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 Rejections - 35 USC § 112
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.
Claims 2 and 4-6 are 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 2 recites the limitation "peristaltic pump" in line 3. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 4 is rejected as being indefinite because it is unclear what is required by “a target pump velocity”. A “velocity” is a measurement of a speed of an object and a direction the object is moving. Therefore, the plain and ordinary meaning of this limitation appears to require the pump to be moving at a target speed and in a target direction; however, this meaning does not appear to be consistent within the context of the claim. Further, Figure 2A of the Drawings describes step 216 as “SET TARGET PUMP RPM”. For the purposes of examination, the latter interpretation will be assumed.
Claim 4 is also rejected because it is unclear if the limitations “a target pump velocity” in line 4, “a pump speed” in line 7, and “a chemical pump speed” in line 15 are all referring to the same thing, or if they are reciting different speeds and/or different pumps.
Claim 4 is further rejected as being indefinite because the term “consistently" is subjective and does not particularly and distinctly limit the metes and bounds of the claim. The term "consistently" is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention. The plain and ordinary meaning of the term “consistently " according to the Merriam-Webster dictionary is a manner “marked by harmony, regularity, or steady continuity ". In this claim, the term "consistently" describes the manner with which the nozzle output temperature is maintained; however, what one of ordinary skill in the art might consider to be regular or steady, another having ordinary skill in the art might not. Claim scope cannot depend solely on the unrestrained, subjective opinion of a particular individual purported to be practicing the invention. See 2173.05(b)IV.
Finally, claim 4 recites the limitation "the preheater temperature setting" in line 16. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claims 5 and 6 are rejected as being indefinite for depending from claim 4.
Claim 5 recites the limitations “blower”, “air heater”, “output nozzle”, and "peristaltic pump" in lines 2-3. There are insufficient antecedent bases for these limitations in the claim.
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, 3, and 7-8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Veugen (US 2019/0183068).
Regarding claim 1, Veugen teaches a method for applying a chemical as an aerosol or vapor using a thermal fogging apparatus (1) comprising:
introducing a chemical in liquid or melted form (par. 35);
activating a pump to transport the chemical into a chemical preheater (10, see par. 36) to raise the temperature of the chemical (par. 40) to a temperature below the evaporation temperature of the chemical (par. 36 – “a fog”, which is small liquid droplets);
introducing the chemical into an output nozzle (20) of the thermal fogging apparatus (fig. 1);
setting a thermal fogger blower at a desired speed to introduce forced air into an air heater (par. 42);
introducing heated air from the air heater (par. 30) into the output nozzle to thermally fog the chemical (par. 34; fig. 1).
Regarding claim 3, Veugen teaches the method described regarding claim 1, and further wherein the chemical is an herbicide or an insecticide (see Table 1).
Regarding claim 7, Veugen teaches the method described regarding claim 1, and further comprising continuously monitoring the temperature of the chemical in the chemical preheater and the temperature of the chemical at the output nozzle for alarm states (par. 40).
Regarding claim 8, Veugen teaches the method described regarding claim 1, and further comprising turning off the air heater, blower, and/or chemical preheater when the alarm states are reached (par. 40 – “T1 is particularly used to control the air-heating unit 35, and T2 is, inter alia, used for the control of the pump for the supply of the medium to be atomized 55”).
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 2 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Veugen in view of Sardo et al. (US 2020/0060300) and Forsythe et al. (US 5,935,660).
Regarding claim 2, Veugen discloses the method describe regarding claim 1, and further wherein the method is performed through use of an electronic control unit (70), that receives data and controls the blower, air heater, output nozzle, pump, and chemical preheater of the thermal fogging apparatus (par. 42). Veugen does not disclose that the electronic control unit is a programmable logic controller or that the pump is a peristaltic pump.
Sardo teaches a method for applying a chemical as an aerosol or vapor comprising a programmable logic controller that receives data and controls the apparatus (par. 102).
It would have been obvious for one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the electronic control unit of the method of Veugen to comprise a PLC, as taught by Sardo, since a PLC was a known specific electronic control unit configured and suited for the application of receiving data and controlling a thermal fogging apparatus.
Forsythe teaches a method for applying a chemical as an aerosol or vapor comprising a peristaltic pump (14, see col. 6, ln. 10-12).
It would have been obvious for one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the pump of the method of Veugen to comprise a peristaltic pump, as taught by Forsythe, since a peristaltic pump was a known type of pump configured and suited for the application of transport the chemical in a thermal fogging apparatus.
Claims 4 and 6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Veugen in view of Morgan (US 4,977,825).
Regarding claim 4 as best understood, Veugen discloses a method for applying a chemical as an aerosol or vapor using a thermal fogging apparatus (1) comprising:
setting a target nozzle temperature (par. 40 – “a minimum or maximum temperature”);
operating the thermal fogging apparatus until a desired nozzle output temperature is achieved (par. 42 – “the air heating unit is switched on at substantially the maximum power such that the device heats up as rapidly as possible”);
activating and setting a pump speed on a chemical pump that is connected to a treatment chemical container (par. 42 – “the supply of medium to be atomized is already turned on prior to reaching the maximum temperature in the atomizing chamber”);
modifying the chemical pump speed to increase or decrease the speed of the chemical flow until the nozzle output temperature is consistently maintained (par. 40 – “T2 is, inter alia, used for the control of the pump for the supply of the medium to be atomized 55”);
activating a chemical preheater at a predetermined temperature to raise the temperature of the chemical to a temperature below the evaporation temperature of the chemical (par. 42 – “increases the heat transfer from the air to the walls of the atomizing chamber”);
soaking the chemical to achieve a stable preheated chemical temperature (par. 40 – “T1”, “a predetermined maximum”; par. 42 – “Subsequently, the air flow speed is increased during the heating up of the fogging apparatus while the supply of medium to be atomized is already turned on prior to reaching the maximum temperature in the atomizing chamber.”;
setting a nozzle output temperature at a predetermined temperature (par. 40 – “a minimum or maximum temperature”);
increasing or decreasing the preheater temperature setting if the nozzle output temperature is not maintained within a predetermined temperature (par. 40 – “T1 is particularly used to control the air-heating unit 35”).
Veugen does not explicitly disclose setting a target pump velocity of the thermal fogging apparatus and setting a chemical pump speed at a predetermined speed. But, Veugen does disclose that the pump speed is used to control the nozzle outlet temperature and that this temperature is controlled to meet a predetermine or set value (par. 40). Therefore, the pump speed is recognized as a result-effective variable, i.e. a variable which achieves a recognized result. In this case, the recognized result is that the pump speed is used to control the output nozzle temperature. Since the general conditions of the claim were known, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to set the pump speed at a target pump velocity/predetermined speed in order to achieve a desired output nozzle temperature (par. 40).
Veugen also does not disclose setting a starting variable frequency speed.
Morgan teaches a method for applying a chemical as an aerosol or vapor using a thermal fogging apparatus (26) comprising setting a starting variable frequency speed (col. 5, ln. 6-12).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the method of Veugen to further include setting a starting variable frequency speed, as taught by Morgan, since this was known to allow the air flow to be reduced (col. 5, ln. 10-12).
Regarding claim 6, Veugen in view of Morgan discloses the method described regarding claim 4, and further wherein the chemical is an herbicide or an insecticide (see Table 1).
Claim 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Veugen, in view of Morgan, and further in view of Sardo and Forsythe.
Regarding claim 5, Veugen in view of Morgan discloses the method described regarding claim 4, and further wherein the method is performed through use of an electronic control unit (70), that receives data and controls the blower, air heater, output nozzle, pump, and chemical preheater of the thermal fogging apparatus (par. 42). Veugen does not disclose that the electronic control unit is a programmable logic controller or that the pump is a peristaltic pump.
Sardo teaches a method for applying a chemical as an aerosol or vapor comprising a programmable logic controller that receives data and controls the apparatus (par. 102).
It would have been obvious for one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the electronic control unit of the method of Veugen in view of Morgan to comprise a PLC, as taught by Sardo, since a PLC was a known specific electronic control unit configured and suited for the application of receiving data and controlling a thermal fogging apparatus.
Forsythe teaches a method for applying a chemical as an aerosol or vapor comprising a peristaltic pump (14, see col. 6, ln. 10-12).
It would have been obvious for one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the pump of the method of Veugen in view of Morgan to comprise a peristaltic pump, as taught by Forsythe, since a peristaltic pump was a known type of pump configured and suited for the application of transport the chemical in a thermal fogging apparatus.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Franks et al. (US 2015/0043304), Micka et al. (US 2015/0173381), Diamant et al. (US 2018/0056309), and Sheldon, III et al. (US 4,226,179) all disclose methods having elements of the claimed invention.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to CODY J LIEUWEN whose telephone number is (571)272-4477. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Thursday 8-5, Friday varies.
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 (571) 270-1814. 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.
/CODY J LIEUWEN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3752
Prosecution Insights