`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`
`UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
`United States Patent and Trademark Office
`Address: COMMISSIONER FOR PATENTS
`P.O. Box 1450
`Alexandria1 Virginia 22313- 1450
`www.uspto.gov
`
`APPLICATION NO.
`
`
`
`
` F ING DATE
`
`FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
`
`ATTORNEY DOCKET NO.
`
`
`
`
`CONF {MATION NO.
`
`12/593,347
`
`09/28/2009
`
`Jiro Onishi
`
`091064
`
`5372
`
`38834
`
`7590
`
`02/05/2013
`
`WESTERMAN, HATTORI, DANIELS & ADRIAN, LLP
`1250 CONNECTICUT AVENUE, NW
`SUITE 700
`WASHINGTON, DC 20036
`
`YOO, REGINAM
`
`1775
`
`PAPER NUMBER
`
`
`
`
`
` NOT *ICATION DATE
`
`DELIVERY MODE
`
`02/05/2013
`
`ELECTRONIC
`
`Please find below and/or attached an Office communication concerning this application or proceeding.
`
`The time period for reply, if any, is set in the attached communication.
`
`Notice of the Office communication was sent electronically on above—indicated "Notification Date" to the
`following e—mail address(es):
`
`patentmail @ whda.c0m
`
`PTOL—90A (Rev. 04/07)
`
`

`

`
`
`Office Action Summary
`
`Application No.
`
`Applicant(s)
`
`12/593,347
`
`Examiner
`REGINA M.YOO
`
`ONISHI ET AL.
`
`Art Unit
`1775
`
`-- The MAILING DA TE of this communication appears on the cover sheet with the correspondence address --
`Period for Reply
`
`A SHORTENED STATUTORY PERIOD FOR REPLY IS SET TO EXPIRE 3 MONTH(S) OR THIRTY (30) DAYS,
`WHICHEVER IS LONGER, FROM THE MAILING DATE OF THIS COMMUNICATION.
`Extensions of time may be available under the provisions of 37 CFR1. 136( a).
`In no event however may a reply be timely filed
`after SIX () MONTHS from the mailing date of this communication.
`If NO period for reply is specified above, the maximum statutory period will apply and will expire SIX (6) MONTHS from the mailing date of this communication.
`-
`- Failure to reply within the set or extended period for reply will, by statute, cause the application to become ABANDONED (35 U.S.C. § 133).
`Any reply received by the Office later than three months after the mailing date of this communication, even if timely filed, may reduce any
`earned patent term adjustment. See 37 CFR 1.704(b).
`
`Status
`
`1)IZI Responsive to communication(s) filed on 14 January 2013.
`
`2a)IZ| This action is FINAL.
`
`2b)I:l This action is non-final.
`
`3)I:I An election was made by the applicant in response to a restriction requirement set forth during the interview on
`
`
`; the restriction requirement and election have been incorporated into this action.
`
`4)|:l Since this application is in condition for allowance except for formal matters, prosecution as to the merits is
`
`closed in accordance with the practice under Exparte Quay/e, 1935 CD. 11, 453 O.G. 213.
`
`Disposition of Claims
`
`5)IZI Claim(s) 1 and 10-13 is/are pending in the application.
`
`5a) Of the above claim(s) _ is/are withdrawn from consideration.
`
`6)I:I Claim(s) _ is/are allowed.
`
`7)|Zl Claim(s) 1and10- 13is/are rejected.
`
`8)I:I Claim(s) _ is/are objected to.
`
`
`9)I:l Claim((s)
`
`are subject to restriction and/or election requirement.
`
`* If any claims have been determined allowable, you may be eligible to benefit from the Patent Prosecution Highway
`program at a participating intellectual property office for the corresponding application. For more information, please see
`
`htt
`:/'/www.us to. ovI’Watents/init events/mnh/inq'exls or send an inquiry to PPeredback usntm 0v.
`
`Application Papers
`
`10)|:l The specification is objected to by the Examiner.
`
`11)|:| The drawing(s) filed on _ is/are: a)|:l accepted or b)I:l objected to by the Examiner.
`
`Applicant may not request that any objection to the drawing(s) be held in abeyance. See 37 CFR 1.85(a).
`
`Replacement drawing sheet(s) including the correction is required if the drawing(s) is objected to. See 37 CFR 1.121 (d).
`
`Priority under 35 U.S.C. § 119
`
`12)IZI Acknowledgment is made of a claim for foreign priority under 35 U.S.C. § 119(a)-(d) or (f).
`
`a)lX| All
`
`b)I:I Some * c)|:l None of:
`
`1.I:I Certified copies of the priority documents have been received.
`
`2.I:I Certified copies of the priority documents have been received in Application No. _
`
`3.IZI Copies of the certified copies of the priority documents have been received in this National Stage
`
`application from the International Bureau (PCT Rule 17.2(a)).
`
`* See the attached detailed Office action for a list of the certified copies not received.
`
`Attachment(s)
`
`1) X Notice of References Cited (PTO-892)
`
`2) I] Information Disclosure Statement(s) (PTO/SB/OS)
`Paper No(s)/Mai| Date
`US. Patent and Trademark Office
`
`3) D Interview Summary (PTO-413)
`Paper No(s)/Mai| Date.
`4) D Other:
`
`PTOL-326 (Rev. 09-12)
`
`Office Action Summary
`
`Part of Paper No./Mai| Date 20130123A
`
`
`
`

`

`Application/Control Number: 12/593,347
`
`Page 2
`
`Art Unit: 1775
`
`FINAL ACTION
`
`Response to Amendment
`
`The amendment filed on 1/14/2013 has been received and claims 1 and 10-13
`
`are pending.
`
`1.
`
`Claim 10 is objected to because of the following informalities:
`
`Claim Objections
`
`-
`
`-
`
`in lines 3-4, delete “the at least one of the detoxifying material supplying
`
`parts, provided in the sterile room, includes”; and
`
`in line 4, insert --are-- before “respectively”.
`
`Appropriate correction is required.
`
`Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
`
`2.
`
`The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103(a) which forms the basis for all
`
`obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
`
`(a) A patent may not be obtained though the invention is not identically disclosed or described as set
`forth in section 102 of this title, if the differences between the subject matter sought to be patented and
`the prior art are such that the subject matter as a whole would have been obvious at the time the
`invention was made to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which said subject matter pertains.
`Patentability shall not be negatived by the manner in which the invention was made.
`
`3.
`
`The factual inquiries set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 148
`
`USPQ 459 (1966), that are applied for establishing a background for determining
`
`obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103(a) are summarized as follows:
`
`1.
`
`Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
`
`

`

`Application/Control Number: 12/593,347
`
`Page 3
`
`Art Unit: 1775
`
`2.
`3.
`4.
`
`Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
`Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
`Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating
`obviousness or nonobviousness.
`
`4.
`
`Claims 1 and 10-13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable
`
`over Schafka (6129285) in view of Sundholm (20040216699) or Lindlof (3716190).
`
`Schafka (‘295) discloses an apparatus (see Figure 2) comprising:
`
`a sterile room (30) having an inlet opening (@ 44) and an outlet opening (36);
`
`one or more fine particle capture filters (58) placed so as to cover the inlet
`
`opening (@ 44);
`
`a sterilizing material supplying part (54) for supplying, to the sterile room (30), a
`
`material with some of the supplied material attaching to the one or more fine particle
`
`capture filters (58); and
`
`one or more detoxifying material supplying parts (52) for spraying a material
`
`toward a surface of the one or more fine particle capture filters (58) capable of
`
`detoxifying the material attached to the one or more fine particle capture filters (58), the
`
`detoxifying material supplying parts (52) provided in the sterile room (30) so as to be
`
`opposed to the surface of the one or more fine particle capture filters (58) (see Figure
`
`2);
`
`at least one of the one or more detoxifying material supplying parts including a
`
`pair of detoxifying material sprayers (52) for spraying the material toward an entire
`
`surface of the one or more fine particle capture filters (58) (see Figure 2); wherein,
`
`the at least one of the detoxifying material supplying parts (52), provided in the
`
`sterile room (30), includes the pair of detoxifying material sprayers (52) respectively
`
`

`

`Application/Control Number: 12/593,347
`
`Page 4
`
`Art Unit: 1775
`
`disposed along opposing sides (i.e. left and right side) on one surface of each of the
`
`one or more fine particle capture filters (58) (see Figure 2),
`
`the at least one of the detoxifying material supplying parts (52) is provided in the
`
`sterile room such that the pair of detoxifying material sprayers is capable of being
`
`extended in a direction perpendicular to a plurality of fold lines of the one or more fine
`
`particle capture filters (58) (see Col. 6 lines 4-10), and
`
`each of the plurality of nozzles (52) of the pair of detoxifying material sprayers
`
`included in at least one of the detoxifying material supply parts is capable of being
`
`opened in such a direction that the detoxifying material is sprayed along a plurality of
`
`fold lines of the one or more fine particle capture filters (58) (see Col. 6 lines 4-10).
`
`Schafka (‘295) does not appear to specifically teach that each detoxifying
`
`material sprayer is comprised of a plurality of nozzles.
`
`It was well known in the art at the time of invention to provide a sprayer with a
`
`plurality of nozzles. Sundholm (‘699) exemplifies a sprayer (3) comprised of a plurality
`
`of nozzles (5) in order to allow an even feed of material supplied to the sprayer into the
`
`environment (see Figure 3, p. 3 [0030] — lines 2-4). Lindlof (‘190) also exemplifies a
`
`sprayer comprised of a plurality of nozzles (see Col. 6 lines 19-20) in humidification
`
`systems (see Col. 6 lines 40-41). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in
`
`this art at the time of invention to provide each sprayer of Schafka with a plurality of
`
`nozzles as known configuration in order to feed the material supplied to the sprayer
`
`evenly into the environment as exemplified by Sundholm or Lindlof.
`
`

`

`Application/Control Number: 12/593,347
`
`Page 5
`
`Art Unit: 1775
`
`Thus, Claims 1 and 10-13 would have been obvious within the meaning of 35
`
`U.S.C. 103(3) over the combined teachings of Schafka (‘295) and Sundholm (699) or
`
`Lindlof (190).
`
`Response to Arguments
`
`5.
`
`Applicant's arguments filed 1/14/2013 have been fully considered but they are
`
`not persuasive. Specifically, as to Applicant's arguments starting in last five lines on p. 7
`
`to 3rd full paragraph on p. 8 of Remarks, Examiner would indicate that “expressions
`
`relating the apparatus to contents thereof during an intended operation are of no
`
`significance in determining patentability of the apparatus claim” (see MPEP §2115). In
`
`addition, Examiner would indicate that a recitation of the intended use of the claimed
`
`invention must result in a structural difference between the claimed invention and the
`
`prior art in order to patentably distinguish the claimed invention from the prior art.
`
`If the
`
`prior art structure is capable of performing the intended use, then it meets the claim.
`
`6.
`
`Applicant’s arguments, see last 3 lines on p. 8 to first 3 lines on p. 9 of Remarks,
`
`filed 1/14/2013, with respect to the rejection(s) of claim(s) 1 under Schafka have been
`
`fully considered and are persuasive. Therefore, the rejection has been withdrawn.
`
`However, upon further consideration, a new ground(s) of rejection is made in view of
`
`Schafka and Sundholm or Lindlof.
`
`Conclusion
`
`7.
`
`Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in
`
`this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP
`
`

`

`Application/Control Number: 12/593,347
`
`Page 6
`
`Art Unit: 1775
`
`§ 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37
`
`CFR1.136(a).
`
`A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE
`
`MONTHS from the mailing date of this action.
`
`In the event a first reply is filed within
`
`TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not
`
`mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the
`
`shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any
`
`extension fee pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of
`
`the advisory action.
`
`In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later
`
`than SIX MONTHS from the date of this final action.
`
`Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the
`
`examiner should be directed to REGINA M. YOO whose telephone number is (571)272-
`
`6690. The examiner can normally be reached on M-F 10:30 am - 7 pm.
`
`If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s
`
`supervisor, Michael Marcheschi can be reached on 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 an application may be obtained from the
`
`Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for
`
`published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR.
`
`Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only.
`
`

`

`Application/Control Number: 12/593,347
`
`Page 7
`
`Art Unit: 1775
`
`For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should
`
`you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic
`
`Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a
`
`USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information
`
`system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571 -272—1 000.
`
`/REGINA M YOO/
`
`Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1775
`
`