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 .
REQUIREMENT FOR UNITY OF INVENTION
As provided in 37 CFR 1.475(a), a national stage application shall relate to one invention only or to a group of inventions so linked as to form a single general inventive concept (“requirement of unity of invention”). Where a group of inventions is claimed in a national stage application, the requirement of unity of invention shall be fulfilled only when there is a technical relationship among those inventions involving one or more of the same or corresponding special technical features. The expression “special technical features” shall mean those technical features that define a contribution which each of the claimed inventions, considered as a whole, makes over the prior art.
The determination whether a group of inventions is so linked as to form a single general inventive concept shall be made without regard to whether the inventions are claimed in separate claims or as alternatives within a single claim. See 37 CFR 1.475(e).
When Claims Are Directed to Multiple Categories of Inventions:
As provided in 37 CFR 1.475 (b), a national stage application containing claims to different categories of invention will be considered to have unity of invention if the claims are drawn only to one of the following combinations of categories:
(1) A product and a process specially adapted for the manufacture of said product; or
(2) A product and a process of use of said product; or
(3) A product, a process specially adapted for the manufacture of the said product, and a use of the said product; or
(4) A process and an apparatus or means specifically designed for carrying out the said process; or
(5) A product, a process specially adapted for the manufacture of the said product, and an apparatus or means specifically designed for carrying out the said process.
Otherwise, unity of invention might not be present. See 37 CFR 1.475 (c).
Restriction is required under 35 U.S.C. 121 and 372.
This application contains the following inventions or groups of inventions which are not so linked as to form a single general inventive concept under PCT Rule 13.1.
In accordance with 37 CFR 1.499, applicant is required, in reply to this action, to elect a single invention to which the claims must be restricted.
Group I, claims 1-6 and 9, drawn to a method for treatment of contaminants.
Group II, claims 10-11, 13, 15, 17, and 20, drawn to a system for treatment of contaminants.
The groups of inventions listed above do not relate to a single general inventive concept under PCT Rule 13.1 because, under PCT Rule 13.2, they lack the same or corresponding special technical features for the following reasons:
Groups I and II lack unity of invention because even though the inventions of these groups require the technical feature of a source of hydrogen peroxide configured to introduce hydrogen peroxide vapor or aerosol into an enclosed space; and an ultraviolet light source configured to irradiate the hydrogen peroxide vapor to form reactive oxygen-containing radicals.
This technical feature is not a special technical feature as it does not make a contribution over the prior art in view of Shane (US 20210069360 A1, provided in Applicant’s IDS of 7/30/2024).
Shane teaches a source of hydrogen peroxide configured to introduce hydrogen peroxide vapor or aerosol into an enclosed space (par. 5: An aspect of the application is directed to a method for decontaminating an article or substantially enclosed space contaminated with a virus, comprising the steps of: shearing a cleaning fluid into a mist… wherein the active species is hydroxyl ions and wherein the source is hydrogen peroxide);
and an ultraviolet light source configured to irradiate the hydrogen peroxide vapor to form reactive oxygen-containing radicals (par. 35: Any operable activator may be used. The activator field or beam may be electrical or photonic. Examples include an AC electric field, an AC arc, a DC electric field, a DC arc, an electron beam, an ion beam, a microwave beam, a radio frequency beam, and an ultraviolet light beam).
During a telephone conversation with Scott A. Brairton on 2/24/2026 a provisional election was made without traverse to prosecute the invention of Group II, claims 10-11, 13, 15, 17, and 20. Affirmation of this election must be made by applicant in replying to this Office action. Claims 1-6 and 9 are withdrawn from further consideration by the examiner, 37 CFR 1.142(b), as being drawn to a non-elected invention.
Applicant is reminded that upon the cancelation of claims to a non-elected invention, the inventorship must be corrected in compliance with 37 CFR 1.48(a) if one or more of the currently named inventors is no longer an inventor of at least one claim remaining in the application. A request to correct inventorship under 37 CFR 1.48(a) must be accompanied by an application data sheet in accordance with 37 CFR 1.76 that identifies each inventor by his or her legal name and by the processing fee required under 37 CFR 1.17(i).
The examiner has required restriction between product or apparatus claims and process claims. Where applicant elects claims directed to the product/apparatus, and all product/apparatus claims are subsequently found allowable, withdrawn process claims that include all the limitations of the allowable product/apparatus claims should be considered for rejoinder. All claims directed to a nonelected process invention must include all the limitations of an allowable product/apparatus claim for that process invention to be rejoined.
In the event of rejoinder, the requirement for restriction between the product/apparatus claims and the rejoined process claims will be withdrawn, and the rejoined process claims will be fully examined for patentability in accordance with 37 CFR 1.104. Thus, to be allowable, the rejoined claims must meet all criteria for patentability including the requirements of 35 U.S.C. 101, 102, 103 and 112. Until all claims to the elected product/apparatus are found allowable, an otherwise proper restriction requirement between product/apparatus claims and process claims may be maintained. Withdrawn process claims that are not commensurate in scope with an allowable product/apparatus claim will not be rejoined. See MPEP § 821.04. Additionally, in order for rejoinder to occur, applicant is advised that the process claims should be amended during prosecution to require the limitations of the product/apparatus claims. Failure to do so may result in no rejoinder. Further, note that the prohibition against double patenting rejections of 35 U.S.C. 121 does not apply where the restriction requirement is withdrawn by the examiner before the patent issues. See MPEP § 804.01.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 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 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 10, 13, 15, 17, and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Starkweather (WO 2019246394 A1).
Regarding claim 10, Starkweather teaches a system for treatment of contaminants comprising: a source of hydrogen peroxide configured to introduce hydrogen peroxide vapor or aerosol into an enclosed space; and an ultraviolet light source configured to irradiate the hydrogen peroxide vapor to form reactive oxygen-containing radicals (par. 65: Modular unit 212a can include fluid connection(s) 227 that are coupled to spray unit(s) 260 and can provide fluid communication between spray unit(s) 260 and a source of an agent (e.g., a fluid reservoir); par. 50: Disinfection system 100 may run a first disinfection cycle using energy source(s) 122 that emit UV-C light (e.g., a UV-C cycle) and a second disinfection cycle using the disinfecting agents 190 (e.g., a vapor cycle), sequentially or simultaneously; par. 51: Disinfecting agent 190 can include, for example, hydrogen peroxide; NOTE: administering UV light and hydrogen peroxide within the same space would form oxygen-containing radicals; par. 9: and assembling the plurality of modular units to form a structure that defines a chamber sized to receive an object).
Regarding claim 13, Starkweather teaches the system of claim 10, as set forth above, and teaches wherein the ultraviolet light source comprises one or more ultraviolet light emitting diodes (par. 42: Each energy source 122 can include one or more mercury vapor bulbs or tubes, xenon gas bulbs or tubes, excimer bulbs or tubes, light emitting diodes (LED)).
Regarding claim 15, Starkweather teaches the system of claim 10, as set forth above, and teaches wherein the ultraviolet light source is configured to emit ultraviolet light at a wavelength in the range of from about 200 nm to about 280 nm (par. 50: Disinfection system 100 may run a first disinfection cycle using energy source(s) 122 that emit UV-C light (e.g., a UV-C cycle); par. 42: UV light at a wavelength of approximately 200-280 nm (i.e., UV-C light)).
Regarding claim 17, Starkweather teaches the system of claim 10, as set forth above, and teaches wherein the ultraviolet light source comprises a first ultraviolet light source configured to emit ultraviolet light at a first wavelength and a second ultraviolet light source configured to emit ultraviolet light at a second wavelength different from the first wavelength (par. 42: In some embodiments, a first set of energy source(s) 122 can be configured to emit a first type of energy (e.g., UV-B light) and a second set of energy source(s) 122 can be configured to emit a second type of energy (e.g., UV-C light)).
Regarding claim 20, Starkweather teaches the system of claim 10, as set forth above, and teaches further comprising means for moving the hydrogen peroxide within the enclosed space and for encouraging interaction between radicals formed from the hydrogen peroxide and contaminants located within the enclosed space (par. 49: In some embodiments, disinfection system 100 includes spray unit(s) 160 (e.g. fluid dispensers) for applying one or more agents (e.g., disinfecting agent 190, neutralizing agent 192) to objects within disinfecting area 125).
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 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.
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.
Claim 11 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Starkweather in view of Erickson (WO 2015139075 A1).
Regarding claim 11, Starkweather teaches the system of claim 10, as set forth above, but does not teach wherein the source of hydrogen peroxide is configured to control the amount of hydrogen peroxide vapor or aerosol introduced into the enclosed space such that the concentration hydrogen peroxide introduced into the enclosed space is less than 1 ppm.
Starkweather teaches a fluid reservoir for the hydrogen peroxide (par. 65: Modular unit 212a can include fluid connection(s) 227 that are coupled to spray unit(s) 260 and can provide fluid communication between spray unit(s) 260 and a source of an agent (e.g., a fluid reservoir)) but does not teach a specific concentration of the introduced hydrogen peroxide.
Erickson teaches a sterilization device for treating various products (abstract: A device and method for the provision of antimicrobial activity and/or moisture protection for goods and other items prone to damage caused by microbes and/or water, such as, for example, foodstuffs and other putrescible items, pharmaceuticals and other medical/veterinary products, paper and paper/fibre-board products, timber and wood products, electrical/electronic devices, clothes and fabrics, is disclosed). Eriskon teaches wherein vaporized hydrogen peroxide that is used for sterilization is administered at a concentration of less than 1 ppm in order to be safe for humans while still providing sterilization (par. 43: When employed in the method of the first aspect, the device is intended to generate an atmosphere within the storage space comprising a concentration of the antimicrobial vapour that, in some embodiments, is non-hazardous to users but still effective in treating the storage space (ie the concentration of the antimicrobial vapour is very low but still sufficient to exert an antimicrobial effect). As will be understood by those skilled in the art, such a concentration may be temperature-dependent (ie the concentration will vary with the temperature within the storage space), but will preferably be < 1 ppm. For hydrogen peroxide vapour, the recommended safe limit (TLV-TWA 8 hours) in the workplace is 1.4 mg/kg air (1 ppm) (Hydrogen Peroxide - US Centers for Disease Control and Prevention; http://www.cdc.gov/niosh/idlh/772841. html) and, accordingly, in embodiments of the present invention wherein hydrogen peroxide vapour is generated from the antimicrobial vapour-generating material, the method is preferably conducted such that the maximum concentration of hydrogen peroxide in the storage space is < 1 ppm.).
It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the device of Starkweather to spray hydrogen peroxide at a concentration of less than 1 ppm, as taught by Erickson, in order to provide sterilization without harming humans.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to CHANGRU CHEN whose telephone number is (571)272-1201. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 7:30-5:30.
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, Elizabeth A. Robinson can be reached at (571) 272-7129. 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.
/C.C./Examiner, Art Unit 1796
/DONALD R SPAMER/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1799