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 21, 23, 25, and 27-30 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 21 recites the limitation "the inner surface" in line 2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 21 recites the limitation "the outlet gas opening" in lines 2-3. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Further regarding claim 21, the limitations “the inner surface” and “the outlet gas opening” are further unclear and indefinite. It is unclear and indefinite what the inner surface is in relation to. The inner surface of the amplifier? Of the generator? The accelerator? For examination purposes, the limitation will be read as --an inner surface of the electrohydrodynamic gas flowrate amplifier--. It is also unclear and indefinite if “the outlet gas opening” is the same as “a gas outlet” in claim 17. It appears to be a different element and will be examined as --an outlet gas opening--.
Claim 23 recites the limitation "the inner surface" in line 2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Further regarding claim 23, the limitation “the inner surface” is further unclear and indefinite. It is unclear and indefinite what the inner surface is in relation to. The inner surface of the amplifier? Of the generator? The accelerator? For examination purposes, the limitation will be read as --an inner surface of the electrohydrodynamic gas flowrate amplifier--.
Claim 25 recites the limitation "the outlet" in line 1. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 27 recites the limitation "the outlet" in line 1. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Regarding claim 28, the limitations “a first gas flow” and “a second gas flow” are unclear and indefinite. Claim 28 incorporates claim 17 which already claimed a first and second gas flow.
Regarding claim 28, attempts to claim a process without setting forth any steps involved is indefinite (see MPEP 2173.05).
Claims not specifically referenced are rejected as being dependent on a rejected base claim.
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.
Claim(s) 17, 18, 20-23, and 28-30, as best understood, is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Newberry (U.S. 2019/0242409).
Regarding claim 17, Newberry discloses:
An electrohydrodynamic gas flowrate amplifier (1) for generating a gas flow comprising a gasflow generator (10, 13) and a gasflow accelerator (6), wherein a first gas flow is generable by the gas flow generator (10, 13) and directable to the gasflow accelerator (6) and the gasflow accelerator (6) is constructed in a way that a second gas flow (through 2) is accelerable by the first gas flow, wherein the gasflow accelerator (6) is a Coanda gas flow accelerator employing the Coanda effect to accelerate the second gas flow (through 2) by the first gas flow from the gasflow generator (10, 13) to a gas outlet (9) wherein the gas flow generator (10, 13) is an electro-hydrodynamic gas flow generator 10, 13 (see paragraphs 0014-0017; see Figure 1)
Regarding claim 18, Newberry discloses:
wherein the electro-hydrodynamic gas flow generator (10, 13) is a corona discharge gas flow generator or a dielectric barrier discharge gas flow generator (see paragraph 0015)
Further regarding this limitation, a corona discharge gas flow generator occurs during ionization. Therefore, since electrodes 10 and 13 cause an ionic wind, they are seen to be a corona discharge gas flow generator.
Regarding claim 20, Newberry discloses:
wherein the electro-hydrodynamic gas flow generator (10, 13) comprises a wire electrode 11, 14, (see paragraph 0009)
Regarding claim 21, Newberry discloses:
wherein an inner surface of the electrohydrodynamic gas flowrate amplifier (1) has a gas entry side (left as viewed in Figure 1) and a gas exit side (right as viewed in Figure 1), wherein an outlet gas opening (at 6) is arranged substantially on the gas entry side (left as viewed in Figure 1) and a surface enclosed by the gas entry side (left as viewed in Figure 1) is smaller than a surface enclosed by the gas exit side (right as viewed in Figure 1)
Further regarding this limitation, as seen in Figure 1, diffuser cone 4 is smaller on the gas entry side.
Regarding claim 22, Newberry discloses:
wherein the gas flow accelerator (6) comprises a Coanda surface (5), wherein the Coanda surface (5) is basically flat or convex-shaped in the direction of the first gas flow (see Figure 1)
Regarding claim 23, Newberry discloses:
wherein a cross section of an inner surface of the electrohydrodynamic gas flowrate amplifier (1) is at least partly shaped in a convex way (see Figure 1)
Regarding claim 28, Newberry discloses:
A method of amplifying gas using an electrohydrodynamic gas flowrate amplifier (1) according to claim 17 (see above), wherein the first gas flow is generated by the gas flow generator (10, 13) and the second gas flow (through 2) is amplified by the first gas flow in the gas flow accelerator 6 (see paragraphs 0014-0017; see Figure 1)
Regarding claim 29, Newberry discloses:
wherein the gas flow generator (10, 13) is an electro-hydrodynamic generator generating an ionic wind (see paragraph 0015)
Regarding claim 30, Newberry discloses:
wherein the first gas flow generated by the gas flow generator (10, 13) is directed to the gas flow accelerator (6), wherein the second gas flow (through 2) is accelerated in the gas flow accelerator (6) using the Coanda effect (see paragraphs 0014-0017; see Figure 1)
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.
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.
Claim(s) 19 and 24-27, as best understood, is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Newberry in view of Katano (U.S. 2012/0300356).
Regarding claim 19, Newberry discloses the invention as essentially claimed, but fails to disclose wherein the electro-hydrodynamic gas flow generator comprises at least one needle electrode.
Katano teaches a wind generation device wherein a electro-hydrodynamic gas flow generator (120) comprises at least one needle electrode (see abstract).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was effectively filed to have modified Newberry to provide wherein the electro-hydrodynamic gas flow generator comprises at least one needle electrode, as taught by Katano. Doing so would increase precision.
Regarding claims 24 and 25, Newberry discloses the invention as essentially claimed, and discloses an electrohydrodynamic gas flowrate amplifier according to claim 17, but fails to disclose a washer for washing medical instruments comprising a washing chamber; wherein the outlet of the electrohydrodynamic gas flowrate amplifier is directed into the washing chamber such that the electrohydrodynamic gas flowrate amplifier enhances a drying process in the washer.
Katano teaches a wind generation device comprising a washer comprising a washing chamber (see paragraph 0001); wherein an outlet of an electrohydrodynamic gas flowrate amplifier is directed into the washing chamber such that the electrohydrodynamic gas flowrate amplifier enhances a drying process in the washer (see paragraphs 0001 and 0066).
Please note that a recitation with respect to the manner in which the claimed apparatus is intended to be employed (i.e. for washing medical instruments) does not differentiate the claimed apparatus from a prior art apparatus satisfying the claimed structural limitation.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was effectively filed to have modified Newberry to provide a washer comprising a washing chamber; wherein the outlet of the electrohydrodynamic gas flowrate amplifier is directed into the washing chamber such that the electrohydrodynamic gas flowrate amplifier enhances a drying process in the washer, as taught by Katano. Doing so would utilize the airflow generator in a different known way.
Regarding claims 26 and 27, Newberry discloses the invention as essentially claimed, and further discloses an electrohydrodynamic gas flowrate amplifier according to claim 17, but fails to disclose a sterilizer for sterilizing medical instruments comprising a sterilizing chamber; wherein the outlet of the electrohydrodynamic gas flowrate amplifier is directed into the sterilizing chamber such that the electrohydrodynamic gas flowrate amplifier enhances a sterilizing and/or drying process in the sterilizer.
Katano teaches a wind generation device comprising a sterilizer comprising a sterilizing chamber (see paragraph 0066); wherein an outlet of a electrohydrodynamic gas flowrate amplifier is directed into the sterilizing chamber such that the electrohydrodynamic gas flowrate amplifier enhances a sterilizing and/or drying process in the sterilizer (see paragraph 0066).
Please note that a recitation with respect to the manner in which the claimed apparatus is intended to be employed (i.e. for sterilizing medical instruments) does not differentiate the claimed apparatus from a prior art apparatus satisfying the claimed structural limitation.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was effectively filed to have modified Newberry to provide a sterilizer for sterilizing medical instruments comprising a sterilizing chamber; wherein the outlet of the electrohydrodynamic gas flowrate amplifier is directed into the sterilizing chamber such that the electrohydrodynamic gas flowrate amplifier enhances a sterilizing and/or drying process in the sterilizer, as taught by Katano. Doing so would utilize the airflow generator in a different known way.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Suzuki et al. (U.S. 2019/0338790) and Benjamin et al. (U.S. 2023/0170227) disclose a Coanda effect amplifier.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to KELSEY E CARY whose telephone number is (571)272-9427. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 9:30am-5:30pm.
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 supervisors, Craig Schneider can be reached at (571)-272-3607 or Kenneth Rinehart can be reached at 571-272-4881.. 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.
/KELSEY E CARY/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3753
