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
1. 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.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
2. 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.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
3. Claim 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claim 9 recites the limitation "said tubular vaporization pre-cahmber" in line 4. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
4. 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.
5. Claim(s) 1-3, 5, 7, and 10-14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Centanni (US 2005/095168 A1).
Regarding claims 1 and 7, Centanni discloses (see para [0057]-[0064]) a device (see figure 2) for generating sterilizing vapor from a liquid sanitizing or sterilizing agent, operable in a sterilization chamber (14) of an equipment for sterilization of products, said sterilization chamber (14) being brought to a depressurized condition (see fig. 2; see para [0061] – vacuum pump 100 is used to evacuate chamber 14) and sealed off an external environment this is external to said sterilization chamber (sealed off from external environment outside of chamber when door (18) is closed – see figure 2; para [0062]); said device (fig. 2) comprising: a body (30) defining a vaporization pre-chamber (34) having a tubular shape (see para [0052]) and made in communication with said sterilization chamber (14 – see figure 2); injection means (nozzle 108), arranged at an inlet of said tubular vaporization pre-chamber (34) and provided for feeding said liquid sanitizing or sterilizing agent into chamber (34), said injection means (108) capable of nebulizing said liquid sanitizing or sterilizing agent to obtain nebulized particles having an average diameter of less than 50 micrometers, or an average diameter of 40 micrometers, under certain flow rate conditions; at least one induction coil (36), arranged coaxially on an outside of said tubular vaporization pre-chamber (34) and extended axially for a portion of a total length of said vaporization pre-chamber (34) and configured to bring about heating of said body (30), including said pre-chamber (34), with an electromagnetic field (see para [0051]) generated by said induction coil (36) configured to produce ionization (see "significant dissociation of the hydrogen peroxide" in para [0080]) of said sanitizing or sterilizing agent, and wherein a temperature increase generated in said body (30) and within said pre-chamber (34) being capable to vaporize (see para [0057]) said sanitizing or sterilizing agent injected therein; and capable of producing a diameter of the nebulized particles of the sanitizing or sterilizing agent configured to promote ionization of the nebulized particles and to accelerate vaporization of the nebulized particles.
Regarding claim 2, Centanni said vaporization pre-chamber (34) comprises an inlet head (76), for positioning said injection means (nozzle 108), closed to the external environment, and wherein an outlet head (44) of said vaporization pre-chamber (34) is open for flow of vaporized particles from the vaporization pre-chamber directly into said sterilization chamber (14) when the valve is open (see figure 2; see para [0056] and [0064]).
Regarding claim 3, Centanni discloses wherein said vaporization pre-chamber (34) has its own comprises an inlet head (76), for positioning said injection means (108), closed to the external environment, and a connecting pipeline (22) is provided between a remaining open outlet head (44) of said tubular vaporization pre-chamber (34) and said sterilization chamber (14) (see figure 2).
Regarding claim 5, Centanni discloses a nozzle provided in said injection means (108) (see figure 2) and arranged in a central position with respect to the vaporization prechamber (34) (see figure 2). The nozzle is capable of being supplied with said liquid sanitizing or sterilizing agent at a pressure of between 4-7 bars (when the liquid is supplied by pump 80 at a certain operating speed), and wherein the nozzle is configured to generate a spray cone of between 70-90 degrees of liquid sanitizing or sterilizing agent when suitable flow pressure is applied.
Regarding claims 10-11, Centanni discloses temperature control means (64) and pressure control means (66, 68) attached to controller (60) (see para [0055] and [0063]) for maintaining preselected pressure and temperature conditions.
Regarding claim 12, Centanni discloses a shut-off means (valve 46) operable to open and close and located between the sterilization chamber (14) and the vaporization prechamber (34) (see figured 1-2).
Regarding claim 13, Centanni discloses that the liquid sanitizing or sterilizing agent consists of hydrogen peroxide (see para [0002] and [0064]).
Regarding claim 14, Centanni discloses that said body (30) is part of the sterilization chamber (14) (they are structurally connected) and extends outwardly therefore as an extension (see figure 2).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
6. 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.
7. Claim(s) 4 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Centanni as applied to claim 1 above.
Regarding claim 4, Centanni discloses that the vaporization prechamber (34) is made of a stainless teel tube (see para [0052]). Centanni further discloses that the size of the vaporization prechamber can be adjusted but does not appear to disclose the exact claimed dimensions (see para [0010], [0052], [0089]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to modify the dimensions of the vaporization prechamber (34) of Centanni to have an inner diameter of substantially 60mm, a wall thickness of substantially 1.65mm, and an overall length of substantially 180mm, as the courts have held that changes in size are an obvious matter of design choice (see MPEP 2144.04).
Allowable Subject Matter
8. Claim 6 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 prior art, alone or in combination, fails to teach or fairly suggest, in the claimed environment, wherein said nozzle is integrated into a solenoid valve that is configured to control the injection of said liquid sanitizing or sterilizing agent.
9. Claim 8 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 prior art, alone or in combination, fails to teach or fairly suggest, in the claimed environment, wherein a spool insulating material is associated, by means of spacers, the outside of the vaporization pre-chamber and configured to support a winding of said induction coil.
10. Claim 9 would be allowable if rewritten to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 2nd paragraph, set forth in this Office action and to include 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 prior art, alone or in combination, fails to teach or fairly suggest, in the claimed environment, the device further comprising a box-like casing with walls permeable to air for containing said tubular vaporization pre-chamber and induction coil, and at least one fan is installed within the box-like same box like casing for cooling said vaporization pre-chamber and induction coil.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to SEAN E CONLEY whose telephone number is (571)272-8414. The examiner can normally be reached on M-F, 8:30am-4pm.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Mike Marcheschi can be reached on 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 an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free).
/SEAN E CONLEY/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1799
Prosecution Insights