DETAILED ACTION
This is the first action in response to US Patent Application 18/558,946, filed 03 November, 2023, as the National Stage Entry of International Application PCT/IB2022/054193, filed 06 May, 2022, and with priority to Italian Application IT 10-2021-000011783, filed 07 May, 2021.
The preliminary amendments filed 03 November, 2023, have been entered. All claims 1-12 are pending and have been fully considered.
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
It is noted that claim 1 recites the term “substantially” with respect to the sealing of the deflector to an inner surface of the side wall (claim 1, lines 6-8). Although the term “substantially” is a term of relative degree, it is clear when interpreting the entire claim in view of the instant disclosure that the seal must be sufficiently airtight so that air cannot flow between the deflector and side wall and so the air is instead forced to flow along the helical path.
Claim Objections
Claims 1 is objected to for the following informality: the recitation of “that” at line 6 of the claim should be omitted.
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.
Claims 1-12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
Regarding claim 1, lines 8-9 of the claim indicate that the side wall and deflector define “a helical conduit traversed by the entire flow”. The antecedent basis for and precise meaning of “the entire flow” is not clear from the claim. The limitation is interpreted as requiring that the helical conduit defines the only fluid pathway between the inlet opening and outlet opening, so that all air traveling through the device must follow the helical conduit. Also, the “entire flow” is understood to refer to the “air flow” recited in line 1 of the claim. The claim should be adjusted to clarify the meaning and antecedent basis for the limitation at lines 8-9 of the claims. For example, lines 8-9 of the claim could be adjusted to read: “a helical conduit ; and wherein the air flow moves through the hollow body from the inlet opening to the outlet opening such that all of the air flow traverses the helical conduit”.
Claims 2-12 are rejected by dependency on or incorporation of claim 1.
Further regarding claim 2, the claim recites the term “approximately” (line 2) when indicating that “a cross-section of the helical conduit is approximately equal to that of the inlet opening of the hollow body”. Firstly, the term “approximately” is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite because the term is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention. Thus, it is not clear how similar the cross section of the helical conduit and the cross section of the inlet opening must be to be “approximately” equal. Secondly, it is not clear how two cross-sections can be approximately equal as a cross-section is a shape, not a value. It appears (based on the instant specification at page 5, lines 5-7) that the limitation should indicate that “an area of a cross-section of the helical conduit is an area of a cross-section of the inlet opening of the hollow body”.
Further regarding claim 4, the claim indicates that “the helical conduit has a length of 5 to 10 times the axial length of the hollow body” (lines 1-2). The recited “length” of the helical conduit is not well defined because it is unclear if the length would refer, for example, the length of a path along the outer perimeter of the helical conduit, the length of a path along an inner perimeter of the helical conduit, the length of a path along a position of the helical conduit between the inner and outer sides of the helical conduit, or a length of the axis of the helical conduit. The specification indicates that the helical conduit has a length measured along a helical axis of the conduit that is between 5 and 10 times the axial length of the hollow body (page 5, lines 5-9), but the meaning of “helical axis” recited in the specification is also unclear because in all disclosed embodiments the axis of the helical deflector is aligned with the axis of the hollow body and the helical deflector is contained within the hollow body, so a helical axis that is longer than the axis of the hollow body does not appear possible. The claim should be adjusted to clarify how the length of the helical conduit is defined, for example by defining the length as the length of a path along an outer perimeter of the helical conduit.
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.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1, 3 and 5-6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1&2) as being anticipated by Silverman (US 2020/0282086, cited in the IDS filed 03 November, 2023).
Regarding claim 1, Silverman teaches a system for the sterilization of fluids with UV-C light (title, abstract), the system including at least a duct through which air passes and UV-C radiation units installed in at least one position on or within the duct in order to expose the air passing through the duct to the UV-C radiation ([0114]). Particular embodiments (implementation 7) include a round duct in which an air foil shaped as a helical insert is disposed, the air foil extending the length of the air flow path and consequently increasing the time the air remains in the duct and thus the UV-C exposure of the air flowing through the duct ([0129]). Said embodiments further include a plurality of UVC sources placed internal to the duct so that air moving through the duct passes directly through the field of UV-C radiation generated by the UV-C sources ([0129]).
Additionally, Silverman indicates that in said embodiments, the helical insert seals with the sidewalls of the duct and, if present, a tube running through the center of the duct, such that air flowing through the duct is forced to follow the entire length of the helical insert ([0062]; also [0140]). The ducts are depicted in various embodiments as including base walls (see end-caps in Fig. 16; Fig. 18 also depicts caps at each end of the duct) through which air flows (Figs. 16 and 18 show airflow direction going through end caps), necessarily implying inlet openings and outlet openings defined in the base walls through which the air travels. Fig. 19 further teaches including a reflective surface on the inside of the duct to reflect UVC back into the airflow (Fig. 19).
See the exemplary embodiment of Fig. 18 of Silverman below.
PNG
media_image1.png
452
464
media_image1.png
Greyscale
From the above, it is evident that Silverman teaches a device for disinfecting an air flow, comprising:
a hollow body (duct) having an axis, a side wall, and two base walls (see Fig. 18, duct is depicted with cylindrical sidewall arranged along an axis and with two opposing end caps defining base walls) provided with internal reflective surfaces (Fig. 19 indicates the inside surfaces of the duct are reflective to direct UVC back into airflow),
an inlet opening and an outlet opening formed in or near the respective base walls (air is depicted as flowing through end caps in Fig. 18, necessarily implying inlet and outlet openings in the end caps to enable the entry and exit of the air flow)
at least one source of UV-C radiation disposed within hollow body (Fig. 18 suggest a clear central tube containing at least one UV-C source; [0129] and [0140] also teach one or more UV-C sources mounted in the duct); and
a helical-shaped deflector (helical air foil) axially housed in the hollow body (see helical air foil in Fig. 19; also [0129], [0140]);
wherein the hollow body is cylindrical (see Fig. 18) and an outer edge of the deflector cooperates substantially sealingly with an inner surface of the side wall of the hollow body so as to define with said side wall a helical conduit traversed by the entire flow ([see Fig. 18, [0062], [0140], which clearly indicate the air foil seals to the surfaces of the outer duct and inner tube to force air along a helical path defined by the air foil).
Regarding claim 3, Silverman teaches the device of claim 1. Silverman further teaches that the disinfection device can be installed between other duct sections (invention is pre-installed into a joiner section of duct that is inserted between other duct sections—[0114], [0117],[0133],[0135]), which fairly implies an inlet conduit and an outlet conduit arranged along respective extensions of the helical conduit (i.e., the duct sections before and after the disinfecting device define inlet and outlet conduits, respectively).
Regarding claim 5, Silverman teaches the device of claim 1, wherein the deflector is in the form of a ruled helicoid (see various helical air foils of Figs. 3, 14, 16-20, and 23, which appear consistent with a ruled helicoid, which is understood to refer to a geometric surface formed by rotating a ray about a central axis while sliding the ray along the axis, the rotation and sliding performed at constant rates).
Regarding claim 6, Silverman teaches the device of claim 1, wherein the deflector is in the form of a right helicoid (see various helical air foils of Figs. 3, 14, 16-20, and 23, which appear consistent with a right helicoid, which is understood to refer to a helix wherein the surface extends out orthogonally from the central axis [as opposed to obliquely]).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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 2, 4, and 11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Silverman (US 2020/0282086).
Regarding claim 2, Silverman teaches the device of claim 1. As indicated in the rejection of claim 2 under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) above, the precise requirements of claim 2 are unclear. Nonetheless, it is noted that the inlet and outlet openings of Silverman must have some size (cross sectional area) which can be considered “approximately” equal to the size (cross sectional area) of the helical conduit. Also, a person having ordinary skill in the art would recognize that maintaining an equal cross sectional area throughout the device would be expected to yield more even flow conditions across the device (i.e., assuming a constant volumetric flow, a consistent cross sectional area throughout the device would be expected to avoid sudden changes in air velocity and pressure as air flows through the system). Therefore, it would be obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art to configure the inlet and outlet openings to have a cross sectional area approximating the cross sectional area of the helical conduit for the benefit of yielding more stable flow conditions throughout the device.
Regarding claim 4, Silverman teaches the device of claim 1. Silverman does not explicitly indicate that the helical conduit has a length of 5 to 10 times the axial length of the hollow body. However, Silverman does indicate that the helical conduit is intended to lengthen the air flow path through the hollow body in order to increase the time that air remains in the duct and thus the UV-C exposure of the air ([0062], [0129], [0140]), Silverman teaches that the duct and helical conduit can be adjusted for various lengths ([0106]. [0131]). Also, the depictions of the air foil of Silverman reasonably convey that the length of the helical conduit (for example, the length of a path along the outer perimeter of the helical conduit) is several times the length of the hollow body (see e.g., Figs. 3, 14, 16-20, 23, wherein the circuitous helical path through the hollow body is considerably longer than a length of the hollow body from end cap to end cap). Therefore, it would be obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art to configure the device of Silverman such that the helical conduit has a length (e.g., a length of a path along the outer perimeter of the helical air foil) that is 5 to 10 times longer than the axial length of the hollow body by way of routine optimization of the length of the helical conduit for the benefit of extending the time that air remains in the duct and thus the UV-C exposure of the air ([0062], [0129], [0140]). See MPEP 2144.05(II.)(A.) regarding the obviousness of routine optimization of prior art conditions.
Also, In Gardner v. TEC Syst., Inc., 725 F.2d 1338, 220 USPQ 777 (Fed. Cir. 1984), cert. denied, 469 U.S. 830, 225 USPQ 232 (1984), as cited in MPEP 2144.04(IV.)(B.), found that a recitation of relative dimensions of a claimed device did not patentably distinguish the claimed device from a prior art device because the recited relative dimensions would not cause the claimed device to perform differently from the prior art device. In the instant case, the recitation of the relationship between the length of the helical conduit and the length of the hollow body would not be expected to cause the claimed device to perform differently from the device of Silverman, further supporting the above finding of obviousness.
Regarding claim 11, Silverman teaches the device of claim 1. Silverman indicates that the source of UV-C radiation comprises one or more LEDs arranged within the hollow body (UV-C sources mounted in the duct positioned so as to irradiate the air passing through the helical insert—[0129], [0140]; UV-C source may be an LED—[0037]; also see Fig. 18, [0086], and [0130]). Also, Figs. 16-17 of Silverman depicts UV-C lattices (which include LEDs—see [0037], [0066], [0130] discussing lattice of UV-C LEDs) arranged along the helical conduit (Figs. 16-17) and in close proximity to the inner surface of the side wall. Nonetheless, Silverman is not explicitly clear in indicating that LEDs are arranged on the inner surface of the side wall of the hollow body.
However, it is evident from the teachings of Silverman that any arrangement which positions the UV LEDs to irradiate air passing through the helical conduit is suitable ([0129], [0140]), and mounting the LEDs along the inner surfaces of the side wall would clearly achieve the same result of irradiating air passing through the helical conduit. Therefore, it would be obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art to rearrange the UV-C LEDs of Silverman such that they are arranged on the inner surface of the side wall of the hollow body for the benefit of positioning the UV LEDs to irradiate light passing through the helical conduit (see Silverman at [0129], [0140]). The obviousness of such rearrangement is supported by In re Japikse, 181 F.2d 1019, 86 USPQ 70 (CCPA 1950) as cited IN MPEP 2144.04(VI.)(C.), which found that the repositioning of a component was obvious because it would not have modified the operation of the device (i.e., in the instant case, moving the LEDs to the inner surface of the sidewall would not have changed the function of the LEDs to irradiate light passing through the helical conduit).
Claims 7-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Silverman (US 2020/0282086) in view of Barnes (US 7,658,891 B1) and Almeida et al. (US 2021/0275714 A1).
Regarding claim 7, Silverman teaches the device of claim 1. Silverman teaches forming the inner surfaces of the sidewall to be optically reflective to UVC light (see Fig. 19). Silverman does not teach forming the deflector (10) to have a reflective surface (Silverman at [0129] instead suggest a UV-C transparent material).
However, in the analogous art of air purification and decontamination apparatuses (title, abstract), Barnes teaches a UV exposure chamber (VUV exposure chamber 612) defined by opposing end caps (610, 628) and a cylindrical sidewall (cylinder 615), wherein the chamber (612) receives air from an inlet openings (608) and delivers it to an outlet opening (630) (Fig. 18A, column 34, line 51, through column 35, line 44). The chamber (612) includes a UV light source (VUV lamp 614—column 34, lines 56-57) which irradiates air passing through the chamber (612) with both UV-C and VUV radiation (column 34, line 56, through column 35, line 5). The chamber further includes a helical baffle (620) which forces air to follow a longer path through the exposure chamber (column 35, lines 5-16). Barnes indicates the baffle may be formed of a metal material (column 35, lines 16-20), and in a related embodiment indicates that baffles of the invention may employ material or coatings that are reflective to UV radiation (column 16, lines 5-9).
Also, Almeida et al. (US 2021/0275714 A1), in the analogous art of UVC antimicrobial breathing sterilization modules (title), identifies aluminum foil as a material that reflects UVC radiation and is suitable for the interior of a sterilizing module ([0045]).
Combining these teachings, it would be obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art to coat the deflector of Silverman with a reflective material, as suggested by Barnes (column 16, lines 5-9), especially a highly UV-C reflective material such as aluminum foil (as evidenced by Almeida at [0045]), for the benefit of reflecting the maximum amount of UV-C light back towards the airflow traveling through the device (consider Fig. 19 of Silverman indicating that a reflective surface directs UVC back into the airflow).
Regarding claim 8, Silverman in view of Barnes and Almeida teaches the device as claimed in claim 7. As discussed with respect to claim 7 above, the device of Silverman includes reflective inner surfaces of the hollow body (Fig. 19) and it would be obvious in view of Barnes and Almeida to coat the deflector of Silverman with UV-C reflective aluminum foil (see rejection of claim 7 above). Furthermore, it would be obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art to maximize the reflectance of the inner sidewall surfaces and deflector surface such that they both have a reflectance of at least 0.8, i.e., 80%, for the benefit of increasing the amount of UV-C light that is directed into the airflow for disinfection (consider Fig. 19 of Silverman indicating that a reflective surface directs UVC back into the airflow)
Regarding claim 9, Silverman in view of Barnes and Almeida teaches the Device as claimed in claim 8. As modified with respect to claim 7 above, the surface of the deflector of Silverman has a coating comprising an aluminium film (see rejection of claim 7 above).
Regarding claim 10, Silverman in view of Barnes and Almeida teaches the device as claimed in claim 8. Silverman indicates that at least one of said surfaces comprises a material optically specular in the UV-C band (Fig. 19 of Silverman indicates that the inner surfaces of the sidewall are optically specular).
Claim 12 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sata et al. (US 2012/0285459 A1) in view of Silverman (US 2020/0282086).
Regarding claim 12, Sata teaches an assisted ventilation system (Fig. 1) comprising:
A ventilator (ventilator 100), a conditioning device (oxygen blender—see [0075]), an interface device for conveying a flow produced by the ventilator to the external airway of the patient (mask 115), and a disinfection device (10) connected to the interface device (115) via an emission conduit (exhalation gas tube 112, and tube 116) (gas disinfection and cleaning device 4 comprising ventilator 100—[0074]; ventilator 100 connected to an oxygen blender which mixes compressed air and compressed oxygen to generate inhalation gas—[0075]; breathing circuit comprises gas ports 101 and 102 of ventilator 100, gas tubes 111 and 112 extending from ventilator 100 to Y connector 113 mounted Cather mount 114 and connected to mask 115—[0077]—and a tube 116 connected to a gas exhaust port 103 of the ventilator 100 and leading to disinfection and cleaning device 1—[0078]).
See the system (4) of Sata in Fig. 1 below.
PNG
media_image2.png
404
414
media_image2.png
Greyscale
The disinfection device (1) of Sata comprises at least an air inlet (11) and air outlet (10C) arranged at opposite ends of a hollow cylindrical body (10) which houses at least a UV light source (12) and a reflector (mirror finishing 10a) (Fig. 2, [0079]-[0080]), the disinfection device (1) of Sata functioning to sterilize the air exhaled by the patient (bacteria, mold, and the like int eh air perish—[0085]-[0087]).
The disinfection device (1; see Fig. 2) of Sata does not fully define a disinfection device as claimed in claim 1, especially with respect to the helical-shaped deflector of claim 1.
However, as discussed with respect to claim 1 above, Silverman—in the analogous art of air disinfection (Fig. 18, title, abstract)—teaches a disinfection device consistent with the disinfection device as claimed in claim 1 (see rejection of claim 1 above). Silverman further indicates that the helical deflector advantageously increase the UV-C exposure of the air passing through the device by increasing the length of the path of air through the device and thus the duration of time the air spends within the device (see Silverman at [0062], [0129] and [0140]). Therefore, it would be obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art to modify the system of Sata by substituting the disinfection device of Sata with the disinfection device of Silverman as identified with respect to claim 1 above for the benefit of increasing the exposure of the exhaled air to UV-C light (see Silverman at [0062], [0129], and [0140]) and thus achieving an improved disinfecting effect.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Engelhard (US 20100143205 A1) teaches a high intensity air purifier (title) comprising at least an air inlet, a UV reaction chamber having a UV light source and reflective lining for providing UV light to the air form the air inlet, and a UV outlet (abstract), wherein the reaction chamber (112) may be formed as a continuous helical ramp chamber (400) to increase a surface area within the chamber ([0034], Figs. 4A-B and 5).
Fulbrook (US 11,452,793, with earliest priority date 16 May, 2020) teaches an ultraviolet disinfecting cartridge system (title, abstract) wherein the cartridge (30) defines a hollow body which houses a plurality of UV light emitters (50) along the inner side walls thereof and a plurality of baffles (62) extending from the sidewalls to create a spiral flow of air through a flow channel of the cartridge (Fig. 1, column 10, lines 21-49). Fulbrook further suggests that the surface of the baffles may be made from a material that reflects UV light to increase pathogen lethality (column 4, lines 18-24).
Kellstrom (US 20210308500 A1, filed April 5, 2021) teaches an exhaust chamber (404) connected to a protective mask (400), the exhaust chamber including a helical flow passage (406) surrounding an ultraviolet light source (408), and an inlet passage (410) ([0041], Fig. 4).
Hurley (US 2012/0183443 A1) teaches an air purification device (title) comprising a housing that defines an interior chamber having an inlet and an outlet, an ultraviolet emitting light source positioned within the interior chamber, and one or more baffles providing resistance to airflow (abstract), wherein the baffles (23) form a spiral or coil shape ([0037], Fig. 1); Hurley also recognizes aluminium as a suitable reflective material for the interior surfaces of the device ([0031], [0036]).
Pisharodi (US 11,052,169 B1) teaches an apparatus (100C) for disinfecting an airflow comprising an outer cylindrical housing (110C) and a concentrically positioned inner cylindrical housing (110CC), wherein the surfaces of the cylinders which face each other are each equipped with a disinfection sheet (155A) having a plurality of UV light sources (150C) affixed thereto for emitting UV-C light, and wherein air flows through the annular space between the cylinders and a helical airflow diverter (185) positioned in said space creates a serpentine airflow pathway in order to increase the UV-C exposure time for air passing through the apparatus (Fig. 11, column 10, lines 8-35).
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to BRADY C PILSBURY whose telephone number is (571)272-8054. The examiner can normally be reached M-Th 7:30a-5:00p.
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.
/BRADY C PILSBURY/Examiner, Art Unit 1799
/JENNIFER WECKER/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1797