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 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 § 102
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 1-15 and 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by McGinnis et al. (U.S. Publication No. 2019/0365939).
Concerning claims 1 & 8, McGinnis discloses an apparatus for microbial control in a processing facility (paragraph 6) comprising an enclosure (102/302/402/502) having an access cover (104/304/504) configured to be selectively opened to control access to an interior of the enclosure (paragraph 76), the apparatus comprising:
An oxidant generator (110/310/410/510) configured to:
Generate an oxidizing agent in a gaseous state (paragraph 79);
Removably fluidly couple to the interior of the enclosure (102/302/402/502) of the processing facility (paragraphs 88, 90, 96-99 and 104-106); and
Distribute the oxidizing agent in the gaseous state to the interior of the enclosure when the oxidant generator is fluidly coupled to the interior of the enclosure (paragraph 79); and
An interlock (112/312/512) operable to prevent the access cover of the enclosure from being opened when the oxidant generator is fluidly coupled to the interior of the enclosure (paragraphs 78, 88, 99 and 103);
Wherein the interlock is configured to prevent generation of the oxidizing agent by the oxidant generator when the oxidant generator is not fluidly coupled to the interior of the enclosure (paragraphs 79, 88, 90, 96-99 and 104-106).
Regarding claims 2 & 9, McGinnis also discloses that the oxidant generator (110) is configured to be at least partially positioned within the interior of the enclosure (102) when the oxidant generator is fluidly coupled to the interior of the enclosure (paragraphs 78-80; Figure 2).
With respect to claims 3 & 10, McGinnis continues to disclose that the oxidant generator comprises an ozone generator, wherein the oxidizing agent comprises ozone, wherein the ozone generator comprises:
An ultraviolet (UV) light source, and wherein the UV light source comprises a mercury lamp or a light-emitting diode (LED) as set forth in paragraph 81; or
An electrical discharge source having a pair of electrodes configured to generate an electric spark in a gap between the pair of electrodes as set forth in paragraph 83.
Concerning claims 4 & 11, McGinnis further discloses that the oxidant generator comprises a chlorine dioxide generator, wherein the oxidizing agent comprises chlorine dioxide, and wherein the chlorine dioxide generator comprises a tablet configured to interact with an acid or water to generate the chlorine dioxide (paragraphs 85 & 86).
Regarding claims 5 & 12, the reference also discloses a sensor (318) configured to measure a concentration of the oxidizing agent within the interior of the enclosure (paragraph 90), wherein the sensor (318) is operably coupled to the oxidant generator (310) such that a signal generated by the sensor is configured to at least one of:
Prevent the oxidant generator from operating when the concentration is above a first threshold, or cause or allow the oxidant generator to operate when the concentration is below a second threshold (paragraphs 90-92).
With respect to claims 6 & 14, McGinnis discloses that the apparatus also comprises a controller operably coupled to the oxidant generator and programmed to control the oxidant generator based on at least one of a first signal from a timer, a second signal from a sensor, or a third signal from a user interface (paragraphs 30, 90 and 101).
Concerning claim 7, McGinnis further discloses that the oxidant generator is configured to receive electrical power from a power source separate from the enclosure and wherein the power source comprises a portable power source (paragraph 96).
Regarding claim 13, McGinnis continues to disclose a timer operably coupled to the oxidant generator, wherein the oxidant generator is configured to operate based on a signal from the timer (paragraph 90).
With respect to claim 15, McGinnis further discloses that the apparatus lacks an internal power source and wherein the oxidant generator is configured to receive electrical power from a power source of the enclosure (paragraphs 95 & 96).
Concerning claim 17, McGinnis also discloses that the interlock comprises a latch that is configured to prevent the access cover from opening when the oxidant generator (110) is fluidly coupled to the interior of the enclosure (paragraph 78).
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 16 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over McGinnis et al. (U.S. Publication No. 2019/0365939) in view of Bonansinga (U.S. Publication No. 2023/0158187).
McGinnis is relied upon as set forth above. McGinnis does not appear to disclose that the interlock comprises a housing of the apparatus that blocks the access cover from opening when the oxidant generator is fluidly coupled to the interior of the enclosure. Bonansinga discloses an apparatus for microbial control in a processing facility comprising a sterilant generator (Abstract) that is fluidly coupled to the interior of an enclosure (700), and an interlock (760) configured to prevent the sterilant generator from operating when the apparatus is undergoing a sterilizing operation (paragraph 104). The reference continues to disclose that the interlock comprises a housing (760a) of the apparatus that blocks an access cover (120/720) from opening when the oxidant generator is fluidly coupled to the interior of the enclosure in order to provide a manually operated interlocking system that can be opened by an operator at any time (paragraph 104; Figure 7A). As such, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide the apparatus of McGinnis with an interlock that comprises a housing of the apparatus that blocks the access cover from opening when the oxidant generator is fluidly coupled to the interior of the enclosure in order to provide a manually operated interlocking system that can be opened by an operator at any time as exemplified by Bonansinga.
Therefore, claim 16 is not patentable over McGinnis in view of Bonansinga.
Claim 18 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over McGinnis et al. (U.S. Publication No. 2019/0365939) in view of Whitaker (U.S. Patent No. 12,396,554).
McGinnis is relied upon as set forth above. While McGinnis continues to disclose that the interlock comprises a lock or latch (paragraph 78), the reference does not appear to disclose that the interlock comprises a magnet that is configured to hold the access cover closed when the oxidant generator is fluidly coupled to the interior of the enclosure. Whitaker discloses an apparatus for microbial control in a processing facility comprising a sterilant generator (column 13, line 55 to column 14, line 5) that is fluidly coupled to the interior of an enclosure (1800), and an interlock configured to prevent the sterilant generator source from operating when the apparatus is undergoing a sterilizing operation (column 26, lines 15-22). The reference continues to disclose that the interlock comprises a magnet that is configured to hold an access cover (1815/1820) closed when the oxidant generator is fluidly coupled to the interior of the enclosure in order to automatically lock the enclosure closed during an ongoing sterilizing process (column 26, lines 20-35). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to utilize an interlock that comprises a magnet that is configured to hold the access cover closed when the oxidant generator is fluidly coupled to the interior of the enclosure in McGinnis in order to automatically lock the enclosure closed during an ongoing sterilizing process as exemplified by Whitaker.
As such, claim 18 is not patentable over McGinnis in view of Whitaker as well.
Claims 19 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over McGinnis et al. (U.S. Publication No. 2019/0365939) in view of Hong et al. (U.S. Patent No. 11,931,472).
McGinnis is relied upon as set forth above. While McGinnis continues to disclose that the oxidant generator comprises a UV light source (paragraphs 81 and 82), the reference does not appear to disclose another interlock configured to prevent generation of the oxidizing agent by the oxidant generator when the oxidant generator is not fluidly coupled to the interior of the enclosure, wherein the other interlock comprises a cover over the UV light source. Hong discloses an apparatus for microbial control (Abstract), wherein the apparatus includes a UV light source (126) removably fluidly coupled to an enclosure (column 6, lines 1-20), and an interlock to close a cover of the enclosure (i.e., as a vehicle will be provided with doors that can be closed and remained shut by an interlock). The reference continues to disclose another interlock configured to prevent generation of the oxidizing agent by the oxidant generator when the oxidant generator is not fluidly coupled to the interior of the enclosure, wherein the other interlock comprises a cover over the UV light source in order to provide added insurance that UV light is not emitted in the enclosure other than during a sterilizing routine (column 12, line 60 to column 13, line 3). Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide the apparatus of McGinnis with another interlock configured to prevent generation of the oxidizing agent by the oxidant generator when the oxidant generator is not fluidly coupled to the interior of the enclosure, wherein the other interlock comprises a cover over the UV light source in order to provide added insurance that UV light is not emitted in the enclosure other than during a sterilizing routine as exemplified by Hong.
As such, claims 19 & 20 are not patentable over McGinnis in view of Hong.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to KEVIN C JOYNER whose telephone number is (571)272-2709. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 8:00AM-4:30PM.
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.
/KEVIN JOYNER/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1799
Prosecution Insights