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 § 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 1, 5-10, 14-16 and 24 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Grinstead (US 2016/0235878) in view of Childers (US 5,173,258) and Hill et al. (US 2005/0084431; hereinafter “Hill”).
In regard to claims 1, 8-10 and 24, 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; 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) carried by the housing 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 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 control dehumidification of air within 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.
Grinstead is silent in regard to wherein the housing is positioned outside of the enclosed chamber, wherein the housing has an inlet port and an outlet port, to wherein a first tubing and a second tubing are coupled between the ports and the enclosed chamber for forming a closed-loop airflow path, and to wherein a dehumidifier is carried by the housing and configured to dehumidify air within the closed-loop airflow path responsive to the controller as recited in claims 10 and 24.
Childers discloses a recirculation/drying unit 10 comprising a housing (implied by the box of numeral 10) position outside of the enclosed chamber (sealed enclosure 12) having an inlet (14) and an outlet (18). Childers discloses a first tubing (fluid flow line 21) coupled between the outlet port (24) and the inlet (14) of the enclosed chamber, and second tubing (fluid flow line 25) coupled between the inlet port (22) and the outlet (18) of the enclosed chamber to define a closed-loop airflow path between the housing and the enclosed chamber. Childers further discloses a dehumidifier (air drier 40) carried by the housing and configured to dehumidify air within the closed-loop airflow path responsive to the operation of an airflow valve (three-way by-pass valve 110; recited in claim 8). The air drier of 40 is taught to be a desiccation cartridge (“dessicant column” (sic); col. 5, lines 18-19) as recited in claim 8 and further include an electric heater 42 which is viewed to be tantamount to the “evaporator” recited in claim 9 as the heater functions to regenerate the desiccant by evaporating the captured water. See col. 4, line 6 through col. 5, line 51; col. 7, lines 63-68 and Figure 2.
Childers is silent to wherein the dehumidifier is responsive to a controller.
Hill discloses a vapor decontamination system (10) which includes a dehumidifier (air drier 94) which is controlled responsive to a controller (210) as the controller operates an airflow valve (valve 122) in order to flow air within the closed-loop system through flow path A or flow path B. See paragraphs [0019]-[0024] and Figures 1-2.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have combined the housing, ports, tubing, airflow valve and dehumidifier of Childers and the controller control of the valve of Hill with the fogging system of Grinstead for the purpose of providing a self-contained fogging system for external enclosures which can function to dry air within a closed-loop system as desired for process control.
In regard to claims 5 and 14, Grinstead discloses wherein the disinfectant fog generator comprises an atomizing nozzle 35. See Figure 1 and [0026].
In regard to claims 6 and 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 claims 7 and 16, 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].
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to the claims have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
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 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
Prosecution Insights