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
This is a first action on the merits for this regular application filed on 08/30/2024
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement filed on 11/25/24 fails to comply with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97, 1.98 and MPEP § 609 because citation no. 1 in the “Non-patent Literature Documents” does not include a date. It has been placed in the application file, but the information referred to therein has not been considered as to the merits. Applicant is advised that the date of any re-submission of any item of information contained in this information disclosure statement or the submission of any missing element(s) will be the date of submission for purposes of determining compliance with the requirements based on the time of filing the statement, including all certification requirements for statements under 37 CFR 1.97(e). See MPEP § 609.05(a).
Claim Objections
Claim 5 is objected to because of the following informalities: in line 8, add the closing parenthesis after the word “peroxide”. Appropriate correction is required.
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.
Claim 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Ricciardi et al. (US 11,324,845 B1).
Ricciardi et al. discloses a space decontamination device (Fig.113 and col.248-254) comprising:
a mixed gas supply unit (Fig.113:2040) that is capable of being configured to supply a mixed gas containing air and acetic acid to a space; and
a humidifying unit (Fig.113:2660 and 2040) that is capable of being configured to humidify the space by using an aqueous solution containing hydrogen peroxide,
wherein the mixed gas supply unit is capable of being configured to generate the mixed gas by using a (col.37, lines 15-31; using one or more airborne agent) solution containing acetic acid (excluding a case where the solution contains peracetic acid and hydrogen peroxide.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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 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.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claims 1 and 3-4 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ricciardi et al. (US 11,324,845 B1).
Regarding claim 1, Ricciardi et al. discloses a space decontamination method (col.1, lines 27-36) comprising:
generating a mixed gas containing air and acetic acid (col.37, lines 5-31) by using a solution containing acetic acid (In col.37, lines 18-20, Ricciardi et al. teaches that one or more airborne agents can be used and this teaching meet the limitation of excluding a case where the solution contains peracetic acid and hydrogen peroxide); and
supplying the mixed gas to a space (col.1, lines 27-36).
As to the step of humidifying the space by using an aqueous solution containing hydrogen
Peroxide; Ricciardi et al. discloses using one airborne agent (col.37, lines 18-20) that includes hydrogen peroxide (col.37, lines 24-25). Also, Ricciardi et al. teaches generating aerosol using an aqueous composition that includes hydrogen peroxide (col.77, lines 34-27). Furthermore, Ricciardi et al. teaches that any step of the sterilization of a space can be repeated (col.123, lines 60-67 through col.124, lines 1-47 and col.337, lines 29-44). Therefore, depending on the degree of contamination and the size of a space that needs to be sterilize, one of ordinary skill in the art will apply different sterilizing agents at different steps.
Ricciardi et al. appears silent to disclose that the generated aqueous hydrogen peroxide aerosol that includes water vapor be used as a humidifying step.
Ricciardi et al. teaches that the variables such as, the amount of the applied agent, the exposure time, the size of the space, the relative humidity, and other variables for sterilizing a closed space (col.78, lines 48-67 through col.79, lines 1-16) can vary. One of ordinary skill in the art would readily recognize that in order to promptly control sudden changes in the relative humidity within a large space that needs to be sterilized, one would incorporate the moisture present in the aerosol of the aqueous hydrogen peroxide to better maintain the desired relative humidity within the space. 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 to incorporate the moisture present in the aerosol of the aqueous hydrogen peroxide as source of humidification to better maintain the desired relative humidity within the space.
Regarding claim 3, Ricciardi et al. appears silent to disclose the claimed ranges of the relative humidity values while performing the space decontamination.
Ricciardi et al. teaches that the variables such as, the amount of the applied agent, the exposure time, the size of the space, the relative humidity, and other variables for sterilizing a closed space (col.78, lines 48-67 through col.79, lines 1-16) can vary. One of ordinary skill in the art would readily recognize that in order to achieve the target degree of sterilization of a space, one would ensure that all the variables, including relative humidity, needed to achieve the sterilization target are maintained at the proper range values, including 60% or 80% depending on the size and the degree of contamination of the space to be treated. 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 is to change Ricciardi et al. relative humidity values to different values, including 60% or 80%, or lower values in order to ensure that the target degree of sterilization for the space to be treated is maintained at the most effective level so that the space is properly sterilized.
Regarding claim 4, Ricciardi et al. appears silent to disclose the claimed concentration range values for acetic acid and hydrogen peroxide.
Ricciardi et al. teaches that the variables such as, the amount of the applied agent, the exposure time, the size of the space, the relative humidity, and other variables for sterilizing a closed space (col.78, lines 48-67 through col.79, lines 1-16) can vary. One of ordinary skill in the art would readily recognize that in order to achieve the target degree of sterilization of a space, one would ensure that all the variables, including concentration values for acetic acid and hydrogen peroxide, needed to achieve the sterilization target are maintained at the proper range values, including 10 ppm or higher or 100 ppm, or lower depending on the size and the degree of contamination of the space to be treated. 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 is to change Ricciardi et al. acetic acid and hydrogen peroxide concentration values to different values, including 10 ppm or higher or 100 ppm, or lower, in order to ensure that the target degree of sterilization for the space to be treated is maintained at the most effective level so that the space is properly sterilized.
Claims 2 and 6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ricciardi et al. (US 11,324,845 B1) as applied to claims 1, 5 and further in view of Golkowski et al. (US 11,253,620 B2).
Regarding claims 2 and 6, Ricciardi et al. appears silent to disclose of a bubbler.
Golkowski et al. discloses a hydrogen peroxide vapor room sterilization method/device (col.1, lines 20-26, col.10, lines 23-45, and Fig.1A) where a bubbler is among other vaporizers, is used (col.24, lines 6-10) in order to yield a vapor. 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 to add Golkowski et al. bubbler to Ricciardi et al. method/device in order to yield and control higher volumes of vapors.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MONZER R CHORBAJI whose telephone number is (571)272-1271. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 5:30-12:00 and 6:00-9:00.
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, Jill J Warden can be reached at (571)272-1267. 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.
/MONZER R CHORBAJI/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1799
Prosecution Insights