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 2-7 in the reply filed on 05 May 2026 is acknowledged.
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.
Claims 2-4 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Masaoka (JP 2013078650 A) in view of Kim (US 20210346531 A1).
Regarding claim 2, Masaoka teaches a new coronavirus inactivation device for inactivating viruses by singlet oxygen (virus inactivation with singlet oxygen, paragraph [0001]), the new coronavirus inactivation device comprising: a contactor configured to being an aqueous rose Bengal solution and air containing the new coronavirus into contact with each other in a state where light is applied to the aqueous rose Bengal solution (device takes the virus in the air into the liquid and inactivates the virus by generating singlet oxygen through a photosensitizing reaction, paragraph [0008], and the photosensitizing dye in the device is rose Bengal, [0009]), wherein the aqueous rose Bengal solution has a concentration of not less than 10 µM and not greater than 50 µM (10 µM concentration of rose Bengal aqueous solution was used, paragraph [0090]), and the light applied to the aqueous rose Bengal solution has an illuminance of not less than 500 lux and not greater than 8000 lux (illuminance is 3500 lux in the first tower and 6000 lux in the second tower, paragraph [0094]), but does not teach specifically applying the singlet oxygen to new coronavirus SARS-CoV-2. However, Kim teaches singlet oxygen is highly effective against enveloped viruses such as SARS-CoV-2 (paragraph [0049]).
Masaoka and Kim are considered analogous to the current invention because all are in the field of virus inactivation using food dyes such as rose Bengal solutions. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to combine the singlet oxygen generating disinfection device taught by Masaoka with the use against SARS-CoV-2 as taught by Kim because Kim teaches the use of a photodynamic aerosol generator is effective for inactivating SARS-CoV-2 (paragraph [0040]).
Regarding claim 3, the combination of Masaoka and Kim teaches wherein the contactor is configured to blow the air containing the new coronavirus SARS-CoV-2 into the aqueous rose Bengal solution to which the light is applied (Figure 1 fan “10” blows air to be treated into tower body “15” containing photosensitizing dye “13” to be illuminated by lighting device “7”, Masaoka).
Regarding claim 4, the combination of Masaoka and Kim teaches wherein the contactor configured to blow the air includes a jet nozzle or jet hole through which the air containing the new coronavirus SARS-CoV-2 is blown into the aqueous rose Bengal solution to which the light is applied (Figure 1 air supplied into rose Bengal solution “13” through nozzles “17”, Masaoka).
Claims 5-6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Masaoka and Kim in view of Lee (KR 101938121 B1).
Regarding claim 5, the combination of Masaoka and Kim teaches wherein a concentration adjusting device including a supplier configured to supply rose Bengal powder or a high-concentration aqueous rose Bengal solution, the concentration adjusting device being configured to adjust the concentration of the aqueous rose Bengal solution in to a set range (dissolving photosensitizing dye in a liquid is easier to increase the concentration of the photosensitizing dye, paragraph [0018], and photosensitizing dye solution replenisher can hold and discharge dye solution, paragraph [0064], Masaoka), but does not teach wherein the concentration adjusting device includes a sensor configured to detect the concentration of the aqueous rose Bengal solution. However, Lee teaches wherein the concentration adjusting device includes a sensor configured to detect the concentration of the aqueous rose Bengal solution (color sensor supplies sodium hypochlorite whenever a color of 10-15 or higher is detected until the color becomes less than 40, paragraph [0145]).
Masaoka, Kim, and Lee are considered analogous to the current invention because all are in the field air scrubbing apparatuses. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to combine the rose Bengal disinfection device taught by Masaoka with the concentration detection device taught by Lee because Lee teaches such a sensor allows a predetermined amount of disinfection agent to be supplied to the system to provide deodorization, sterilization, and disinfection (paragraph [0065]).
Regarding claim 6, the combination of Masaoka, Kim, and Lee teaches wherein the concentration adjusting device detects a color of the aqueous rose Bengal solution by the sensor and adjusts the concentration of the aqueous rose Bengal solution into the set range by using a correlation between the color and concentration of the aqueous rose Bengal solution (color sensor supplies sodium hypochlorite whenever a color of 10-15 or higher is detected until the color becomes less than 40, paragraph [0145], and sodium hypochlorite is diluted to have a desired color, paragraph [0105], Lee)
Claim 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Masaoka and Kim in view of Boyd (US 20240139369 A1).
Regarding claim 7, the combination of Masaoka and Kim teaches all aspects of the current invention as described above except a water level adjusting device configured to keep a water level of the aqueous rose Bengal solution at a set water level. However, Boyd teaches a water level adjusting device configured to keep a water level of the aqueous rose Bengal solution at a set water level (one or more level sensors to communicate fluid level in reservoir and used to adjust temperature balance or add water to maintain fluid, paragraph [0136]).
Masaoka, Kim, and Boyd are considered analogous to the current invention because all are in the field of air scrubbing apparatuses. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to combine the rose Bengal disinfection device taught by Masaoka with the water level adjusting device taught by Boyd because Boyd teaches such a control configuration allows the system to prevent water overflow or drying out of the reservoir (paragraph [0136]).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to KAYLA ROSE SARANTAKOS whose telephone number is (703)756-5524. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri 7:00-4:00.
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, Michael Marcheschi can be reached at (571) 272-1374. 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.
/K.R.S./Examiner, Art Unit 1799
/DONALD R SPAMER/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1799
Prosecution Insights