DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claims 23-24 and 26-30 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
The disclosure as filed does not provide sufficient support for the claim limitation in claim 23 reciting “control the heating element using pulse-width modulation (PWM) or duty-cycle controlled power”. There is no support for this limitation, and the specification at best supports an input voltage being supplied in a duty cycle, not specifically a PWM or controlled duty cycle, on p. 4 lines 19-21. The limitation therefore includes new matter.
The disclosure as filed does not have support for the newly added limitation to claim 26 reciting: “at least one controller configured to terminate operation of the plurality of compact portable plasma reactors after a sterilization cycle and activate the ozone decomposition system to reduce a residual ozone concentration before completion of the sterilization cycle”. The specification includes support for a controller that controls the plasma reactors and decomposition system on p. 4 lines 29-25 and p. 9 lines 1-4. There is no support for the specific functional language of “terminat[ing] operation of the compact portable plasma reactors after a sterilization cycle and activat[ing] the ozone decomposition system to reduce residual ozone concentration before completion of the sterilization cycle”. The limitation therefore includes new matter.
Claim 28 similarly recites “operation of the ozone decomposition system is initiated automatically after plasma generation ceases” which is further not supported in the disclosure as filed. There is no support for an automatic imitation of the decomposition system in response to the ceasing of plasma generation. The limitation therefore includes new matter.
Claim 30 similarly recites “the controller operates the plurality of compact portable plasma reactors and the ozone decomposition system according to a predetermined sterilization sequence comprising plasma generation, ozone decomposition, and completion of the sterilization cycle”. There is no support for a predetermined sequence involving those specific process steps in a predetermined sequence. There is no support for this particular configuration or order of process steps and therefore the limitation therefore includes new matter.
The remaining claims are rejected for depending on one of the claims above.
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 26-30 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.
The term “compact” in claim 26 is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “compact” is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention. It cannot be determined from the claim how large or small the reactors would have to be in order to necessarily satisfy the claim limitation of “compact”. Therefore, the scope of the claim cannot be determined and the claim is indefinite. For the purpose of examination, it is interpreted the reactors have some size.
The remaining claims are rejected for being dependent claim 26 for at least the reasons above.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
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.
Claim 16-17, and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kim (KR 2009/0029553) in view of Seo (KR 2012/0106028).
Regarding claim 16, Kim (KR 2009/0029553) teaches –
An ozone decomposition system (Figs. 1-2 ozone remover 19 and surrounding components), comprising:
At least one heating element (ozone remover 19, p. 5 last par.) disposed in the ozone decomposition chamber (the remover 19 must contain the heater 19 within thus defining a chamber in order to properly circulated and decompose the gases) and configured to thermally decompose ozone by heating ozonated air (a heater as disclosed by Kim must necessarily and inherently be connected to some power supply in order to produce heat);
a power supply module configured to selectively energize the at least one heating element (a heater must necessarily and inherently be connected to some power supply in order to produce heat) to reduce an ozone concentration of the ozone-containing air (p. 5 last par.);
an inlet configured to receive the ozone-containing air and an outlet configured to discharge air having the reduced ozone concentration (pipes shown in fig. 1 including discharge pipe 17 and circulation connection 14, the pipe upstream of heater 19 reading on an inlet part and the pipe at 17 downstream of the heater 19 reading on the outlet part); and
an air pump configured to circulate the ozonated air (circulation pump 15 or evacuation pump 18 both read on this limitation, p. 6 last par.).
Kim appears to be silent with regards to the decomposition system including a module that includes a housing.
Seo (KR 2012/0106028) teaches an ozone decomposition module (Fig. 2, the left side compartment in the chamber includes a module) that includes a housing including a decomposition chamber (hazardous gas removal module 204 includes therein a chamber that includes filter 201) for decomposing the ozone (p. 5 last par. to p. 6 2nd par.) and a power supply configured to controllably energize the decomposition module components (p. 5 last par. to p. 6 2nd par.). Seo teaches multiple housings 204 including multiple decomposition chambers (see fig. 2), providing further ozone removal. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the device disclosed by Kim such that the ozone decomposition module includes a housing defining a decomposition chamber and the power supply being a controllable power supply as taught by Seo to arrive at the claimed invention. One would have been motivated to do so to better decompose ozone by a plurality of ozone decomposing chambers as taught by Seo to arrive at an improved ozone decomposition system.
Regarding claim 17, modified Kim further teaches at least one ozone sensor positioned downstream of the ozone decomposition chamber to measure residual ozone concentration (fig. 2 of Seo, the ozone detection sensor 220 is downstream of the fans 202 and removal filters 201).
Regarding claim 20, modified Kim further teaches the air circulation device comprises an air pump configured to establish a controlled airflow through the ozone decomposition chamber (circulation pump 15 or evacuation pump 18 both read on this limitation, p. 6 last par).
Claims 18 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kim (KR 2009/0029553) in view of Seo (KR 2012/0106028) as applied to claim 17 above and further in view of Schwartz (US 2018/0207307).
Regarding claim 18, modified Kim is set forth with regards to claim 17 above but appears to be silent with regards to a UV light absorption sensor.
Schwartz (US 2018/0207307) teaches an ozone disinfection system (title) including an ozone sensor for detecting ozone that includes a UV absorption sensor that operates in a range of 180 and 280 nm (par. 44). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the device disclosed by Kim such that the ozone sensor is a UV sensor that operates in the claimed range to arrive at the claimed invention. One would have been motivated to do to so to successfully monitor ozone levels as desired according to conventional sensing means to arrive at an improved device. The combination of familiar prior art elements including known sensor means for their known application according to known means to arrive at results that are nothing more than predictable is prima facie obvious. MPEP 2143(I)(A).
Claim 19 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kim (KR 2009/0029553) in view of Seo (KR 2012/0106028) as applied to claim 16 above and further in view of Campalans (US 2018/0099062).
Regarding claim 19, modified Kim is set forth above with regards to claim 16 but appears to be silent with regards to a thermal insulation layer.
Campalans (US 2018/0099062) teaches an ozone sanitization apparatus (title) that includes an insulation layer (insulated dividing wall 1031, par. 31). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the decomposition chamber includes a thermal insulation layer surrounding the heating element to arrive at the claimed invention. One would have been motivated to do so to better control the temperature around the heating element, to avoid excessive heat loss and improve performance, and to avoid unwanted heating of other components to arrive at an improved device.
Claims 21-24 and 26-30 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kim (KR 2009/0029553) in view of Seo (KR 2012/0106028) as applied to claim 16 above and further in view of McMurray (US 6,016,687).
Regarding claim 21, modified Kim appears to be silent with regards to a feedback loop that controls the decomposing mechanism based on measured operating conditions.
McMurray (US 6,016,687) teaches an ozone decomposition system where the power supply module comprises a feedback loop to supply power to the decomposing means based on measured ozone concentrations (Col. 2 lines 52-61 discloses a feedback loop for controlling the release of the ozone decomposing substance). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the device disclosed by Kim such that the ozone decomposing means including the heater is controlled by a feedback loop to supply power to the heater as taught by McMurray to arrive at the claimed invention. One would have been motivated to do so to efficiently deliver ozone decomposition according to a sensed requirement of decomposition to arrive at an improved device.
Regarding claim 22, Kim appears to be silent with regards to a power amplifier and controller controlling the systems power delivery.
Seo further teaches a power amplifier for controlling the operation of the devices components (p. 5 last par. – p. 6 1st par.) and McMurray teaches a controlling device (col. 2 lines 55-61). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the power supply of Kim such that it includes a power amplifier for supplying electrical power to the systems components including the heating element and such that the device is controlled by a controller as taught by Seo and McMurray to arrive at the claimed invention. One would have been motivated to do so to controllably adjust the power input to the system components to arrive at an improved ozone decontamination and decomposition system with better ozone production and decomposition control.
Regarding claim 23, modified Kim further teaches the controller controls the heating element using duty cycle-controlled power (p. 5 last par. – p. 6 1st par. of Seo teaches a controlled frequency at which the power is delivered).
Regarding claim 24, modified Kim further teaches the feedback circuit is configured to receive signals from at least one of an ozone sensor, a temperature sensor, and a humidity sensor, and wherein the feedback circuit is configured to adjust operation of the heating element in response to the signals received (Col. 2 lines 52-61 of McMurray discloses a feedback loop for controlling the ozone decomposing means based upon a sensed ozone concentration from an ozone sensor, making the control of the ozone decomposing means of Kim based on the same feedback obvious).
Regarding claim 26, Kim teaches –
An active plasma sterilizer (APS) system for sterilization/decontamination (abstract), comprising:
a sterilization box (Figs. 3-8 the housing 310 that encapsulates sterilization chamber 160);
a compact portable plasma reactorto be silent with regards to a plurality of plasma reactors that are portable and a module that includes a housing.
Further regarding the limitation that there are a plurality of portable plasma reactors: It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the device disclosed by Kim to include a plurality of plasma reactors, as this modification is merely the duplication of parts, and mere duplication of parts has no patentable significance unless a new and unexpected result is produced. MPEP 2144.04(VI)(B). There is no new or unexpected result expected from including multiple reactors instead of one.
Regarding the limitation directed towards a housing: Seo (KR 2011/0023846) teaches an ozone decomposition module (Fig. 2, the left side compartment in the chamber includes a module) that includes a housing including a decomposition chamber (hazardous gas removal module 204 includes therein a chamber that includes filter 201) for decomposing the ozone (p. 5 last par. to p. 6 2nd par.) and a power supply configured to controllably energize the decomposition module components (p. 5 last par. to p. 6 2nd par.). Seo teaches multiple housings 204 including multiple decomposition chambers (see fig. 2), providing further ozone removal. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the device disclosed by Kim such that the ozone decomposition module includes a housing defining a decomposition chamber and the power supply being a controllable power supply as taught by Seo to arrive at the claimed invention. One would have been motivated to do so to better decompose ozone by a plurality of ozone decomposing chambers as taught by Seo to arrive at an improved ozone decomposition system.
Regarding the limitation directed towards a controller for terminating operation of the plasma reactors and activating the ozone decomposition system to reduce ozone concentration: McMurray teaches a controller for controlling the operation of the ozone generator and ozone destruction apparatus to initiate and halt decomposition and sterilization cycles (Col. 3 lines 9-20). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the device disclosed by Kim such that it includes a controller for terminating operation of the plurality of compact portable plasma reactors after a sterilization cycle and activating the ozone decomposition system to reduce a residual ozone concentration before completion of the sterilization cycle to arrive at the claimed invention. One would have been motivated to do so to automatically control the operation of the device by a controller to arrive at a more convenient device.
Regarding claim 27, the device disclosed by Kim is reasonably capable of and expected to perform the function of treating contaminated air and where a liquid absorption medium configured to absorb the reactive oxygen species and nitrogen species is provided prior to discharge into an environment. (Fig. 8 shows the circulation of air that is in a treatment chamber and therefore is reasonably said to be, in the absence of ozone treatment, contaminated by being in contact with the contents of the chamber – and, the liquid absorption medium is not positively claimed and no structure is positively claimed for providing it, and therefore this limitation is merely an intended use of the device that could be performed by the device of Kim by providing some liquid in the chamber 160 for this purpose). See MPEP 2114, II.
Regarding claim 28, modified Kim further teaches operation of the ozone decomposition system is initiated automatically after plasma generation ceases (see fig. 5 of McMurray, the ozone generating cycle is concluded due to predetermined programming and the ozone decomposing material is released in response to that predetermined time being reached; Col. 6 lines 1 - 11).
Regarding claim 29, modified Kim further teaches the residual ozone concentration is reduced below 0.1 parts per million before completion of the sterilization cycle (Col. 6 lines 1 – 11 the decomposing means reduce the ozone to below 0.1 ppm during operation).
Regarding claim 30, modified Kim further teaches the controller operates the plurality of compact portable plasma reactors and the ozone decomposition system according to a predetermined sterilization sequence comprising plasma generation, ozone decomposition, and completion of the sterilization cycle (see fig. 5 of McMurray, the ozone generating cycle is concluded due to predetermined programming and the ozone decomposing material is released in response to that predetermined time being reached; Col. 6 lines 1 – 15, the initiation and termination of the generation decomposition and completion are all executed by predetermined programming).
Claim 25 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kim (KR 2009/0029553) in view of Seo (KR 2012/0106028) as applied to claim 16 above and further in view of Sato (US 2011/0165299).
Regarding claim 25, modified Kim is set forth above with regards to claim 16 but appears to be silent with regards to an induction heating mesh or induction heating coil.
Sato (US 2011/0165299) teaches a heater for heating gas that includes an induction heating coil (pars. 33, 41; coil 12 in fig. 1). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the device disclosed by Kim such that the heater is an induction coil heater as taught by Sato to arrive at the claimed invention. The combination of familiar prior art elements, including known heater types for known purposes such as heating a gas, according to known means to arrive at results that are nothing more than predictable is prima facie obvious. MPEP 2143(I)(A).
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 8/6/26 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant’s general comments on the Kim reference are not persuasive because the comments do not specifically point out the subject matter in the claims that is distinct from Kim, and the comments only amount to a mere allegation of patentability. Furthermore, the claims are not rejected as being anticipated by Kim anywhere in the rejection above as necessitated by Applicant’s amendment and therefore the arguments are moot.
Applicant’s amendment to claim 24 have obviated the 101 rejection.
Applicant has failed to remedy the 112(b) rejection in claim 26 and the claim and its dependents remain rejected.
Applicant’s remarks directed towards the 102 rejection of Kim are moot because the rejection of the claims above does not include a 102 rejection as necessitated by Applicant’s amendment.
Applicant’s remarks directed towards the 103 rejection are not persuasive because the arguments do not attack the references for any of the reasons they are relied upon in the rejections above.
Claims 16-30 remain rejected.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to BRENDAN A HENSEL whose telephone number is (571)272-6615. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Thu 8:30 - 7pm;.
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.
/BRENDAN A HENSEL/Examiner, Art Unit 1758
