Prosecution Insights
Last updated: May 29, 2026
Application No. 17/308,200

ULTRAVIOLET LIGHT SHIELD SYSTEM

Final Rejection §112
Filed
May 05, 2021
Priority
Jun 23, 2020 — provisional 63/043,105
Examiner
YOO, REGINA M
Art Unit
1758
Tech Center
1700 — Chemical & Materials Engineering
Assignee
The Boeing Company
OA Round
6 (Final)
64%
Grant Probability
Moderate
7-8
OA Rounds
0m
Est. Remaining
69%
With Interview

Examiner Intelligence

Grants 64% of resolved cases
64%
Career Allowance Rate
566 granted / 891 resolved
-1.5% vs TC avg
Moderate +6% lift
Without
With
+5.7%
Interview Lift
resolved cases with interview
Typical timeline
3y 4m
Avg Prosecution
32 currently pending
Career history
946
Total Applications
across all art units

Statute-Specific Performance

§101
0.6%
-39.4% vs TC avg
§103
47.4%
+7.4% vs TC avg
§102
27.3%
-12.7% vs TC avg
§112
15.1%
-24.9% vs TC avg
Black line = Tech Center average estimate • Based on career data from 891 resolved cases

Office Action

§112
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 . FINAL ACTION Response to Amendment The amendment filed on 11/20/2025 has been received and claims 1-3 and 5-21 are pending. Election/Restrictions Claims 14-19 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b), as being drawn to a nonelected group, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Applicant timely traversed the restriction (election) requirement in the reply filed on 2/20/2024. Claim Objections Claim 3 is objected to because of the following informalities: in line 2, delete “a” and insert --the--. Appropriate correction is required. Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112 The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a): (a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention. The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112: The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention. Claims 1-13 and 20-21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention. Specifically, in claims 1 and 20 there is no written description support for the limitations/embodiment where an ultraviolet (UV) light shield system comprises both “a first set of UV lamps on and within a front of a seat back… and a second set of UV lamps on and within a rear of the seat back” or that “each of the first set of UV lamps and the second set of UV lamps are positioned to emit the UV light outside of the passenger seat and into the internal cabin…that extend along sides of the passenger seat or one or more other passenger seats disposed within the internal cabin” within the Specification. Claims 2-13 and 21 are rejected due to their dependence on a rejected claim. 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 1-13 and 20 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. In Claims 1 and 20, it is not clear how each/both of “a first set of UV lamps on and within a front of a seat back… and a second set of UV lamps on and within a rear of the seat back…. wherein each of the first set of UV lamps and the second set of UV lamps are positioned to emit the UV light outside of the passenger seat and into the internal cabin” can fulfill the function to “extend along sides of the passenger seat or one or more other passenger seats disposed within the internal cabin”. Claims 2-13 and 21 are rejected due to their dependence on a rejected claim. Response to Arguments Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 1-13 and 20-21 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument. Conclusion Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(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 nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) 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 mailing 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 Monday - Friday, 9:00 am - 5:00 pm EST. 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. /REGINA M YOO/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1758
Read full office action

Prosecution Timeline

Show 10 earlier events
Nov 14, 2024
Request for Continued Examination
Nov 17, 2024
Response after Non-Final Action
Mar 10, 2025
Non-Final Rejection mailed — §112
Jun 04, 2025
Response Filed
Sep 12, 2025
Non-Final Rejection mailed — §112
Nov 20, 2025
Response Filed
Mar 05, 2026
Final Rejection mailed — §112
Apr 28, 2026
Response after Non-Final Action

Precedent Cases

Applications granted by this same examiner with similar technology

Patent 12629433
ULTRAVIOLET SANITIZING PACING SYSTEMS AND METHODS
5y 8m to grant Granted May 19, 2026
Patent 12629434
ULTRAVIOLET LIGHT GERMICIDAL IRRADIATION DEVICE
5y 6m to grant Granted May 19, 2026
Patent 12629439
DISINFECTION SYSTEM
3y 3m to grant Granted May 19, 2026
Patent 12631351
AIR PURIFIER
3y 3m to grant Granted May 19, 2026
Patent 12617700
METHODS FOR ERADICATING BIOFILMS FROM PLUMBING SYSTEMS
3y 0m to grant Granted May 05, 2026
Study what changed to get past this examiner. Based on 5 most recent grants.

Strategy Recommendation AI-generated — please review before filing

Get a prosecution strategy drawn from examiner precedents, rejection analysis, and claim mapping.
Typically takes 5-10 seconds — AI-generated, attorney review required before filing

Prosecution Projections

7-8
Expected OA Rounds
64%
Grant Probability
69%
With Interview (+5.7%)
3y 4m (~0m remaining)
Median Time to Grant
High
PTA Risk
Based on 891 resolved cases by this examiner. Grant probability derived from career allowance rate.

Sign in with your work email

Enter your email to receive a magic link. No password needed.

Personal email addresses (Gmail, Yahoo, etc.) are not accepted.

Free tier: 3 strategy analyses per month