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: “storage unit”, “atomization mechanism”, and “guiding mechanism” in claim 1 and “airflow generating mechanism” in claim 3 are interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses generic placeholders “unit” and “mechanism” that are coupled with functional language “store”, “atomize”, “guide”, and “generate” respectively without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier.
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.
In light of the specification, the limitation “storage unit” is interpreted to cover the corresponding structure “glass or resin tank” as described in paragraph 0015.
In light of the specification, the limitation “atomization mechanism” is interpreted to cover the corresponding structure “ultrasonic vibrator and the vibration plate” as described in paragraph 0016.
In light of the specification, the limitation “guiding mechanism” is interpreted to cover the corresponding structure “elastic soft cloth or resin” as described in paragraph 0019.
In light of the specification, the limitation “airflow generating mechanism” is interpreted to cover the corresponding structure “fan” as described in paragraph 0028.
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 § 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 (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) 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.
Claims 1, 4, and 5 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Hess et al. (US 2011/0036921 A1).
With regard to claim 1, Hess discloses a hypochlorous acid water spray device comprising: a storage unit (R) that stores hypochlorous acid water; an atomization mechanism (31) that atomizes the hypochlorous acid water using ultrasonic vibration (Par. [0062]); and a guiding mechanism (wick 41) that guides the hypochlorous acid water to the atomization mechanism by capillary action (Par. 0065]).
With regard to claim 4, the device of Hess discloses the invention as disclosed in the rejection of claim 1 above. Hess further discloses that misty hypochlorous acid water atomized in the atomization mechanism has an average particle diameter of 3 to 10 pm (“produce droplets in the 3 to 4 micrometer range”, Par. [0052]).
With regard to claim 5, the device of Hess discloses the invention as disclosed in the rejection of claim 1 above. Hess further discloses that an ultrasonic wave used in the atomization mechanism has a frequency in a range of 1.0 to 3.0 MHz (“at a frequency of for example 3 MHz”, Par. [0084]).
Claims 1 and 3 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Harwig et al. (US 2019/0192717 A1).
With regard to claim 1, Harwig discloses a hypochlorous acid water spray device (300, Fig. 17) comprising: a storage unit (316) that stores hypochlorous acid water; an atomization mechanism (320) that atomizes the hypochlorous acid water using ultrasonic vibration (Par. [0041]); and a guiding mechanism (318) that guides the hypochlorous acid water to the atomization mechanism by capillary action (Par. 0039]).
With regard to claim 3, the device of Harwig discloses the invention as disclosed in the rejection of claim 1 above. Harwig further discloses that an airflow generating mechanism (312 Fig. 17) that sprays atomized misty hypochlorous acid water upward by generating an upward airflow (328).
Claims 1 and 2 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Gruenbacher et al. (US 2018/0290159 A1)
With regard to claim 1, Gruenbacher discloses a hypochlorous acid water spray device comprising: a storage unit (50) that stores hypochlorous acid water; an atomization mechanism (92) that atomizes the hypochlorous acid water using ultrasonic vibration (“piezoelectric”, Par. [0127]); and a guiding mechanism (“capillary element” 80) that guides the hypochlorous acid water to the atomization mechanism by capillary action (Par. 0077]).
With regard to claim 2, the device of Gruenbacher discloses the invention as disclosed in the rejection of claim 1 above. Gruenbacher further discloses that liquid contact members (50/80), which include the storage unit (50) and the guiding mechanism (80) and come into contact with hypochlorous acid water, are free of any attached component that decomposes hypochlorous acid (reservoir 50 can be made out of glass as described in Par. [0073] and since glass is disclosed by the Applicant that preferably used for storing hypochlorous acid in the specification, hence glass constitutes a material that does not decompose hypochlorous acid).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JOEL ZHOU whose telephone number is (571)270-1163. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri 9AM-5PM.
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, ARTHUR HALL can be reached at 5712701814. 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.
JOEL . ZHOU
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 3752
/QINGZHANG ZHOU/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3752
Prosecution Insights