DETAILED ACTION
This is the first action on the merits in response to US Patent Application No. 18/402,640, filed 02 January 2024, with priority to European Application EP 23150319.4, filed 04 January, 2023.
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Election/Restrictions
Applicant's election with traverse of claims 1-13 in the reply filed on 04 May, 2026, is acknowledged. The traversal is on the ground(s) that the restriction requirement did not appropriately show that the claimed method can be performed by a materially different apparatus from the claimed apparatus (see response at page 6, final paragraph, to line 5 of page 7), or that the claimed apparatus can be used to perform a materially different method (page 7, paragraph 2), and that the asserted search burden has not been sufficiently established (page 7, final paragraph). This is not found persuasive for the reasons indicated below.
Firstly, the apparatus of independent claim 1 can be used to practice a materially different method from the method of independent claim 14, as was appropriately established in the restriction requirement. Although the applicant asserts that “the specific flushing-cycle steps relied upon for distinctness are not recited in independent claim 14 as operative limitations of [the] decontamination cycle but instead are introduced in dependent claim 16” (response at page 7, paragraph 2, lines 4-6), claim 14 expressly sets forth “A method for sterilizing contaminated space…comprising a decontamination cycle and a flush cycle” (claim 14, lines 1-3; emphasis added). Although independent claim 14 does not set forth the particulars of the flush cycle, a flush cycle is nonetheless clearly set forth as a required element of the claimed method. The apparatus as set forth in claim 1 can be operated without a flush cycle, and such operation would therefore define a materially different method of operation from the method of claim 14, which expressly requires a flush cycle.
Additionally, the method of independent claim 14 can be practiced by a materially different apparatus from the apparatus of claim 1. Particularly, the apparatus of claim 1 requires “a first plate between the outlet chamber and the inlet chamber, wherein the first plate comprises an opening for discharging air from the inlet chamber into the outlet chamber” (claim 1, lines 7-9). Although independent claim 14 recites an “inlet chamber and outlet chamber” (claim 14, lines 5-6), claim 14 does not define the inlet and outlet chambers as being separated by a first plate comprising an opening as required by independent claim 1. Thus, the method claim 14 can be performed by an apparatus which does not separate an inlet chamber and an outlet chamber with a plate having an opening; instead, the method of claim 14 can be performed by a decontamination unit which includes an inlet and outlet chamber defined in any manner, such as by a naming convention to refer to inlet and outlet portions of one larger chamber without any partition, divided a larger chamber into an inlet chamber and an outlet chamber using a non-plate type of partition means (e.g., a mesh, membrane, or filter), or portions of a chamber could be distinguishable from each as inlet and outlet chambers based on differences in constructional or material characteristics between the chambers without there being a plate between the inlet and outlet chamber. Thus, contrary to the applicant’s assertion that the restriction requirement did not show that “the claimed chamber-to-chamber airflow, fan placemen, and H2O2 injection arrangement are realistically performable using an apparatus materially different from the claimed decontamination unit” (response at page 7, lines 1-5), it is evident that the method of independent claim 14 can be practiced by an apparatus that is materially different from claim 1.
Furthermore, a search burden does exist. In view of the difference in scope of the independent claims established above, it is evident that the field of search required to find the most relevant art pertaining to a decontamination unit comprising a first plate as claimed would be different from the field of search required to find the most relevant art pertaining to a method comprising a decontamination cycle and flushing cycle, as claimed. Particularly, the search queries required to search the constructional elements of the claimed first plate are different from the search queries required to search the functional feature of a flushing cycle. Accordingly, a search burden does exist.
Therefore, the requirement is still deemed proper and is therefore made FINAL. Accordingly, claims 14-19 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b), as being drawn to a nonelected invention, there being no allowable generic or linking claim.
However, it is reiterated (from the previous action) that the related apparatus and process claims may be eligible for rejoinder if all of the apparatus claims are found to be allowable and the nonelected process claims include all limitations of the allowable apparatus claim. In order for rejoinder to occur, applicant is advised that the process claims should be amended during prosecution to require the limitations of the apparatus claims. Failure to do so may result in no rejoinder. In the event of rejoinder, the requirement for restriction between the product/apparatus claims and the rejoined process claims will be withdrawn, and the rejoined process claims will be fully examined for patentability in accordance with 37 CFR 1.104. To be allowable, the rejoined claims must meet all criteria for patentability including the requirements of 35 U.S.C. 101, 102, 103 and 112. Until all claims to the elected apparatus are found allowable, the restriction requirement made final above is maintained.
Claim Objections
Claims 1-2, 4, 9-10, and 13 are objected to for the informalities indicated below, which are largely directed toward grammatical clarity:
-Claim 1:
-“divided to” at line 3 of claim 1 should read “divided into”;
-“into decontamination unit” at line 5 of claim 1 should read “into the decontamination unit”;
- “discharge arrangement” at line 5 of claim 1 should read “a discharge arrangement”;
-“arranged to” at line 10 of claim 1 should be adjusted to read “arranged at”, “attached to”, or otherwise replaced with a more appropriate and clearer prepositional phrase.
-Claim 2: “arranged to” at line 2 of claim 2 should be adjusted to read “arranged at”, ”positioned within”, or otherwise replaced with a more appropriate and clearer prepositional phrase.
-Claim 4: “the unit” at line 2 of claim 4 should read “the decontamination unit”.
-Claim 9: “connecting the outlet chamber into air channel” at lines 2-3 of claim 9 should be adjusted to read “connecting the outlet chamber to an air channel”, or similarly adjusted.
-Claim 10: “to opening in a wall” at line 3 of claim 10 should read “to an opening in a wall”.
-Claim 13: “the unit” at line 2 of claim 13 should read “the decontamination unit”.
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.
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.
Claims 1-8, 11, and 13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Martin (US 2010/0143189 A1) in view of Adams et al. (US 2012/0213672 A1).
Regarding claim 1, Martin (US 2010/0143189 A1) teaches a decontamination unit for sterilizing a contaminated space (apparatus 10 for decontaminating an enclosure—abstract), the decontamination unit (10) comprising:
a frame (main casing 14 on chassis 11—[0031]-[0032]—and head 30—[0036]) having an inner space (main cavity of upper housing 16 within main casing 14—see [0032]-[0033]; cavity within the head—[0037]), which inner space is divided to at least an outlet chamber and an inlet chamber (cavity of housing 16 includes inlets 18 and thus defines an inlet chamber—see [0033]; cavity of head 30 includes outlet vents 32 and thus defines an outlet chamber—see [0037]);
at least one inlet (18) for receiving air from the contaminated space into decontamination unit ([0033]; also see [0037]); and
an outlet (32) having a discharge arrangement for discharging gas out of the decontamination unit (head has a number of air outlet vents 32 around the head—[0037]; vapor outlet nozzles 31 may be positioned concentrically within the air vents/nozzles 32 to discharge a mix of air and vapor—see [0037], [0042], [0047], [0049]; the disclosed arrangement of nozzle/vents defines a “discharge arrangement” as claimed)
a fan (33) having a fan inlet and a fan outlet (see Fig. 2, [0037]; evident that fan 33 must have an inlet and an outlet), arranged to form an air flow from the inlet (18) to the outlet (32) (high throughput motor driven radial fan 33 positioned in the head which draws air from the from the inlet grilles 18 and discharges air through air outlet vents 32—[0037]); and
a H202 supply device (vapor generator 20 comprising supply tank 23 for aqueous hydrogen peroxide, feed conduit 24, metering pump 25, fan 21—[0034]—distribution manifold 26, and outlet conduits 27—[0035]—the outlet conduits 27 delivering hydrogen peroxide vapor to vapor nozzles 31; the combination of all listed components, or portions thereof, define a supply device), wherein the H202 supply device (consider placement of conduits 27 and nozzles 31) is arranged next to the fan (33) outlet (see Fig. 2) for introducing H202 directly into the air flow for forming an air- H202 mixture (air outlet vents/nozzles 32 are connected to outlets of a fan 33 positioned within the head 30—[0037]; in disclosed embodiments, vapor nozzles 31 are positioned within air outlet vents/nozzles 32 to form air-H2O2 mixture within the apparatus 10 before discharging it—see Figs. 4, 7, [0042], [0047], [0049]; thus, in said embodiments, the nozzles 31 are arranged next to an outlet of the fan 33 and introduce H2O2 vapor directly in the air flow).
See Fig. 2 below showing the decontamination unit (10) of Martin comprising a frame (chassis 11, main casing 14, head 30), inlet (18), inlet chamber (cavity housing 16), H2O2 supply device (vapor generator 20 with fan 21, supply tank 23, feed conduit 24, metering pump 25, distribution manifold 26, outlet conduits 27, and nozzles 31), fan (33), outlet chamber (cavity of head 30), and outlets (32). Also see Fig. 7 showing an embodiment wherein the vapor nozzles (31) are positioned within the air outlet vents/nozzles (32) so that the hydrogen peroxide vapor and air mix within the apparatus before being discharged.
PNG
media_image1.png
664
322
media_image1.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image2.png
708
340
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Martin teaches the inlet chamber (16) and outlet chamber (cavity of head 30) being attached by a collar (28) and neck (29) ([0036]), wherein the fan (33) is depicted at an opening in the neck leading into the outlet chamber of the head (see Fig. 2). It is not clear if the stated structures of Martin fairly define a first plate dividing the inlet and outlet chambers, with the fan positioned in an opening of the plate. That is, Martin does not clearly teach a first plate between the outlet chamber and the inlet chamber, wherein the first plate comprises an opening for discharging air from the inlet chamber into the outlet chamber.
However, in in the analogous art of apparatuses for distributing a sterilant vapor within an enclosure (abstract), Adams teaches an apparatus (10) comprising a frame (housing 14), an upper section (15) of the frame being divided into an inlet chamber (lower chamber 23) and an outlet chamber (upper chamber 24) by a first plate (horizontal partition 22) ([0032]). A high speed fan (27) is mounted in an aperture of the plate (22) to draw air into the enclosure through inlets (25) of the inlet chamber (23) and discharge the air out through outlet nozzles (26) of the outlet chamber (24) ([0033]). The fan of Adams is depicted substantially mounted on top of the plate over the aperture thereof (consider Fig.5). Adams indicates that the arrangement enhances the circulation and distribution of a sterilant vapor in the air throughout an enclosure ([0033], [0039]).
Therefore, it would obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art to modify the apparatus of Martin to include a first plate positioned beneath the fan (33) which divides the inlet and outlet chambers and wherein the fan (33) is arranged mounted over an aperture of the first plate, as seen in Adams ([0032]-[0033]), for the benefit of enhancing the circulation and distribution of a sterilant vapor in the air throughout the enclosure being treated (see Adams at [0033], [0039]).
Regarding claim 2, Martin in view of Adams teaches the decontamination unit according to claim 1. Martin further teaches at least one inlet (18) is arranged at a side wall of the inlet chamber for allowing suction of the air from the contaminated space into the inlet chamber (see Fig. 2 of Martin; inlet grilles 18 on opposite sides of upper housing 16 allow air entry into the upper part of the casing—[0033]).
Regarding claim 3, Martin in view of Adams teaches the decontamination unit according to claim 1. Martin further teaches the inner space comprises a filtering chamber (17) having H202 capturing means (51) for capturing H202 from recirculating air (casing 14 is divided by partition wall 15 into upper and lower housings 16 and 17 for vapor generation and vapor decomposition, respectively—[0032]; lower cavity 17 has inlets on either side in which activated carbon beds 50 are mounted with HEPA filters 51 behind the beds—[0040]; filters 50,51 decompose the hydrogen peroxide to water and oxygen—[0045]) .
Regarding claim 4, Martin in view of Adams teaches the decontamination unit according to claim 3. Martin further teaches the unit comprises a second inlet for allowing suction of the air from the contaminated space into the filtering chamber (lower cavity 17 has inlets on either side of the cavity—[0040]).
Regarding claim 5, Martin in view of Adams teaches the decontamination unit according to claim 3. Martin further teaches that the inlet chamber (16) is adjacent to the filtering chamber (17), and the inlet chamber and the filtering chamber are separated by a second plate (15) (see Fig. 2; casing is divided by a transverse internal partition wall 15 into upper and lower housings 16 and 17—[0032]).
Regarding claim 6, Martin in view of Adams teaches the decontamination unit according to claim 1. The conduits (27) of Martin fairly define an H2O2 supply device (conduits 27 deliver hydrogen peroxide to nozzles 31—see [0036]). The conduits (27) extend through a collar (28) and neck (29) portion of the casing ([0036]), such that the inside of the collar and neck fairly define an H2O2 generator chamber arranged between the outlet chamber (cavity in head 30) and inlet chamber (cavity 16, especially portion defined by main casing 14 near inlets 18) within the inner space of the frame (see Fig. 2). As modified with respect to claim 1 above, Martin incorporates a first plate as seen in Adams, wherein Adams arranges the first plate just below a fan (27) ([0033], Fig. 5). Maintaining such arrangement when modifying Martin in view of Adams with respect to claim 1 yields a first plate just below fan (33) of Martin, such that the first plate (just below fan 33) is between the H202 generator chamber (inside of neck 29 and collar 28) and the outlet chamber (cavity of 30). It is noted that the claim generally defines the structure of the H2O2 generator chamber and H2O2 supply device broadly, such that the above claim mapping is sufficient to meet the limitations of claim 6.
Regarding claim 7, Martin in view of Adams teaches the decontamination unit according to claim 1. Martin further teaches the fan (33) is arranged inside the outlet chamber (fan 33 depicted as positioned within the cavity of head 30, see Fig. 2 of Martin; also see Fig. 5 and [0032]-[0033] of Adams wherein the fan 27 mounted in the aperture is substantially positioned within an outlet chamber 24).
Regarding claim 8, Martin in view of Adams teaches the decontamination unit according to claim 1. Martin teaches the outlet can comprise a set of eight vents, depicted with grilles/shutters, which are arranged circumferentially around the head and distribute air and hydrogen peroxide into the space (Fig. 7, [0047]). Such an arrangement of vents fairly defines a discharge arrangement comprising a diffuser for generating efficient forced diffusion of the air-H202 mixture into the space. It is noted that a “diffuser” can encompass substantially any structure that distributes a gas throughout a space.
Regarding claim 11, Martin in view of Adams teaches the decontamination unit according to claim 1. Martin further teaches the inlet (18) comprises at least one opening for allowing suction of the air directly from the contaminated space into the decontamination unit (air inlet grilles 18 on opposite sides of the casing allow air entry into upper part of the casing—Fig. 2, [0033]).
Regarding claim 13, Martin in view of Adams teaches the decontamination unit according to claim 3. Martin teaches that the apparatus can operate in a decontamination cycle mode wherein air is drawn into the inlet chamber (16) via first inlets (18) and a damper (flap valves 44) functionally blocks air from entering the device through second inlets (arranged at filters 50,51) of the filter chamber (17) (during the decontamination cycle air is drawn into the casing 14 through the inlets 18…and flap valves 44 stop unwanted air circulation through the filters 50,51 and into casing chamber 16—[0043]; flap valves 44 pivot to control air flow into the housing 42—[0039]). Martin further teaches the apparatus can operate in an aeration cycle mode wherein air is drawn into the filter chamber (17) via the second inlets (i.e., filters 50/51) and is expelled out of the outlets (32) and first inlets (18) (In the aeration phase…the fan 43 is switched off and fan 41 is started. The operation of fan 41 opens the flap valves 44 and draws large quantities of air through the filters 50,51…The fan 21 is left running together with fan 33…the fan 41 will generally have a much greater capacity than the combined capacity of fans 21 and 33 and hence air will pass out of the case through the [inlet grilles] 18 as well as the nozzles 32—[0045]). The operation of the apparatus is handled by a control system (control system—Fig. 5, [0028]; control panel—Figs. 6 and 8, [0030]; cycle is controlled using a computer 62 connected to the equipment via a cable 61,63—Fig. 5, [0046], [0048]). Thus, Martin teaches control means (flap valves 44—[0039]—optionally in combination with control system of computer 62—Fig. 5, [0048]) comprising at least one damper (flap valves 44) arranged for channeling the air from the contaminated space either into the inlet chamber or into the filtering chamber (as discussed above, during the decontamination cycle air is directed into the inlet chamber via first inlets 18, and during an aeration mode air is directed into the filter chamber via filters 50,51, the direction of air flow controlled by the flap valve 44 in combination with the selective activation of fans 41 and 43 by the control system).
Claims 9 and 12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Martin (US 2010/0143189 A1) in view of Adams et al. (US 2012/0213672 A1), as applied to claim 1 above, in further view of Mielnik et al. (US 2006/0008379 A1).
Regarding claim 9, Martin in view of Adams teaches the decontamination unit according to claim 1. Martin and Adams do not particularly teach the discharge arrangement comprises at least one tube connector for connecting the outlet chamber into air channel for supplying the air-H202 mixture from the decontamination unit into the air channel.
However, in the analogous art of room decontamination with hydrogen peroxide (title), Mielnik teaches an apparatus (10) for generating hydrogen peroxide vapor ([0023]-[0024]), wherein an outlet (52) of the apparatus can be connected with a tube (100,102) to either deliver the vapor to target areas throughout a room or to deliver the vapor to a dehumidification and heating system (90,92) of the room (the outlet 52 of the vapor generation system 10 is optionally connected to two or more fluid lines 100,102, such as flexible hoses, to deliver the vapor to locations spaced around the room…or one or more fluid lines are connected with a blower of the room dehumidification and heating system 90,92 to assist in distributing the vapor throughout the room—Fig. 1, [0046]), the system (90,92) comprising at least duct work defining air channels (fan of the room dehumidifier may continue to operate to circulate decontaminant gas through the duct work—[0046]; room air conditioner may have ducts which circulated conditioned air—[0044]). It is noted that the disclosed connection of the outlet (52) of the apparatus (10) with the tubes (100,102) necessarily implies a tube connector connecting said components. Thus, Mielnik suggests attaching a tube from the outlet of a hydrogen peroxide vapor releasing apparatus to an air channel (duct work) in order to supply hydrogen peroxide to the air channel. Therefore, it would be obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art to modify the outlet(s) of Martin to include a tube connector for connecting, via a tube, the outlet chamber of Martin with an air channel (duct work) of an air conditioning system, as substantially seen in Mielnik, for the benefit of using the existing ductwork of a room conditioning system to distribute the vapor throughout a room (see Mielnik at [0046]).
Regarding claim 12, Martin in view of Adams teaches the decontamination unit according to claim 1. Martin and Adams do not clearly teach the decontamination unit is connected to a building management system. However, as substantially discussed with respect to claim 11 above, it would be obvious to further modify the apparatus of Martin in view of Mielnik to include a tube connecting the outlet(s) to an air duct channel of a room air conditioning system (see rejection of claim 9 above). Thus modified, the apparatus of Martin is connected to a building management system (the ductwork of an air conditioning system is at least part of a building management system).
Claims 10 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Martin (US 2010/0143189 A1) in view of Adams et al. (US 2012/0213672 A1), as applied to claim 1 above, in further view of Mielnik et al. (US 2006/0008379 A1) and Ricciardi et al. (US 10,786,587 B1).
Regarding claim 10, Martin in view of Adams teaches the decontamination unit according to claim 1. Martin and Adams do not particularly teach that the discharge arrangement comprises at least one clamp connector for connecting the outlet chamber into ductwork of a building or to opening in a wall of a room, which allows diffusing the air-H202 mixture either directly into the space, or to a duct or tube.
However, as indicated with respect to claim 9 above, it would be obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art to further modify the apparatus of Martin in view of Mielnik to include a tube connector at the outlet(s) of the apparatus in order to deliver hydrogen peroxide from the outlet of the apparatus to the duct work of an air conditioning system (see rejection of claim 9 above). Thus modified, the apparatus of Martin substantially includes a connector for connecting the outlet chamber into ductwork of a building, which allows diffusing the air-H2O2 mixture into a duct or tube. The combination of Martin, Adams, and Mielnik does not suggest that the connector is necessarily a clamp connector.
However, the use of a clamp connector to connect a conduit to a flow port or another conduit is ordinary in the art. For example, in the analogous art of treating HVAC systems (abstract) with a hydrogen peroxide (column 14, lines 49-67), Ricciardi teaches that flow conduits (e.g., exhaust pipes 4625) can removably attach to other components with clamp connectors (Tri-clamp adapters 4797) (column 40, lines 45-51; also column 42, lines 37-50, column 44, lines 26-33, and column 45, lines 13-21). Therefore, it would be obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art to select a clamp connector, such as the Tri-clamp adapter of Ricciardi, for use as the tube connector within the modified apparatus of Martin for the benefit of enabling the detachment of a tube when not needed (Ricciardi indicates tri-clamp adapter can provide a removable attachment, see above cited portions of Ricciardi).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Schwartz et al. (US 8,889,081 B2) teaches a room disinfection system (title, abstract) comprising a housing (12) with side air inlets (20) and a top dispersion outlet (16) (column 3, lines 10-19 and 32-45), a fan (23) within the housing for generating airflow from the inlets to the outlet (column 3, lines 20-31), and nozzles (38) which introduce a chemical from a chemical reservoir (36) into the airflow (column 4, line 48, through column 5, line 4); the chemical, may comprise hydrogen peroxide (column 4, lines 44-47).
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to BRADY C PILSBURY whose telephone number is (571)272-8054. The examiner can normally be reached M-Th 7:30a-5:00p.
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, MICHAEL MARCHESCHI can be reached at (571) 272-1374. 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.
/BRADY C PILSBURY/Examiner, Art Unit 1799
/JENNIFER WECKER/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1797
Prosecution Insights