to the “H2O2 supply device”: a H2O2 generator. In addition, the following structure corresponds to the “control means”: a damper.
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.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that use the word “means” or “step” but are nonetheless not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph because the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure, materials, or acts to entirely perform the recited function. Such claim limitation(s) is/are: “decontamination unit” and “inlet arrangement” and “discharge arrangement” and “detachable outlet module” and “detachable inlet module” in claim 1; “outlet module” in claim 6.
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are not being interpreted to cover only the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant intends 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 remove the structure, materials, or acts that performs the claimed function; or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) does/do not recite sufficient structure, materials, or acts to perform the claimed function.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 1-4, 6-8, and 10-15 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.
In Claim 1, it is not clear whether “a space” in the last line is attempting to point to the “contaminated space” as set forth in lines 1-2 or to another space.
In Claim 4, it is not clear whether the limitation “the discharge arrangement comprises a detachable outlet module” is attempting to set forth a new/different/additional “detachable outlet module” or to the “at least one detachable outlet module” as set forth in the parent claim 1.
In Claim 6, it is not clear to which one of “at least two detachable outlet module” or to “an outlet module” (in line 3) the limitations “the outlet module” in lines 3 and lines 3-4 are attempting to point to.
In Claim 7, it is not clear whether the limitation “the inlet arrangement comprises a detachable inlet module” is attempting to set forth a new/different/additional “detachable inlet module” or to the “at least one detachable inlet module” as set forth in the parent claim 1.
In Claim 8, it is not clear whether the limitation “the inlet arrangement comprises a detachable inlet module” is attempting to set forth a new/different/additional “detachable inlet module” or to the “at least one detachable inlet module” as set forth in the parent claim 1.
In Claim 15, it is not clear to which of two spaces (i.e. the contaminated space or the space) the limitation “the space” in line 3 is attempting to point to.
Claims 2-3 and 10-14 are rejected due to their dependence on a rejected claim.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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.
Claim(s) 1-2 and 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Weiss (20090130047).
As to Claim 1, Weiss (‘047) discloses a decontamination system for sterilizing a contaminated space, comprising at least one decontamination unit (100) through which air of the contaminated space is recirculated (see Figures 8-17), the at least one decontamination unit (100) comprising
an inlet arrangement (119) for introducing air (118) from the contaminated space into the at least one decontamination unit (100) (see Figure 16);
a discharge arrangement (111) for discharging gas out of the at least one decontamination unit (100) (see Figures 16-17);
a fan (112) for creating an air flow from the inlet arrangement (119) to the discharging arrangement (111);
an H202 supply device (121) for introducing H202 into the air flow inside the at least one decontamination unit (100) (see entire document, particularly Figures 8 and 16, p. 7 [0089] and [0093]),
wherein the discharge arrangement (111) comprises at least one detachable outlet module (111 - see Figure 14) through which a mixture of the H202 and the air is discharged out of the at least one decontamination unit, or the inlet arrangement (119) comprises at least one detachable inlet module (119 – see Figure 13) for receiving the air from a space into the at least one decontamination unit (100) (see Figures 16-17).
As to Claim 2, Weiss (‘047) discloses that the at least one detachable outlet module (111 - see Figure 14) includes a diffuser (113).
As to Claim 15, Weiss (‘047) discloses that the at least one decontamination unit (100) comprises an inlet chamber (i.e. within 119) for receiving the air (118) from the contaminated space and a filtering chamber (i.e. within 124) for removing H202 from the air from the space (see Figures 8-9, 13 and 16).
Claim(s) 1, 4, 6-8 and 12-14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Hill (20080038166).
As to Claim 1, Hill (‘166) discloses a decontamination system (16) for sterilizing a contaminated space (4, 6), comprising at least one decontamination unit (20) through which air of the contaminated space is recirculated (see Figures 1-2), the at least one decontamination unit (20) comprising
an inlet arrangement (33, 37) for introducing air from the contaminated space (4, 6) into the at least one decontamination unit (20) (see Figures 1-2);
a discharge arrangement (35, 39) for discharging gas out of the at least one decontamination unit (20) (see Figures 1-2);
a fan (i.e. blower 66 - which is a form of a fan/fan is a form of a blower) for creating an air flow from the inlet arrangement (37) to the discharging arrangement (35, 39);
an H202 supply device (56, 82, 84, 86, 88,92, 94, 96, 98, 36) for introducing H202 into the air flow inside the at least one decontamination unit (20) (see entire document, particularly Figure 2, p. 2 [0022]-[0027]),
wherein the discharge arrangement (35, 39) comprises at least one detachable outlet module (46; 172) (see Figures 1-3) through which a mixture of the H202 and the air is discharged out of the at least one decontamination unit (20), or the inlet arrangement (33, 37) comprises at least one detachable inlet module (48) (see Figure 1-3) for receiving the air from a space into the at least one decontamination unit (20) (see Figures 1-3).
As to Claim 4, Hill (‘166) discloses that the discharge arrangement (35, 39) comprises a detachable outlet modules (46/172) (see Figures 1-3) comprising at least one tube connector for connecting an outlet chamber (56) into air channel (163, 162; 13, 12) for supplying the mixture from the at least one decontamination unit (20) into the air channel (163, 162; 13, 12) (see Figures 2-3).
As to Claim 6, Hill (‘166) discloses that As to Claim 6, Hill (‘166) discloses that the decontamination system (16) comprises at least two detachable outlet modules (42, 46/172) (see Figures 1-3) of a group that includes an outlet module with a tube connector which is also capable of being a clamp connector (see Figures 1-3).
As to Claim 7, Hill (‘166) discloses that the inlet arrangement (37) comprises a grille or perforated plate capable of being a detachable module (see Figure 1).
As to Claim 8, Hill (‘166) discloses that the inlet arrangement (37) comprises a detachable inlet module (48) comprising at least one tube connector for connecting the at least one decontamination unit (20) to an air channel (15, 12) for receiving air via the air channel (15, 12) from different location (10) (see Figure 3).
As to Claim 12, Hill (‘166) discloses that the inlet arrangement (33, 37) comprises at least two openings (at 33 and 37) (see Figures 1-3), wherein the at least two openings (at 33 and 37) lead to different air chambers (62, 64; 52, 54, 56) inside the at least one decontamination unit (20) (see Figure 2).
As to Claim 13, Hill (‘166) discloses that the decontamination system (16) comprises tubing (42, 46/172) connected to the at least one detachable outlet module (35/46/172, 39/42), which tubing (42, 46/172) ends to another space than a location of the at least one decontamination unit (20) (see Figures 1-3, particularly Figure 3).
As to Claim 14, Hill (‘166) discloses that the decontamination system (16) comprises tubing (44, 48) connected to the at least one detachable inlet module (33/44, 37/48), which tubing (44, 48) eds to another space wherein the at least one decontamination unit (20) is located (see Figures 1-3).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claim(s) 3 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Weiss (20090130047).
Weiss (‘047) is relied upon for disclosure described in the rejection of claim 2 under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1).
While Weiss (‘047) teaches that the discharge arrangement (111) comprises the at least one detachable outlet module (111 - see Figure 14), which includes a diffuser (113), Weiss (‘047) does not appear to specifically teach that the diffuser comprises multiple mini diffusers for controlling a diffuser pattern. However, it would have been well within the purview of one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide multiple mini diffusers with the at least one detachable outlet module of the discharge arrangement of Weiss as a matter of engineering choice in order to allow control over direction or pattern of air flow output from the decontamination system/unit as desired. Only the expected results would be attained.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 10-11 would be allowable if rewritten to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 2nd paragraph, set forth in this Office action and to include all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter: the primary reason for indicating allowable subject matter is due to inclusion of the limitation that “the inlet arrangement comprises control means for channeling the air in different air chambers inside the at least one decontamination unit” where the “control means” is being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f). Neither Weiss (20090130047) or Hill (20080038166) as set forth above teaches different air chambers where control means would be needed to channel the air to each/different air chambers. While prior art of Jun (KR102139547) discloses control means in the form of dampers (150, 160) that channel the air in different air chambers (C4, C5) within a decontamination unit (110) comprised of a blowing fan (130) of a decontamination system (see Figures 1-3, particularly Figure 2), Jun (‘547) does not specifically teach that the control means/dampers are located in/with an inlet arrangement. It would not have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide control means with different air chambers in at least one decontamination unit of a decontamination system comprised of components in the configuration as set forth in the claims.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. The following references relate either to the field of the invention or subject matter of the invention, but are not relied upon in the rejection of record: WO2021234713 and CN106196323 and KR20080018115 and CN101153727 (an air purifier with a removable hydrogen peroxide supply/storage), 7431900 and 8741220 (a decontamination system using hydrogen peroxide), 20020160440 and 20150182650 and 3643586 and KR200349932 and KR20210009784 (a decontamination system with a damper), KR20070113131 (a water purification device with diffusers).
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to REGINA M YOO whose telephone number is (571)272-6690. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday, 9:00 am - 5:00 pm EST.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Maris Kessel can be reached at (571)270-7698. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/REGINA M YOO/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1758
Prosecution Insights