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 amendments filed 11/27/2023 are acknowledged. Claims 1-25 are pending.
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.
Claim(s) 1, 2, 5, 6, 8, 9, 13, 14, 17, 18, 20, and 21 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over JPS54121698 (English machine translation provided by applicant) in view of Centanni (US 2004/0182855).
With regards to claim 1, JPS54121698 teaches an apparatus (fig 3 and 4) capable of the intended use of gasifying a sterilant comprising: a helical metal pipe (spiral tube 21 made of a corrosion resistant material such as copper); a solidified molten metal layer (die cast shell 26 made of aluminum) in which a helical part of the helical metal pipe is embedded in a casting process (die cast), two end parts of the helical metal pipe not being embedded in the solidified molten metal layer (ends are shown external to the shell in fig 3); a heating body (heater 27) that heats an outer surface of the solidified molten metal layer (the heat from the heater is transferred to the aluminum cast shell and thus an outer surface of the shell is heated by the heater) (fig 3 and 4; see whole document).
JPS54121698 does not teach a nozzle that is provided at one end of the helical metal pipe and sprays a sterilizer into the helical metal pipe. Centanni teaches a sterilant vaporizer and teaches using an injection nozzle to introduce a spray of liquid sterilant from the reservoir to the vapor generator (para [0064]). A person having ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to have used an injection nozzle to introduce the liquid being vaporized into the helical pipe motivated by an expectation of successfully introducing liquid to be vaporized in the generator.
The combination does not expressly teach that the metal pipe meets at least one of conditions that a pitch of a helical pipe of the helical metal pipe is equal to or greater than 1.0 mm and equal to or smaller than 30.0 mm and that an angle of a helix of the helical metal pipe is greater than 0 degrees and equal to or smaller than 30 degrees with respect to a plane perpendicular to a central axis of the helix. While the angle in JPS54121698 appears to meet the claim limitation, it is not specified. A person having ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to have angled/pitched the spiral as desired in order to fit the desired chamber length/volume in the vaporizer.
With regards to claim 2, Centanni teaches that stainless steel is an acceptable alternative to copper for the tube of a vaporizer (para [0052]; fig 1). A person having ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to have substituted stainless steal for the copper in JPS54121698 motivated by an expectation of successfully forming the vaporizer tube.
With regards to claim 5, a direction of the helix of the helical metal pipe changes at least once (as the flow path turns the direction constantly changes (fig 3 and 4).
With regards to claim 6, the solidified molten metal is aluminum.
With regards to claim 8, the solidified molten metal layer has the shape of a circular column and covers an outer periphery and an inside of the helical metal pipe (fig 3 and 4; see whole document).
With regards to claim 9, the solidified molten metal layer has the shape of a circular tube and covers an outer periphery and an inner periphery of the helical metal pipe (cylindrical and tube shape given the hollow portion at the middle for the heater; fig 3 and 4; see whole document).
With regards to claim 13, JPS54121698 teaches a sterilizer gasification method (abstract; fig 3 and 4) comprising: a helical metal pipe (spiral tube 21 made of a corrosion resistant material such as copper); a solidified molten metal layer (die cast shell 26 made of aluminum) in which a helical part of the helical metal pipe is embedded in a casting process (die cast), two end parts of the helical metal pipe not being embedded in the solidified molten metal layer (ends are shown external to the shell in fig 3); a heating body (heater 27) that heats an outer surface of the solidified molten metal layer (the heat from the heater is transferred to the aluminum cast shell and thus an outer surface of the shell is heated by the heater) (fig 3 and 4; see whole document).
JPS54121698 does not teach a nozzle that is provided at one end of the helical metal pipe and sprays a sterilizer into the helical metal pipe. Centanni teaches a sterilant vaporizer and teaches using an injection nozzle to introduce a spray of liquid sterilant from the reservoir to the vapor generator (para [0064]). A person having ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to have used an injection nozzle to introduce the liquid being vaporized into the helical pipe motivated by an expectation of successfully introducing liquid to be vaporized in the generator.
The combination does not expressly teach that the metal pipe meets at least one of conditions that a pitch of a helical pipe of the helical metal pipe is equal to or greater than 1.0 mm and equal to or smaller than 30.0 mm and that an angle of a helix of the helical metal pipe is greater than 0 degrees and equal to or smaller than 30 degrees with respect to a plane perpendicular to a central axis of the helix. While the angle in JPS54121698 appears to meet the claim limitation, it is not specified. A person having ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to have angled/pitched the spiral as desired in order to fit the desired chamber length/volume in the vaporizer.
With regards to claim 14, Centanni teaches that stainless steel is an acceptable alternative to copper for the tube of a vaporizer (para [0052]; fig 1). A person having ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to have substituted stainless steal for the copper in JPS54121698 motivated by an expectation of successfully forming the vaporizer tube.
With regards to claim 17, a direction of the helix of the helical metal pipe changes at least once (as the flow path turns the direction constantly changes (fig 3 and 4).
With regards to claim 18, the solidified molten metal is aluminum.
With regards to claim 20, the solidified molten metal layer has the shape of a circular column and covers an outer periphery and an inside of the helical metal pipe (fig 3 and 4; see whole document).
With regards to claim 21, the solidified molten metal layer has the shape of a circular tube and covers an outer periphery and an inner periphery of the helical metal pipe (cylindrical and tube shape given the hollow portion at the middle for the heater; fig 3 and 4; see whole document).
Claim(s) 3 and 15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over JPS54121698 (English machine translation provided by applicant) and Centanni (US 2004/0182855) as applied to claim 1 and 13 above and further in view of Miyahara et al. (JP 2013188402)(English machine translation provided by applicant).
With regards to claims 3 and 15, JPS54121698 teaches a sterilizer gas ejection port (outlet), from which a sterilizer gas is ejected, at another end of the helical metal pipe but does not teach that it is provided with a gasification apparatus tip end nozzle that guides the ejected sterilizer gas. Miyahara et al. teaches a sterilant vaporizer and teaches using a nozzle 2 to direct the outlet (fig 1). A person having ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to have added a tip end nozzle in order to direct the vaporized sterilant as desired.
With regards to claims 4 and 16, Miyahara et al. teaches that stainless steel has corrosion resistance and can make the vaporizing chamber (see whole document). A person having ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to have made the nozzle portion of the vaporizer chamber out of stainless steel as it is durable against sterilants.
With regards to claims 10 and 22, the combination does not teach that the nozzle is a two-fluid spray. Miyahara et al. teaches that a liquid sterilizing agent can be supplied to a vaporizer tube by pressurized air preferably with a two-fluid nozzle (top of description of embodiments; fig 1). A person having ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to have used a two fluid nozzle in order to successfully and preferably introduce the sterilant into the vaporization chamber for vaporization.
Claim(s) 7 and 19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over JPS54121698 (English machine translation provided by applicant) and Centanni (US 2004/0182855) as applied to claim 1 and 13 above and further in view of Delmiglio (EP 2,669,896).
With regards to claims 7 and 19, JPS54121698 teaches that the solidified molten material is made of aluminum. JPS54121698 does not teach that the heating body is aluminum as it is silent to the material. Delmiglio teaches a vaporizer and teaches making the heating element out of aluminum to ensure efficient heat transmission (para [0048]). A person having ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to have made the heating body out of aluminum in order to ensure efficient heat transfer.
Claim(s) 12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over JPS54121698 (English machine translation provided by applicant) and Centanni (US 2004/0182855) as applied to claim 1 above and further in view of McVey (US 2002/0168289) and Centannni (US 2005/0252274).
With regards to claim 12, Centanni 2004 teaches monitoring the temperature, concentration, and pressure of a vaporized hydrogen peroxide in a target chamber 14 from a vaporizer 12 using sensors 128, 64, and 66 (para [0075] and fig 2). Centanni 2004 does not teach that the sensor is on a branch pipe or that it is on the gas ejection port of the vaporizer.
Centanni 2005 teaches sampling concentration at a gas ejection port of the vaporizer 30 at sensor 200 (fig 1). A person having ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to have placed a concentration sensor at the ejection port of the vaporizer in order to monitor and ensure vapor at the desired concentration is provided to the target area.
The combination does not teach that the sensor samples from a branch pipe. McVey teaches measuring concentration from a sensor (1) that takes a sample from the area being monitored (fig 1; para [0113]). A person having ordinary skill int eh art would have found it obvious to have taken a sample from the ejection port as an alternative way to determine concentration at the ejection port motivated by an expectation of successfully controlling the generated concentration as desired.
A person having ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to use and design the system for hydrogen peroxide as it is a common and effective vaporized sterilant.
The combination results in a branch pipe (sampling tube) with a hydrogen peroxide gas concentration meter.
Claim(s) 11, 23, and 24 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over JPS54121698 (English machine translation provided by applicant) and Centanni (US 2004/0182855) as applied to claim 1 and 13 above and further in view of Manca et al. (US 2017/0280777).
With regards to claims 11 and 23, the combination does not teach pouring a cleaning liquid into the helical metal pipe of the vaporizer. Manca et al. teaches inspecting a vaporizer heating surface and rinsing with water or a cleaning liquid if needed (para [0009]). A person having ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to have added a cleaning liquid pouring apparatus (something to add water or cleaning liquid rinse) in order to rinse any residue in the helical metal pipe heating surface of the vaporizer as needed.
As to claim 24, Manca et al. teaches that water can be used to rinse the vaporizer. A person having ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to have selected any type of water including purified waters as claimed motivated by an expectation of successfully rinsing and cleaning the heating surface.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 25 is 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.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
The closest prior art is as discussed above. The prior art as a whole does not teach rinsing the helical metal pipe of the vaporizer with a cleaning liquid, then a water rinse, followed by blowing air to dry as claimed. A person having ordinary skill in the art would not have arrived with the claimed within the claim environment.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to DONALD R SPAMER whose telephone number is (571)272-3197. The examiner can normally be reached Monday to Friday from 9-5.
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.
/DONALD R SPAMER/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1799
Prosecution Insights