CTNF 18/417,261 CTNF 99341 DETAILED ACTION Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status 07-03-aia AIA 15-10-aia 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 08-08 AIA 2. Restriction to one of the following inventions is required under 35 U.S.C. 121: I. Claim s 1-12 , drawn to an active oxygen device , classified in A61L 2/202 . II. Claim 13 , drawn to a method of active oxygen treatment , classified in A61L 2/20 . 08-13 AIA 3. The inventions are independent or distinct, each from the other because: 08-20 AIA Inventions I and II are related as product and process of use. The inventions can be shown to be distinct if either or both of the following can be shown: (1) the process for using the product as claimed can be practiced with another materially different product or (2) the product as claimed can be used in a materially different process of using that product. See MPEP § 806.05(h). In the instant case the product as claimed can be used in a materially different process of using that product such as a method of treating air instead of a surface of an object . Restriction for examination purposes as indicated is proper because all the inventions listed in this action are independent or distinct for the reasons given above and there would be a serious search and/or examination burden if restriction were not required because one or more of the following reasons apply: The inventions have acquired separate status in the art in view of their different classifications; The inventions have acquired a separate status in the art due to their recognized divergent subject matter; The inventions require a different field of search (for example, searching different classes/subclasses or electronic resources, or employing different search inquiries; The prior art applicable to one invention would not likely be applicable to another invention. 4. During a telephone conversation with Attorney Jason Okun on 03/23/2026 and a subsequent response on 03/25/2026, a provisional election was made without traverse to prosecute the invention of Group I, claims 1-12. Affirmation of this election must be made by Applicant in replying to this Office action. Claim 13 is withdrawn from further consideration by the Examiner per 37 CFR 1.142(b), as being drawn to a non-elected invention . 18-22 AIA 5. Applicant is advised that the reply to this requirement to be complete must include (i) an election of an invention to be examined even though the requirement may be traversed (37 CFR 1.143) and (ii) identification of the claims encompassing the elected invention . The election of an invention may be made with or without traverse. To reserve a right to petition, the election must be made with traverse. If the reply does not distinctly and specifically point out supposed errors in the restriction requirement, the election shall be treated as an election without traverse. Traversal must be presented at the time of election in order to be considered timely. Failure to timely traverse the requirement will result in the loss of right to petition under 37 CFR 1.144. If claims are added after the election, applicant must indicate which of these claims are readable upon the elected invention. Should applicant traverse on the ground that the inventions are not patentably distinct, applicant should submit evidence or identify such evidence now of record showing the inventions to be obvious variants or clearly admit on the record that this is the case. In either instance, if the examiner finds one of the inventions unpatentable over the prior art, the evidence or admission may be used in a rejection under 35 U.S.C. 103 or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) of the other invention. 08-23-02 AIA 6. Applicant is reminded that upon the cancelation of claims to a non-elected invention, the inventorship must be corrected in compliance with 37 CFR 1.48(a) if one or more of the currently named inventors is no longer an inventor of at least one claim remaining in the application. A request to correct inventorship under 37 CFR 1.48(a) must be accompanied by an application data sheet in accordance with 37 CFR 1.76 that identifies each inventor by his or her legal name and by the processing fee required under 37 CFR 1.17(i). 08-21-04 AIA 7. The examiner has required restriction between product or apparatus claims and process claims. Where applicant elects claims directed to the product/apparatus, and all product/apparatus claims are subsequently found allowable, withdrawn process claims that include all the limitations of the allowable product/apparatus claims should be considered for rejoinder. All claims directed to a nonelected process invention must include all the limitations of an allowable product/apparatus claim for that process invention to be rejoined. 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. Thus, 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 product/apparatus are found allowable, an otherwise proper restriction requirement between product/apparatus claims and process claims may be maintained. Withdrawn process claims that are not commensurate in scope with an allowable product/apparatus claim will not be rejoined. See MPEP § 821.04. Additionally, in order for rejoinder to occur, applicant is advised that the process claims should be amended during prosecution to require the limitations of the product/apparatus claims. Failure to do so may result in no rejoinder. Further, note that the prohibition against double patenting rejections of 35 U.S.C. 121 does not apply where the restriction requirement is withdrawn by the examiner before the patent issues. See MPEP § 804.01. 07-30-03-h AIA Claim Interpretation 07-30-03 AIA 8. 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. 07-30-05 9. 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. Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102 07-07-aia AIA 07-07 10. 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 – 07-08-aia AIA (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. 11. Claims 1-2 and 9-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being anticipated by Soremark (US 5961920 A, provided in Applicant’s IDS filed 01/19/2024). Regarding claim 1, Soremark teaches an active oxygen supply device (Fig. 4) comprising: a housing (1, Fig. 4) having at least one opening (outlet of housing 1, Fig. 4); an ozone generator located inside the housing (section 1I having ozone generator, Fig. 4 and col.6, line 59); a means for generating an airflow (fan section 12, Fig. 4) comprising ozone generated inside the housing by the ozone generator (ozone generator in section 1I in housing 1, Fig. 4) flowing toward the opening and flowing out of the housing through the opening (air flows into inlet 22, through the housing 1, and out of the outlet of housing 1, Fig. 4); and an ultraviolet light source (UV lamps 4 of Fig. 3 are identical to the ones unlabeled in Fig. 4) arranged so that the airflow comprising the ozone and flowing out of the housing through the opening (airflow in housing 1 flowing out of outlet, Fig. 4) can be irradiated with ultraviolet rays (“the medium is exposed to UV radiation”, col.4, line 47), wherein the ultraviolet light source decomposes the ozone in the airflow to generate active oxygen (“The ozone molecules formed are at the same time decomposed by radiation within the abovementioned wavelength range, especially at a wavelength of 254 nm”, col. col.4, lines 50-53, where “UV radiation favors a rapid decomposition of ozone with subsequent formation of radicals”, radicals including hydroxyl radicals, col.3, lines 20-21), and the airflow (airflow in housing 1, Fig. 4) comprising the active oxygen (hydroxyl radicals, col.2, line 39) generated by irradiating the airflow comprising the ozone with the ultraviolet rays (ozone generated by section 1I is exposed to unlabeled UV lamp 4, Fig. 4) is supplied to an object to be treated outside the housing (the air with free radicals can circulate freely around the articles which are to be treated, col.6, last paragraph). Regarding claim 2, Soremark teaches an active oxygen supply device (Fig. 4) comprising: a housing (1, Fig. 4) having at least one opening (outlet of housing 1, Fig. 4); an ozone generator located inside the housing (section 1I having ozone generator, Fig. 4 and col.6, line 59); a means for generating an airflow (fan section 12, Fig. 4) comprising ozone generated inside the housing by the ozone generator (ozone generator in section 1I in housing 1, Fig. 4) flowing toward the opening and flowing out of the housing through the opening (air flows into inlet 22, through the housing 1, and out of the outlet of housing 1, Fig. 4); and an ultraviolet light source (UV lamps 4 of Fig. 3 are identical to the ones unlabeled in Fig. 4) arranged so that the airflow comprising the ozone and having flowed out of the housing through the opening (airflow in housing 1 flowing out of outlet, Fig. 4) can be irradiated with ultraviolet rays (“the medium is exposed to UV radiation”, col.4, line 47, where the UV lamps still irradiate the airflow that has exited the housing because there is no barrier confining the UV rays to only the housing), wherein the ultraviolet light source decomposes the ozone in the airflow to generate active oxygen (“The ozone molecules formed are at the same time decomposed by radiation within the abovementioned wavelength range, especially at a wavelength of 254 nm”, col.4, lines 50-53, where “UV radiation favors a rapid decomposition of ozone with subsequent formation of radicals”, radicals including hydroxyl radicals, col.3, lines 20-21), and the airflow (airflow in housing 1, Fig. 4) comprising the active oxygen (hydroxyl radicals, col.2, line 39) generated by irradiating the airflow comprising the ozone with the ultraviolet rays (ozone generated by section 1I is exposed to unlabeled UV lamp 4, Fig. 4) is supplied to an object to be treated outside the housing (the air with free radicals can circulate freely around the articles which are to be treated, col.6, last paragraph). Regarding claim 9, Soremark teaches wherein a peak wavelength of the ultraviolet rays emitted by the ultraviolet light source is 220 to 310 nm (254 nm, col.4, line 53). Regarding claim 10, Soremark teaches wherein the ultraviolet light source (UV lamps in housing 1, Fig. 4) is arranged so that the object to be treated outside the housing (article to be treated in cabinet 20, Fig. 4) can be irradiated through the opening (there is no barrier/method confining the UV rays to only the housing 1, meaning the UV rays would exit the housing 1 as well, into the cabinet 20 having said articles to be treated, Fig. 4). Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103 07-20-aia AIA 12. 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. 07-23-aia AIA 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. 07-21-aia AIA 13. Claim s 3 and 12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Soremark (US 5961920 A) . Regarding claim 3, Soremark teaches the ultraviolet light source being located inside the housing (UV lamps are inside housing 1, Fig. 4), thus failing to teach wherein the ultraviolet light source is located outside the housing. However, it is important to note that the functionality of the UV lamps is to simultaneously generate ozone and decompose said generated ozone into free radicals via peak wavelengths at 183.7 nm and 254 nm respectively, due to presence of oxygen in the ambient atmospheric air entering the system of Fig. 4 (col.4, 2 nd to last paragraph). This means that the position of the UV lamps does not matter as long as the free radicals generated from the UV lamps come into contact with the articles to be treated placed in the cabinet (i.e., fluidly upstream of the articles to be treated). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to rearrange the UV lamps to a location outside of the housing that is fluidly upstream of an article to be treated (which still allows generated free radicals to contact the articles to be treated), because shifting the position of the UV lamps would not have modified the operation of the device (MPEP 2144.04.VI.C). Regarding claim 12, Soremark teaches a fan to generate airflow within the apparatus (fan section 12, Fig. 4), but is silent on the specific limitation of wherein a flow velocity of the airflow measured at an outlet of the opening when the active oxygen supply device is arranged with the opening thereof facing vertically upward is 0.1 to 100 m/sec . However, Soremark mentions that “the speed of rotation of the fan and consequently the flow rate are adapted to the amount of ozone which is produced in order to obtain an optimal functioning of the apparatus” (col.6, lines 19-22). Knowing that flow rate of air is directly correlated to the flow velocity, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to arrive at the claimed range of 0.1-100 m/sec with a reasonable expectation of success through routine optimization, because “the speed of rotation of the fan and consequently the flow rate are adapted to the amount of ozone which is produced in order to obtain an optimal functioning of the apparatus” (col.6, lines 19-22); thus, an increase/decrease of generated ozone would predictably result in an increase/decrease in flow rate (i.e., flow velocity) . 07-21-aia AIA 14. Claim s 4-5 and 11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Soremark (US 5961920 A, provided in Applicant’s IDS filed 01/19/2024), further in view of Bohlen (US 20130047859 A1) . Regarding claim 4, Soremark teaches an ozone generator (section 1I, Fig. 4), hinting at exemplary mechanisms of ozone generators (“ozone is generated by corona discharges”, col.3, lines 25-26), but is silent to the limitation of wherein the ozone generator is a corona discharger equipped with a discharge wire. Bohlen teaches an air purification apparatus (Fig. 2) generating ozone and free radicals from said ozone via UV radiation ([0081]), utilizing an electrostatic precipitator as an ozone generator (224, Fig. 2 and [0065], provided in greater structural detail in Fig. 6), wherein the ozone generator is a corona discharger (corona wire assembly 602, Fig. 6) equipped with a discharge wire (corona wires 630, Fig. 6) in order to produce ozone that destroys contaminants ([0065]) and a collection plate assembly (604, Fig. 6) downstream of the corona assembly in order to collect particulates ([0074]). Soremark and Bohlen are both considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of ozone generation and free radical production from incoming airflow. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the ozone generator of Soremark by incorporating an electrostatic precipitator cell assembly comprising a corona wire assembly and a collection plate assembly as taught by Bohlen in order to produce ozone that destroys contaminants ([0065]) and the collection of air particulates ([0074]). Regarding claim 5, Soremark in view of Bohlen teaches wherein the means for generating the airflow is a grid electrode (Bohlen, collection plate assembly 604 is a grid of charged plates/electrodes, Fig. 6) arranged closer to the opening than the discharge wire (collection plate assembly 604 is fluidly downstream of the corona wire assembly 602, Fig. 2 and 6), for the same modification purpose stated in the claim 4 rejection above. Regarding claim 11, Soremark teaches a UV light source (UV lamps in housing 1, Fig. 4), but fails to teach wherein the ultraviolet light source is an LED or a semiconductor laser. Bohlen teaches an air purification apparatus (Fig. 2) generating ozone and free radicals from said ozone via UV radiation ([0081]) from a set of UV LEDs (“airflow 204 encounters a UV Light Emitting Diode (LED) assembly”, Fig. 2 and [0042]). Soremark and Bohlen are both considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of free radical production via UV light from incoming airflow. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to select an LED option as taught by Bohlen for the UV lamps of Soremark with a reasonable expectation of success because the functionality of the UV light source would not have changed (MPEP 2143, Rationale E) and is thus predictable . 07-21-aia AIA 15. Claim s 6-8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Soremark (US 5961920 A, provided in Applicant’s IDS filed 01/19/2024), further in view of Golkowski et al. (US 20190314535 A1) . Regarding claim 6, Soremark teaches a means for generating the airflow (fan section 12, Fig. 4), but fails to teach wherein the means for generating the airflow is an air blower. Golkowski teaches an ozone and radical generation based disinfection system (Fig. 1A with free radical and ozone generator 30, see claim 1 of Golkowski) for objects to be disinfected (56, Fig. 1A), where a blower is utilized to generate an airflow within the system (blower 14, Fig. 1A and [0147]). Soremark and Golkowski are both considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of ozone and free radical production from incoming airflow with flow-generating means. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to substitute the fan of Soremark with a blower as taught by Golkowski, because the substitution of this feature yields the predictable result of generating an airflow within the system (Golkowski, [0147]). Regarding claim 7, Soremark teaches a means for generating the airflow (fan section 12, Fig. 4), but fails to teach wherein the means for generating the airflow is an air pump introducing air from outside the housing into the housing and creating a positive pressure inside the housing. Golkowski teaches an ozone and radical generation based disinfection system (Fig. 1A with free radical and ozone generator 30, see claim 1 of Golkowski) for objects to be disinfected (56, Fig. 1A), where a positive displacement pump (blower 14, Fig. 1A and [0147]) is utilized upstream of the disinfection chamber (10, Fig. Fig. 1A) and the free radical generator (30, Fig. 1A) to generate an airflow within the system ([0147]), thus creating a positive pressure downstream of the air pump. Soremark and Golkowski are both considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of ozone and free radical production from incoming airflow with flow-generating means. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the fan of Soremark by incorporating an air pump placed upstream of the disinfection chamber and the free radical generator (i.e., Soremark’s ozone generator and UV lamps) as taught by Golkowski in order to generate an airflow within the system (Golkowski, [0147]), thus creating a positive pressure downstream of the air pump (i.e., inside the housing 1 of Soremark, Fig. 4). Regarding claim 8, Soremark teaches a means for generating the airflow (fan section 12, Fig. 4), but fails to teach wherein the means for generating the airflow is a suction device for gas inside the housing. Golkowski teaches an ozone and radical generation based disinfection system (Fig. 1A with free radical and ozone generator 30, see claim 1 of Golkowski) for objects to be disinfected (56, Fig. 1A), where a positive displacement pump (blower 14, Fig. 1A and [0147]) is utilized to generate an airflow within the system ([0147]). Soremark and Golkowski are both considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of ozone and free radical production from incoming airflow with flow-generating means. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to substitute the fan of Soremark with an air pump/suction device as taught by Golkowski in order to generate an airflow within the system (Golkowski, [0147]), thus being a “suction device for gas inside the housing” (now-modified fan 12 of Soremark being an air pump would suck in air from the housing 1, into the cabinet 20, and to the air pump, Fig. 4) . Conclusion 07-96 AIA 16. The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Taylor et al. (US 20010032544 A1), directed towards an ozone generator disinfection system generating airflow off of an electrode arrangement with no moving components . 17. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Aham Lee whose telephone number is (703)756-5622. The examiner can normally be reached Monday to Thursday, 10:00 AM - 8:00 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 R. 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. /Aham Lee/Examiner, Art Unit 1758 /MARIS R KESSEL/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1758 Application/Control Number: 18/417,261 Page 2 Art Unit: 1758 Application/Control Number: 18/417,261 Page 3 Art Unit: 1758 Application/Control Number: 18/417,261 Page 4 Art Unit: 1758 Application/Control Number: 18/417,261 Page 5 Art Unit: 1758 Application/Control Number: 18/417,261 Page 6 Art Unit: 1758 Application/Control Number: 18/417,261 Page 7 Art Unit: 1758 Application/Control Number: 18/417,261 Page 8 Art Unit: 1758 Application/Control Number: 18/417,261 Page 9 Art Unit: 1758 Application/Control Number: 18/417,261 Page 10 Art Unit: 1758 Application/Control Number: 18/417,261 Page 11 Art Unit: 1758 Application/Control Number: 18/417,261 Page 12 Art Unit: 1758 Application/Control Number: 18/417,261 Page 13 Art Unit: 1758 Application/Control Number: 18/417,261 Page 14 Art Unit: 1758
Prosecution Insights