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 .
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election without traverse of claims 16-27 in the reply filed on 4/3/26 is acknowledged.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
Claim 24 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
The claim recites “monitor an operational parameter of a load and provide feedback to the controller” where the term “monitor an operational parameter of a load” is an abstract idea because monitoring is a step that can be performed in the human mind, by for example observing or viewing something.
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because the only use for the abstract idea is “provide feedback to the controller” which is not a particular practical application. Providing feedback is only a high-level and nonspecific function that only serves to generally link the abstract to the field of endeavor and only amounts to “apply it”. MPEP 2106.05(f). The fact that the an “operation of the power amplifier” is controlled based on the feedback is also only a generic and high-level linking of the abstract idea to the field of endeavor, and is not specific nor practical as claimed.
The claim(s) does/do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because the only additional elements are a power supply module, amplifier, feedback loop, and the structure of claim 16 which are nothing more than well-understood, routine, and conventional in the field of ozone decomposition as set forth by Kim and Schwartz below.
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 16-27 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.
Claim 16 recites the limitation “an air pump configured to circulate the ozonated air generated”, however the claim does not require that ozonated air is generated. It is therefore unclear whether the scope of the claim requires the generation of ozonated air or not, and therefore the scope of the claim cannot be determined and the claim is indefinite. For the purpose of examination, it is interpreted there is ozonated air.
Claim 16 recites “a power supply module” and it is not clear if it is the same as the “power supply” recited in line 2 of the claim. For the purpose of examination, it is interpreted the power supply module is or is part of the power supply.
Claim 20 recites the limitation “standard wall supply module” and it cannot be determined what the limitation “standard” necessarily requires. There are not standards set forth in the claim or specification that limit what the “standard” is or is not, and therefore the scope of the claim cannot be determined and the claim is indefinite. For the purpose of examination, it is interpreted it is a wall supply module.
Claim 21 recites the limitation "the heating coil" in line 2 of the claim. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. For the purpose of examination, it is interpreted that power is supplied to some heating element.
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 on one of the claims above for at least the reasons above.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 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.
Claims 16 and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Kim (KR 2009/0029553).
Regarding claim 16, Kim (KR 2009/0029553) teaches –
An ozone decomposition system (Figs. 1-2 ozone remover 19 and surrounding components), comprising:
a heating element (ozone remover 19, p. 5 last par.) connected to a power supply and configured to 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 for supplying power to the heating element (a heater must necessarily and inherently be connected to some power supply in order to produce heat);
connecting pipes for providing paths for ozonated air to travel through (pipes shown in fig. 1 including discharge pipe 17 and circulation connection 14); and
an air pump configured to circulate the ozonated air (circulation pump 15, p. 6 last par.).
Regarding claim 19, Kim further teaches an insulation element for insulating heat generated by the heating element (Fig. 1, the base of the device 10 or any of the solid structures surrounding the heater 19 would perform the function of insulating and therefor read on the limitation of an insulating element).
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.
Claims 17 and 26-27 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kim (KR 2009/0029553).
Regarding claim 17, Kim appears to be silent with regards to a sensor in the embodiment of figs. 1-2. However, in the embodiment of figs. 3-8, Kim teaches at least one sensor configured to measure ozone level (ozone sensor 170, abstract). 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 an ozone sensor to measure ozone level to arrive at the claimed invention. One would have been motivated to do so to better control the performance of the device.
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 reactorbefore the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the device disclosed in Fig. 3 of Kim to comprise the ozone decomposition system according to claim 16. One would have been motivated to do so to successfully decompose ozone as is known in the art to arrive at an improved device.
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 claim 27, the device disclosed by Kim is reasonably capable of and expected to perform the function of treating contaminated air and where a solvent is provided to enhance absorption of the RONS. (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 solvent 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.
Claims 18, 20, and 25 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kim (KR 2009/0029553) as applied to claim 16 and 17 above and further in view of Schwartz (US 2018/0207307).
Regarding claim 18, 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).
Regarding claim 20, Kim is silent with regards to the power supply module type.
Schwartz further teaches a power supply module that includes a wall supply module and also a battery (par. 46 and 86 teaches a wall supply module and a battery connection). 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 power supply module includes a wall module or a battery as taught by Schwartz to arrive at the claimed invention. One would have been motivated to do so to successfully power the device.
Regarding claim 25, Schwartz further teaches the ozone decomposing element includes a mesh (par. 137). 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 decomposing means, including the heating element, to include a mesh as taught by Schwartz to arrive at the claimed invention. One would have been motivated to do so to maximize the contact area between the decomposing means and the air to be treated to arrive at an improved device.
Claim 21 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kim (KR 2009/0029553) as applied to claim 16 above and further in view of McMurray (US 6,016,687).
Regarding claim 21, Kim appears to be silent with regards to a feedback loop.
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 (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.
Claim 22-24 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kim (KR 2009/0029553) in view of McMurray (US 6,016,687) as applied to claim 21 above and further in view of Seo (KR 2011/0023846).
Regarding claim 22, modified Kim is set forth above with regards to claim 21 and further teaches a controller (McMurray teaches a controlling device, Col. 2 lines 55-61) but appears to be silent with regards to a power amplifier.
Seo (KR 2011/0023846) teaches an ozone decomposing system (abstract) where the power supply includes a power amplifier (page 5 last par. – page 6 first par.). 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 power supply module includes a power amplifier and controller to control a voltage input to the power amplifier as taught by Seo to at the claimed invention. One would have been motivated to do so to better control the operation of the heater to better remove ozone to arrive at an improved device.
Regarding claim 23, modified Kim further teaches an input voltage of the power supply module is supplied in a duty cycle (page 5 last par. – page 6 first par. teaches a frequency control, which teaches a duty cycle at that frequency).
Regarding claim 24, modified Kim further teaches the power supply module further comprises feedback circuitry configured to monitor an operational parameter of a load and provide feedback to the controller, wherein the controller is configured to control operation of the power amplifier based on the provided feedback (McMurray teaches a feedback logic circuit that controls the operation based on a parameter including an ozone amount and therefore some power level of the ozone decomposing means, Col. 2 lines 55-61, which when incorporated into Kim would include an operation of a power amplifier interfacing with those means).
Conclusion
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
Prosecution Insights