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.
Response to Amendment
Claim amendments filed 01 September 2026 are acknowledged. Claims 2 and 6-8 are pending with claims 3-5 being cancelled and claim 1 being withdrawn.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, see pages 5-6 of the applicant’s response, filed 01 September 2026, with respect to the rejection of claim 2 under 35 U.S.C. 103 have been fully considered and are persuasive. Therefore, the rejection has been withdrawn. However, upon further consideration, a new ground of rejection is made in view of 35 U.S.C. 103 with respect to Masaoka in view of Kim, Lee, and Niazi (US 8066947 B2).
While the incorporation of limitations from previously presented claim 5 into independent claim 2 is sufficient to overcome the previously presented 35 U.S.C. 103 rejection with respect to Masaoka in view of Kim, the rejection of the limitations from previously presented claim 5 would still be maintained. The newly added limitation “supply rose Bengal powder or a high-concentration aqueous rose Bengal solution to an upstream side of the jet nozzle or jet hole” would be sufficient to overcome the previously presented rejection. However, Niazi teaches supply rose Bengal powder or a high-concentration aqueous rose Bengal solution to an upstream side of the jet nozzle or jet hole (Figure 1 port “9” to supple liquid or powder to housing “1” upstream of air supply “3”). Therefore, a combination of Masaoka, Kim, Lee, and Niazi would render the current invention obvious.
Following the above logic, the 35 U.S.C. 103 rejections of claim 6 has been withdrawn. However, upon further consideration, a new ground of rejection is made in view of 35 U.S.C. 103 with respect to Masaoka in view of Kim, Lee, and Niazi. Similarly, the 35 U.S.C. 103 rejections of claim 7 has been withdrawn. However, upon further consideration, a new ground of rejection is made in view of 35 U.S.C. 103 with respect to Masaoka, Kim, Lee, and Niazi in view of Boyd
The 35 U.S.C. 103 rejections of claims 3-5 have been withdrawn due to the claims being cancelled.
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 and 6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Masaoka (JP 2013078650 A) in view of Kim (US 20210346531 A1), Lee (KR 101938121 B1), and Niazi (US 8066947 B2).
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 contactor is configured to blow the air containing the virus into the aqueous rose Bengal solution (Figure 1 fan “10” blows air to be treated into tower body “15” containing photosensitizing dye “13” to be illuminated by lighting device “7”) , and wherein the contactor includes a jet nozzle or jet hole through which the air containing the virus is blown into the aqueous rose Bengal solution (Figure 1 air supplied into rose Bengal solution “13” through nozzles “17”), 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 into 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]), 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, wherein the concentration adjusting device includes a sensor configured to detect the concentration of the aqueous rose Bengal solution, or wherein the supplier supplies the rose Bengal power or high-concentration aqueous rose Bengal solution to an upstream side of the jet nozzle or jet hole. However, Kim teaches singlet oxygen is highly effective against enveloped viruses such as SARS-CoV-2 (paragraph [0049]). 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]). Niazi teaches wherein the supplier supplies the rose Bengal power or high-concentration aqueous rose Bengal solution to an upstream side of the jet nozzle or jet hole (Figure 1 port “9” to supple liquid or powder to housing “1” upstream of air supply “3”).
Masaoka, Kim, Lee, and Niazi 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 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]). Additionally, 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]). Finally, 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 upstream supply port taught by Niazi because Niazi teaches that continuously replacing the solution with increase the total contact time of the infected air with solution (column 5 lines 43-48).
Regarding claim 6, the combination of Masaoka, Kim, Lee, and Niazi 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, Kim, Lee, and Niazi in view of Boyd (US 20240139369 A1).
Regarding claim 7, the combination of Masaoka, Kim, Lee, and Niazi 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, Lee, Niazi 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, Kim, Lee, and Niazi with the water level adjusting device taught by Boyd because Boyd teaches such a control configuration allows the system to prevent water overflowing or drying out of the reservoir (paragraph [0136]).
Claim 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Masaoka, Kim, Lee, and Niazi in view of Narabayashi (US 20230173440 A1).
Regarding claim 8, the combination of Masaoka, Kim, Lee, and Niazi teaches all aspects of the current invention except a baffle plate across which the sensor and the jet nozzle or jet hole are positioned on opposite side such that the baffle plate prevents air bubble entrainment and liquid turbulence at the sensor position. However, Narabayashi teaches a baffle plate across which the sensor and the jet nozzle or jet hole are positioned on opposite side such that the baffle plate prevents air bubble entrainment and liquid turbulence at the sensor position (Figure 1C mixing nozzle “40” comprises a baffle plate “47” at the top of nozzle, and Figure 3 top of mixing nozzle “40” between nozzle section “43” and sensor “61”).
Masaoka, Kim, Lee, Niazi and Narabayashi 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, Kim, Lee, and Niazi with the baffle plate taught by Narabayashi because Narabayashi teaches that the impact baffle plate advantageously mixes the gas and solution by centrifugal force and directs the flow toward the bottom of the water storage rather than releasing it straight up (paragraphs [0049]-[0051]).
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 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