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 with traverse of Invention I and Species D in the reply filed on 30 December 2025 is acknowledged. The traversal is on the ground(s) that search and examination of the entire application can be made without serious burden. This is not found persuasive because the Examiner provided rationale in the Requirement for Restriction/Election as to how the inventions have two-way distinctness and, thus, would present a search and/or examination burden. Additionally, the Examiner showed that the species regarded mutually exclusive structures and would present a search and/or examination burden. As Applicant has not provided a specific rationale as to how the search and examination of the entire application can be made without serious burden, the restriction requirement has been maintained.
The requirement is still deemed proper and is therefore made FINAL.
Claims 2-4, 11-13 and 17-23 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b), as being drawn to a nonelected invention or species, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Applicant timely traversed the restriction (election) requirement in the reply filed on 30 December 2025.
Claim Objections
Applicant is advised that should claims 1 and 5-7 be found allowable, claims 10 and 14-16 will be objected to under 37 CFR 1.75 as being a substantial duplicate thereof. When two claims in an application are duplicates or else are so close in content that they both cover the same thing, despite a slight difference in wording, it is proper after allowing one claim to object to the other as being a substantial duplicate of the allowed claim. See MPEP § 608.01(m). Claim 10 is noted to only differ from claim 1 as the word “disinfectant” is omitted from describing the structural element of a “fog generator.” As the contents of a system during an intended use thereof do not further limit the patentability of the system, the omission of the word “disinfectant” from claim 10 does not render the claims patentably distinguishable from one another.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1, 5-10 and 14-16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Grinstead (US 2016/0235878).
In regard to claim 1, Grinstead discloses a system for disinfecting an enclosed chamber (“system for treating an enclosed area” for the purpose of disinfecting the area; see abstract and [0002]) comprising: a housing (housing 32); an inlet (one or more air intakes 40) and an outlet (outlet of the atomizing nozzle 35) carried by the housing to be capable of being connected in an airflow path with the enclosed chamber (not explicitly recited but equivalent to the recited “enclosed area;” see at least [0025]); a blower (compressor 34) carried by the housing and connected to the airflow path between the inlet and outlet and capable of circulating air through the airflow path; a disinfectant fog generator (atomizing nozzle 35) capable of introducing a disinfectant fog into the airflow path at room temperature (the fogger 31 does not include structure for heating or cooling the fluid in reservoir 33) from a disinfectant fluid (not explicitly recited but fluid reservoir 33 is connected to the nozzle 35 and is disclosed to be capable of containing a disinfectant solution; see [0025]-[0026]); and a controller (processor 37) configured to operate the disinfectant fog generator (the processor 37 is capable of controlling movement of the nozzle 35 and through treatment schedules and/or parameters; see [0031] and [0040]) and a dehumidifier (not explicitly recited) coupled to the airflow path during a treatment phase (processor 37 controls operation of outlet 42 which is capable of selectively powering a dehumidifier which meets the broadest reasonable interpretation of the limitation; see [0033], [0050] and [0053]). See Figures 1-4, 7 and 12.
In regard to claim 5, Grinstead discloses wherein the disinfectant fog generator comprises an atomizing nozzle 35. See Figure 1 and [0026].
In regard to claim 6, Grinstead discloses wherein the controller is configured to operate the blower non-continuously (equivalent to the disclosed “pulse phase”) during the treatment phase. See [0006] and [0039]-[0042].
In regard to claim 7, Grinstead discloses wherein the controller is configured to operate the disinfectant fog generator continuously during a first portion (“continuous mode;” see [0040]) of the treatment phase, and non-continuously during a second portion (“pulse phase”) of the treatment phase. See [0006] and [0039]-[0042].
In regard to claim 8, it is noted that the instant claims do not explicitly recite the structure of “a dehumidifier” as claim 1 merely states that the controller must be configured to operate a dehumidifier during a treatment phase. Therefore, the limitations of wherein the dehumidifier comprises a desiccation cartridge, and further comprising an airflow valve downstream from the inlet and configured to switch the airflow through the desiccation cartridge responsive to the controller do not further limit the patentability of the recited system as the dehumidifier has not been positively recited. Thus, it is held that the system of Grinstead is capable of being used with a dehumidifier comprising a desiccation cartridge, and further comprising an airflow valve, which would necessarily be “downstream” from the inlet as the dehumidifier is capable of receiving fog dispensed by the fog generator. The Courts have held that if the prior art structure is capable of performing the intended use, then it meets the claim. See In re Casey, 152 USPQ 235 (CCPA 1967); and In re Otto, 136 USPQ 458, 459 (CCPA 1963).
In regard to claim 9, it is noted that the instant claims do not explicitly recite the structure of “a dehumidifier” as claim 1 merely states that the controller must be configured to operate a dehumidifier during a treatment phase. Therefore, the limitation of wherein the dehumidifier comprises an evaporator does not further limit the patentability of the recited system as the dehumidifier has not been positively recited. Thus, it is held that the system of Grinstead is capable of being used with a dehumidifier comprises an evaporator. The Courts have held that if the prior art structure is capable of performing the intended use, then it meets the claim. See In re Casey, 152 USPQ 235 (CCPA 1967); and In re Otto, 136 USPQ 458, 459 (CCPA 1963).
In regard to claim 10, Grinstead discloses a system for treating an enclosed chamber (“system for treating an enclosed area;” abstract) comprising: a housing (housing 32); an inlet (one or more air intakes 40) and an outlet (outlet of the atomizing nozzle 35) carried by the housing to be capable of being connected in an airflow path with the enclosed chamber (not explicitly recited but equivalent to the recited “enclosed area;” see at least [0025]); a blower (compressor 34) carried by the housing and connected to the airflow path between the inlet and outlet and capable of circulating air through the airflow path; a fog generator (atomizing nozzle 35) capable of introducing a fog into the airflow path at room temperature (the fogger 31 does not include structure for heating or cooling the fluid in reservoir 33) from a treatment fluid (not explicitly recited but fluid reservoir 33 is connected to the nozzle 35 and is disclosed to be capable of containing a disinfectant solution; see [0025]-[0026]); and a controller (processor 37) configured to operate the fog generator (the processor 37 is capable of controlling movement of the nozzle 35 and through treatment schedules and/or parameters; see [0031] and [0040]) and a dehumidifier (not explicitly recited) coupled to the airflow path during a treatment phase (processor 37 controls operation of outlet 42 which is capable of selectively powering a dehumidifier which meets the broadest reasonable interpretation of the limitation; see [0033], [0050] and [0053]). See Figures 1-4, 7 and 12.
In regard to claim 14, Grinstead discloses wherein the fog generator comprises an atomizing nozzle 35. See Figure 1 and [0026].
In regard to claim 15, Grinstead discloses wherein the controller is configured to operate the blower non-continuously (equivalent to the disclosed “pulse phase”) during the treatment phase. See [0006] and [0039]-[0042].
In regard to claim 16, Grinstead discloses wherein the controller is configured to operate the fog generator continuously during a first portion (“continuous mode;” see [0040]) of the treatment phase, and non-continuously during a second portion (“pulse phase”) of the treatment phase. See [0006] and [0039]-[0042].
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to TIMOTHY C CLEVELAND whose telephone number is (571)270-5041. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9:00-5:30.
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, Claire Wang can be reached at (571) 270-1051. 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.
/TIMOTHY C CLEVELAND/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1774