DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
1. The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Response to Amendment
2. This is an office action in response to Applicant's arguments and remarks filed on 06/19/2026. Claims 21-28, 30, and 33-35 are pending in the application and are being examined herein.
Status of Objections and Rejections
3. All 35 U.S.C. 103 rejections from the previous office action are maintained.
Response to Arguments
4. In the arguments presented on p.8-9 of the amendment, the Applicant argues that primary reference Shane does not identify the problem of intermediate pulsation solved by the elimination of all cavities within the mist’s flow path before the atomization occurs, let alone one that Shane or routine optimization of variables such as flow rate or nozzle tubing dimensions can solve. Specifically, Shane does not identify internal nozzle cavities as a source of flow instability or clogging, nor does Shane disclose any mechanism for eliminating residual fluid from within a nozzle following operation.
The Examiner does not find this argument persuasive. The instant claim 21 does not recite any structural limitation(s) that differentiate it from the 103 modifications of Shane. There is no recited structural limitation in Applicant’s claim 21 that prevents internal cavities within the mist’s flow path. Thus, the Examiner believes that the instant claimed structure of a flow path not greater than 2 ml/min through tubing not more than 1/8th of an inch would still intrinsically yield the result of “an internal flow uninterrupted by internal cavities”. Even if there was a structural parameter/limitation that would result in this internal flow without cavities, said structural parameter/limitation is not claimed in the instant claim 21.
The claimed flow rate and nozzle dimensions were deemed obvious through desired mist profiles to one of ordinary skill in the art. Shane does not need to disclose the problem of internal nozzle cavities if the modifications onto Shane meet the claim 21 limitations in its structural entirety (i.e., the limitation of “the flow of the mist is through an internal flow uninterrupted by internal cavities” being the result of the flow path not being greater than 2 ml/min through tubing not more than 1/8th of an inch is structurally identical to the 103 modifications onto Shane).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
5. The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
6. Claims 21-28, 30, and 33-35 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Shane et al. (US 20190247529 A1).
Regarding claim 21, Shane teaches a system for decontaminating a closed space (“a system for decontaminating a small enclosure”, [0013], Fig. 16-17 embodiment), comprising a decontamination device and a computer processor (“comprising a decontamination device and a computer processor”, [0013]), wherein the computer processor is in networked communication with the decontamination device (“wherein the computer processor is in networked communication with the decontamination device”, [0013]),
wherein input parameters of the closed space are entered into the computer processor (“wherein input parameters of the small enclosure are entered into the computer processor”, [0013]), wherein the computer processor is programmed to determine fluid properties of a cleaning fluid in the decontamination device based on the input parameters of the closed space (“wherein the computer processor is programmed to determine fluid properties of a cleaning fluid in the decontamination device based on the input parameters of the small enclosure”, [0013]), wherein the computer processor is further programmed to activate a decontamination cycle of the decontamination device (“wherein the computer processor is further programmed to activate a decontamination cycle of the decontamination device”, [0013]), the decontamination cycle comprising the steps of:
providing a reservoir of the cleaning fluid (“providing a reservoir of the cleaning fluid”, [0013]);
setting the determined fluid properties of the cleaning fluid (“setting the determined fluid properties of the cleaning fluid”, [0013]);
generating a mist (“generating a very dry mist of the cleaning fluid”, [0013]) comprising aerosol droplets (“As used herein, the term “mist” means a cloud of aerosol droplets”, [0045]), wherein the cleaning fluid comprises a source of an active species for sterilization (“the term “cleaning fluid” refers to the source of an active species used to decontaminate an article or substantially enclosed space”, [0046]), wherein the active species is hydroxyl ions and wherein the source is hydrogen peroxide (“The preferred active species is hydroxyl ions, and the preferred source is hydrogen peroxide”, [0046]), and the cleaning fluid is silver-free chlorine-free and peracetic-acid free (“the solution used is formulated as silver, chlorine and peracetic acid free”, [0133]);
wherein the mist is subjected to a nonthermal plasma actuator to form plasma activated ionic particles carried by the aerosol droplets of the mist (“a nonthermal plasma actuator, wherein the actuator activates a mist generated from the reservoir”, [0050]), wherein the plasma activated ionic particles are hydroxyl ions (“conversion of hydrogen peroxide solution to ionized hydrogen peroxide after passing through an atmospheric cold plasma arc”, [0132]);
wherein a pump controls flow rates and pressure through the self-cleaning nozzle by a pump (“there may be provided an optional pump that forces the cleaning fluid through the mist generator 142 and out of the tube 150 with greater force”, Fig. 16 and [0104]), wherein air pressure within the closed space is maintained as substantially one atmosphere ambient pressure (“one atmosphere environment”, [0070]);
wherein a flow meter monitors a flow of the mist through a self-cleaning nozzle into the closed space (“the fluid parameters of the decontamination device 142 may be monitored on the display of the device”, Fig. 16-17, where “fluid parameters” include a flow rate, [[0106]).
wherein the generated mist is applied to decontaminate the closed space (“wherein the generated very dry mist is applied to decontaminate the small enclosure”, [0013]).
Regarding the limitation of the mist “having a particle diameter in the range of 0.5-3 microns”, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to select a mist particle diameter size in the range of 0.5-3 microns as suggested in the various potential ranges disclosed in [0098], because in the case where the claimed ranges "overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art" a prima facie case of obviousness exists (MPEP 2144.05).
Shane mentions how the size of the sprayed cleaning fluid mist particles can be decreased by modifying the tube (150, Fig. 16) to be a funnel nozzle and adjusting the tube’s transverse diameter ([0103]), but fails to explicitly teach wherein the flow rate of the mist through the self-cleaning nozzle is not greater than 2ml/min. It is important to note that Shane’s apparatus teaches exemplary flow rates of 10 ml/min ([0107]) with the unmodified tube setup of Fig. 16, which exceed the flow rate limit of 2 ml/min.
However, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the tube in the Fig. 16 embodiment of Shane by incorporating a funnel nozzle feature as suggested by Shane to compensate for a desired decreased mist particle size ([0103]).
In view of this modification, it would have also been obvious one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have had a reasonable expectation of success to formulate the claimed flow rate range of no greater than 2 ml/min via routine optimization of the tube/now-modified funnel nozzle transverse diameter in order to produce a desired mist/fog particle size ([0103], MPEP 2144.05,II).
Modified Shane consequently teaches wherein the self-cleaning nozzle (funnel nozzle, Fig. 16 and [0103]) receives the flow of the mist (tubing 150 delivers flow of mist to funnel nozzle, Fig. 16).
Regarding the limitation of “through a tubing of not greater than 1/8 inches”, it would have also been obvious one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have had a reasonable expectation of success to formulate the claimed tubing dimension value range of not greater than 1/8" via routine optimization in order to predictably decrease the cleaning fluid mist particle size ([0103], and MPEP 2144.05,II).
Regarding the limitation of “the flow of the mist is through an internal flow uninterrupted by internal cavities”, Applicant’s specification [0115] attributes the lack of cavitation within the nozzle to a nozzle tubing dimension of 1/8" and flow rates of 2-3ml/min. Thus, in view of the modifications above regarding the routine optimizations of the flow rates and the tubing dimensions in order to produce a desired mist/fog particle size, modified Shane would intrinsically teach a lack of cavitation within the self-cleaning nozzle. Furthermore, there is no mention of cavitation at the nozzle body, which would also read on this limitation.
Regarding claim 22, modified Shane teaches wherein the decontamination device is operated manually ([0008]).
Regarding claim 23, modified Shane teaches wherein the decontamination device is hand-held to be operated manually ([0008] and hand-held decontamination device 142, Fig. 16).
Regarding claim 24, modified Shane teaches wherein the input parameters of the closed space comprise: dimensions of the closed space, a position of the decontamination device relative to boundaries of the closed space, air temperature, pressure, and humidity of the closed space (“he input parameters of the small enclosure comprise: dimensions of the small enclosure, a position of the decontamination device relative to boundaries of the small enclosure, air temperature, pressure, and humidity of the small enclosure”, [0009]).
Regarding claim 25, modified Shane teaches wherein the set fluid properties of the cleaning fluid comprise air pressure and fluid flow rate (“the set fluid properties of the cleaning fluid comprise air pressure and fluid flow rate”, [0009]).
Regarding claim 26, modified Shane teaches wherein the setting of the determined fluid properties to the cleaning fluid is performed by controlling an air valve (“the setting of the determined fluid properties to the cleaning fluid is performed by controlling an air valve”, [0009], where “these parameters may be regulated by controlling an air valve 190 placed on the front of the device 142”, Fig. 16 and [0112]).
Regarding claim 27, modified Shane teaches wherein the air valve is controlled by programming the computer processor to control a potentiometer (“the air valve is controlled by programming the processing unit to control a potentiometer”, [0009], and “programming the processor to control the potentiometer based on the input parameters of the small enclosure”, [0115]).
Regarding claim 28, modified Shane teaches wherein the determined fluid properties of the cleaning fluid are adjusted by a size and a shape of a tube located at an exit of the cleaning fluid out of the decontamination device (“the determined fluid properties of the cleaning fluid are adjusted by a size and a shape of a tube located at an exit of the cleaning fluid out of the decontamination device”, [0009]).
Regarding claim 30, modified Shane teaches wherein the fluid properties of the cleaning fluid are set by lowering the air pressure and the fluid flow rate respectively below a predetermined standard air pressure and a predetermined standard fluid flow rate (“the fluid properties of the cleaning fluid are set by lowering the air pressure and the fluid flow rate respectively below a predetermined standard air pressure and a predetermined standard fluid flow rate”, [0010] and [0106]).
Regarding claim 33, modified Shane teaches wherein the input parameters of the closed space are manually input (“the input parameters of the small enclosure may be manually input”, [0011]).
Regarding claim 34, modified Shane teaches wherein the input parameters of the closed space are measured by a plurality of sensors that are in networked communication with the computer processor ([0011]).
Regarding claim 35, modified Shane teaches wherein the computer processor and the decontamination device are in wireless communication (“a wireless network connection is feasible between the control unit and the device 142, in order to set the fluid parameters of the device 142”, [0113] and Fig. 16-17).
Conclusion
7. 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.
8. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Aham Lee whose telephone number is (703)756-5622. The examiner can normally be reached Monday to Thursday, 10:00 AM - 8:00 PM EST.
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, Maris R. Kessel can be reached at (571) 270-7698. 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.
/Aham Lee/Examiner, Art Unit 1758
/MARIS R KESSEL/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1758
Prosecution Insights