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 Objections
Claims 7-9 are objected to because of the following informalities:
Each claim recites “F., a dew point” in the 2nd line claiming a temperature range, and the period (“.”) should be omitted in each case, as claims are single sentences that end in a period.
Appropriate correction is required.
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 1-9 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 1 recites “via a predetermined number of a predetermined size; … the plurality of openings” and there is a lack of antecedent basis for the limitation directed towards a plurality of openings. It is believed that the limitation directed towards a predetermined number and predetermined size is intended to be directed towards the openings. For the purpose of examination, it is interpreted that there are a predetermined number of openings of a predetermined size.
The term “low heat resistance materials” in claim 7 is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “low” 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. It cannot be determined from the claim how high or low the heat resistance must be in order to satisfy the claim limitation, and therefore the scope of the claim cannot be determined.
Similarly, the terms “medium” and “high” in claims 8 and 9 respectively are deficient and render the claims indefinite, and require similar correction.
For the purpose of examination, it is interpreted that the materials each have respective heat resistances.
The remaining claims are rejected for being dependent on one of the claims above.
Prior Art
The prior art, alone or in combination, fails to teach each and every limitation of claim 1. The prior art considered to be the closest prior art is Smith (US 2019/0255202), Childers (US 2012/0219456), and Murphy (US 2020/0375691).
Smith (2019/0255202) discloses a batch oven disinfection method (title, abstract) including circulating hot air through a plenum (Fig. 5 shows plenums 30-31 surrounding chamber 7), and that the gas can be heated to an overlapping range with the claimed 700 degrees (par. 53 discloses 375 degrees “or higher”), but teaches away from humidifying the air as the method requires dry heat (see par. 17). There is no motivation or suggestion to modify the method to pass the gas through a humidifier, much less a water column.
Childers (US 2012/0219456) teaches a decontamination method (title, abstract) and discloses a humidification step (par. 79, reservoir 124 in Fig. 6), but specifically teaches away from the incorporation of a compressed air source (see pars. 9-11).
Murphy (US 2020/0375691) discloses humidifying a compressed gas to circulate in a sterilization chamber (par. 73), but is silent with regards to the claimed temperature range and teaches only temperatures much lower (below 60 degrees Celsius). Murphy is further silent with regards to the humidification taking place via a water column.
There would be no motivation for an ordinary artisan to combine the above references and even if one did it would not result in the claimed invention.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to BRENDAN A HENSEL whose telephone number is (571)272-6615. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Thu 8:30 - 7pm;.
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, Maris Kessel can be reached at (571) 270-7698. 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.
/BRENDAN A HENSEL/ Examiner, Art Unit 1758