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 Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitation(s) is/are:
a homogenization module … configured to homogenize a composition of the decontamination agent leaving the catalysis module in claim 17.
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
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 20-25, 27, and 30 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. The claims are rejected for the following reasons.
Claim 20 recites the limitations "the catalysis module" and “the homogenization module” in line 2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for these limitations in the claim. It appears claim 20 is intended to depend upon claim 17.
Claim 21 recites the limitation "the homogenization module" in line 3. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. It appears claim 21 is intended to depend upon claim 20.
Claim 22 recites the limitation "a second sensor" in line 1. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. It appears claim 22 is intended to depend upon claim 21.
Claim 22 recites the limitation "the catalysis module" in the last line. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 23 recites the limitations "the recirculation circuit" and “the homogenization module” in the last line of the claim. There is insufficient antecedent basis for these limitations in the claim.
Claim 24 recites the limitation "said at least one sensor" in line 1. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. It appears claim 24 is intended to depend upon claim 21.
Claim 25 recites the limitation "said at least one sensor" in line 1. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 27 recites the limitation "the transversal wall" in line 1. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
14. Claim 27 recites the limitation "the transversal wall" in line 1. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim
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 15, 16, 22, 23, 28, and 29 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Naito (US 2020/0360551).
Regarding claim 15, the reference Naito discloses a machine (1) for decontaminating surfaces and/or containers (22), the machine comprising:
a processing chamber (20) configured to contain a plurality of containers to be decontaminated, the processing chamber (20) being hermetically sealable during execution of a decontamination process (see para. [065]; Fig. 1);
an inlet line configured to feed to the processing chamber a decontamination agent for the execution of the decontamination process (see para. [0070]; Fig. 1);
an outlet line (60A) configured to evacuate the decontamination agent from the processing chamber (20) at an end of the decontamination process (see para. [0076]; Fig. 1);
a catalyzer device (62) coupled to the outlet line and configured to receive the decontamination agent and configured to promote a decomposition of at least one chemical component of said decontamination agent (see para. [0076]; Fig. 1).
Regarding claim 16, the reference Naito discloses the machine, wherein the inlet line (30A) is configured to feed a decontamination agent comprising hydrogen peroxide (see para. [0070]; Fig. 1) and the catalyzer device (62) is configured to decompose the hydrogen peroxide into water and oxygen (see para. [0076]; Fig. 1).
Regarding claim 22, the reference Naito discloses that the machine may further comprise a sensor adapted to measure a concentration of at least one chemical component in the decontamination agent at the catalysis module (see para. [0097]).
Regarding claim 23, the reference Naito discloses that the machine may further comprise a sensor adapted to measure a concentration of at least one chemical component in the decontamination agent at the catalysis module, and that the sensor can be positioned inside the processing chamber and (see para. [0097]).
Regarding claim 28, the reference Naito discloses a catalyzer device (62) coupled to the outlet line (60A) of the machine (1) for decontaminating surfaces and/or containers (see para. [0076]; Fig. 1).
Regarding claim 29, the reference Naito discloses the machine, wherein the containers comprise containers for pharmaceutical use (see paras. [0009]; [0066]).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 17-19, 26, and 30 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Regarding claims 17-19, 26, and 30 the claims would be allowable because the prior art of record does not disclose or fairly suggest the feature: a homogenization module located downstream of the catalysis module relative to said feed direction of the decontamination agent and configured to homogenize a composition of the decontamination agent leaving the catalysis module, as required in claim 17.
Claims 20, 21, 24, 25, and 27 would be allowable if rewritten to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 2nd paragraph, set forth in this Office action and to include all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Lessanework T Seifu whose telephone number is (571)270-3153. The examiner can normally be reached M-T 9:00 am - 6:30 pm; F 9:00 am - 1:00 pm.
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.
/LESSANEWORK SEIFU/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1774
Prosecution Insights