Prosecution Insights
Last updated: April 19, 2026
Application No. 17/462,911

SYSTEMS AND METHODS OF UV CLEANING

Final Rejection §103
Filed
Aug 31, 2021
Examiner
YOO, REGINA M
Art Unit
1758
Tech Center
1700 — Chemical & Materials Engineering
Assignee
The Boeing Company
OA Round
4 (Final)
64%
Grant Probability
Moderate
5-6
OA Rounds
3y 4m
To Grant
69%
With Interview

Examiner Intelligence

Grants 64% of resolved cases
64%
Career Allow Rate
562 granted / 884 resolved
-1.4% vs TC avg
Moderate +6% lift
Without
With
+5.7%
Interview Lift
resolved cases with interview
Typical timeline
3y 4m
Avg Prosecution
61 currently pending
Career history
945
Total Applications
across all art units

Statute-Specific Performance

§101
0.4%
-39.6% vs TC avg
§103
35.6%
-4.4% vs TC avg
§102
21.1%
-18.9% vs TC avg
§112
34.6%
-5.4% vs TC avg
Black line = Tech Center average estimate • Based on career data from 884 resolved cases

Office Action

§103
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 11/10/2025 has been received and claims 1, 3-7, and 9-22 are pending. Election/Restrictions Claims 12-20 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b), as being drawn to a nonelected group, there being no allowable generic or linking claim.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 11/08/2024. Claim Objections Claims 1, 3-7, 9-11 and 21-22 are objected to because of the following informalities: in line 6 of Claim 1, insert --to be cleaned-- after “component”; in line 8 of Claim 1, delete “indictor” and insert --indicator--; in line 10 of Claim 1, delete “indictor” and insert --indicator--; in line 11 of Claim 1, delete both instances of “indictor” and insert --indicator--; in line 12 of Claim 1, delete “indictor” and insert --indicator--; in line 14 of Claim 1, delete “indictor” and insert --indicator--; in line 1 of Claim 4, insert --to be cleaned-- after “component”; in line 1 of Claim 11, insert --to be cleaned-- after “component”. Appropriate correction is required. 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. Claim(s) 1, 3-5, 7, and 9-11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Dytioco (20180369440) in view of Alvarez (20200164988), Sawhney (20010046518) and/or Walsh (9603416), and Das (20180111177). As to Claim 1, Dytioco (‘440) discloses a system (100) (see Figure 1), comprising: an ultraviolet (UV) light source (104); a component (108); and a photochromatic indicator (114) associated with the component (108), the photochromatic indicator (114) being in a first state (see entire document, particularly claim 3), the UV light source (104) being configured to change the photochromatic indicator (114) from the first state to a second state (see entire document, particularly p. 1 [0007], pp. 2-3 [0034], claim 2), the second state indicating that the component has been cleaned (see entire document, particularly claim 1), wherein the second state is visible to a naked eye under ambient lighting (see entire document, particularly claim 2), wherein the photochromatic indicator (114) is not visible to the naked eye when in the first state (see entire document, particularly p. 1 [0007], pp. 2-3 [0034], claim 2). While it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention that the UV light source (104) located within a cabin (102) of a vehicle (i.e. aircraft or other transportation means) (see Figures 6 and 9-10) would obtain power from the power supply of the vehicle, Dytioco (‘440) does not appear to specifically teach a power source configured to provide power to the UV light source (104). It was known in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide a power source with a system for disinfecting a surface of an object via a UV light source. Alvarez (‘988) discloses a system (see Figures 1-12), comprising: an ultraviolet (UV) light source (910); and a power source (916) (see Figure 9), in order to provide power to the UV light source (910) so as to enable irradiation of a targeted surface/object with UV light having antimicrobial efficacy (see entire document, particularly Figure 9, p. 6 [0069], p. 7 [0071]-[0073], p. 8 [0082], p. 9 [0091]). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in this art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide a power source with the system of Dytioco as known component in order to provide power to the UV light source so as to enable irradiation of a target surface/area/object with UV radiation with antimicrobial efficacy as shown by Alvarez. As to the limitation that the component is formed from a material selected from a nano-reinforced material, an organic material, a textile fabric, and combinations thereof, while Dytioco (‘440) teaches that the component (108) is objects that is capable of being formed from a material selected from a nano-reinforced material, an organic material, a textile fabric, and combinations thereof (see entire document, particularly p. 2 [0030]-[0031] and [0033] – where the disclosed items/objects such as medical devices, equipment, implements would be formed from a listed material), Dytioco (‘440) does not specifically teach that the component (108) is formed from a material selected from a nano-reinforced material, an organic material, a textile fabric, and combinations thereof. It was well known in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention that components such as medical devices/implement/equipment is formed from a material selected from a nano-reinforced material, an organic material, a textile fabric, and combinations thereof. Sawhny (‘518) exemplifies that medical devices are formed from a material selected from an organic material, a textile fabric, and combinations thereof (see entire document, particularly p. 6 [0068] – lines 6-7, p. 7 [0086]). Walsh (‘416) also exemplifies that medical devices/implement/equipment are formed from a material selected from a nano-reinforced material (see entire document, particularly Figure 12, Col. 2 lines 16-27, Col. 28 line 36 to Col. 29 line 33 specifically Col. 29 lines 29-32) in order to strength a material (see entire document, particularly Col. 29 lines 32-33). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in this art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention that the component such as component 108 of Dytioco includes components that is formed from a material selected from a nano-reinforced material, an organic material, a textile fabric, and combination thereof as known material for such components as exemplified by Sawhny and in order to strengthen a material as exemplified by Walsh. As to the limitation that the photochromatic indicator comprises a first state and a second state where each of the first and second states comprises a visual indicator state and a tactile indicator state, Dytioco (‘440) does not appear to specifically teach that the photochromatic indicator comprising being in a first state and a second state, wherein the first state comprises a first visual indictor state and a first tactile indicator state and the second state comprises a second visual indicator state and a second tactile indicator state. However, it was known in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide a sterilization indicator that has a first state and a second state where the first state comprises a first visual indictor state and a first tactile indicator state and the second state comprises a second visual indicator state and a second tactile indicator state. Das (‘177) discloses a sterilization indicator that has a first state and a second state, wherein the first state comprises a first visual indictor state and a first tactile indicator state and the second state comprises a second visual indicator state and a second tactile indicator state in order to provide a plurality of readily ascertainable indications that the sterilization was successful to personnel in the event the visual change may not be apparent to a user (see entire document, particularly p. 8 [0069]-[0070]). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in this art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide a colorimetric indicator that provides both visual and tactile change or modification associated with sterilization processes in the system of Dytioco in order to provide a plurality of readily ascertainable indicators that the sterilization was successful so as to enable determination of a result from the indicator as shown by Das. As to Claim 3, Dytioco (‘440) discloses that the photochromatic indictor (114) is in a form selected from the group consisting of: a sticker, a thread, a textile fabric, an organic material, a polycarbonate element, a polymer element, a metal element, a coating, and combinations thereof (see entire document, particularly p. 2 [0033], pp. 2-3 [0034], p. 3 [0037]-[0038] and [0046], where 114 which is attached or is integrally formed with the component (such as the toilet, wall, faucet, medical devices, etc.) would be formed from a listed material). As to Claim 4, while Dytioco (‘440) does not appear to specifically teach that the photochromatic indicator (114) is included in a tray cover, a headrest cover, a seat cover, an armrest cover, an outlet cover, or a headset cover, as Dytioco (‘440) teaches that the photochromatic indicator is included with any “high touch” surfaces/objects within an enclosure/room (see entire document, particularly p. 1 [0028], [0030]-[0031] and [0033]), it would have been well within the purview of one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include the photochromatic indicator in other common high touch surfaces/items commonly located within an enclosure/room such as a tray cover, a headrest cover, a seat cover, an armrest cover, an outlet cover, or a headset cover in the system of Dytioco in order to assure a user/occupant that surfaces of those items have been satisfactorily disinfected and is safe for use (see entire document, particularly p. 1 [0027]). Only the expected results would be attained. As to Claim 5, Dytioco (‘440) discloses that the photochromatic indictor (114) includes a reversible photochromatic pigment (see entire document, particularly pp. 3-4 [0047] – lines 5-9). As to Claim 7, Dytioco (‘440) discloses that the UV light source (104) includes a device removably coupled to a wall of an aircraft passenger cabin (see Figure 6). As to Claim 9, Dytioco (‘440) discloses that the UV light source (104) is configured to emit a wavelength from about 222 nanometers (nm) to about 254 nm (see entire document, particularly p. 2 [0032] – last 3 lines, p. 3 [0040] – 6th line from the bottom). As to Claim 10, while Dytioco (‘440) does not appear to specifically teach that the photochromatic indicator (114) is included in a cover comprising at least one aperture and configured to couple to the component (108) through one or more of an adhesive, a magnetic means, a hook-and-loop means, a mechanical means, or combinations thereof, as Dytioco (‘440) teaches that the photochromatic indicator is included with any “high touch” surfaces/objects within an enclosure/room (see entire document, particularly p. 1 [0028], [0030]-[0031] and [0033]), it would have been well within the purview of one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include the photochromatic indicator in other common high touch surfaces/items commonly located within an enclosure/room such as a tray cover, a headrest cover, a seat cover, an armrest cover, an outlet cover, or a headset cover (which are covers that comprise at least one aperture and is configured to couple to the component (108) through one or more of an adhesive, a magnetic means, a hook-and-loop means, a mechanical means, or combinations thereof) in the system of Dytioco in order to assure a user/occupant that surfaces of those items have been satisfactorily disinfected and is safe for use (see entire document, particularly p. 1 [0027]). Only the expected results would be attained. As to Claim 11, while Dytioco (‘440) does not appear to specifically teach that the component comprises a gaming system, as Dytioco (‘440) teaches that the photochromatic indicator is included with any “high touch” surfaces/objects such as gloves, a keyboard, a touchpad, and/or a handheld device in fixed structures such as commercial and residential buildings (see entire document, particularly p. 1 [0028], [0030]-[0031] and [0033], p. 4 [0056]), it would have been well within the purview of one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include other common “high touch” surfaces/items such as a gaming system in the system of Dytioco in order to also disinfect other high touch surface(s) by inactivating biological contaminants and preventing cross contamination of disease/infection between users (see entire document, particularly p. 2 [0027]). Only the expected results would be attained. Thus, Claims 1, 3-5, 7, and 9-11 would have been obvious within the meaning of 35 U.S.C. 103 over the combined teachings of Dytioco (‘440), Alvarez (‘988), Sawhney (‘518) and/or Walsh (‘416), and Das (‘177). Claim(s) 6 and 21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Dytioco (20180369440) in view of Alvarez (20200164988), Sawhney (20010046518) and/or Walsh (9603416), and Das (20180111177) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Smith (11738587). Dytioco (‘440), Alvarez (‘988), Sawhney (‘518) and/or Walsh (‘416), and Das (‘177) are relied upon for disclosure described in the rejection of claim 1 under 35 U.S.C. 103. Neither Dytioco (‘440) or Alvarez (‘988) or Sawhney (‘518) or Walsh (‘416) or Das (‘177) appears to specifically teach that the photochromatic indicator includes an irreversible photochromatic pigment, or two or more photochromatic pigments, each of the two or more photochromatic pigments having an at least one of a different concentration or a different composition. It was known in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide an irreversible photochromatic pigment and/or two or more photochromatic pigments, each of the two or more photochromatic pigments having an at least one of a different concentration or a different composition, in a photochromatic indicator. Smith (‘587) discloses a photochromatic indicator (see entire document, particularly Col. 3 lines 16-20 and 29-35, Col. 4 lines 64-67, Col. 5 lines 17-21 and 24-30, Col. 10 lines 10-20) that includes an irreversible photochromatic pigment (see entire document, particularly Col. 3 lines 39-52 – specifically line 46, Col. 5 lines 31-35) and/or two or more photochromatic pigments, each of the two or more photochromatic pigments having an at least one of a different concentration or a different composition (see entire document, particularly Col. 15 lines 39-42, Col. 16 lines 57-59, Col. 19 lines 28-38 – specifically lines 37-38), in order to provide different properties so as to generate larger amounts of light when activated (see entire document, particularly Col. 19 lines 28-38 – specifically lines 34-38). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in this art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide an irreversible photochromatic pigment in the photochromatic indicator of Dytioco as known alternate photochromatic material/pigment as a matter of engineering choice as shown by Smith. It would also have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in this art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include two or more photochromatic pigments, each of the two or more photochromatic pigments having an at least one of a different concentration or a different composition, in the photochromatic indicator of Dytioco in order to provide different properties via different composition/pigments so as to enable generation of greater amount of light when activated as shown by Smith. Thus, Claims 6 and 21 would have been obvious within the meaning of 35 U.S.C. 103 over the combined teachings of Dytioco (‘440), Alvarez (‘988), Sawhney (‘518) and/or Walsh (‘416), Das (‘177) and Smith (‘587). Claim(s) 6 and 22 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Dytioco (20180369440) in view of Alvarez (20200164988), Sawhney (20010046518) and/or Walsh (9603416), and Das (20180111177) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of McGeorge (20010048891). Dytioco (‘440), Alvarez (‘988), Sawhney (‘518) and/or Walsh (‘416), and Das (‘177) are relied upon for disclosure described in the rejection of claim 1 under 35 U.S.C. 103. Neither Dytioco (‘440) or Alvarez (‘988) or Sawhney (‘518) or Walsh (‘416) or Das (‘177) appears to specifically teach that the photochromatic indicator includes an irreversible photochromatic pigment and configured as a disposable, single-use element. It was known in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide a photochromatic indicator that includes an irreversible photochromatic pigment and configured as a disposable, single-use element. McGeorge (‘891) discloses a photochromatic indicator (18) which includes an irreversible photochromatic pigment (19) and configured as a disposable, single-use element (see entire document, particularly p. 2 [0026] – lines 1-6) in order to replace the used indicator with a new indicator for next use (see entire document, particularly p. 2 [0026]). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in this art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide an irreversible photochromatic pigment in the photochromatic indicator of Dytioco and configured it as a disposable, single-use element as known alternate configuration in order to provide a new/fresh indicator with active photochromatic pigment for next use as shown by McGeorge. Thus, Claims 6 and 22 would have been obvious within the meaning of 35 U.S.C. 103 over the combined teachings of Dytioco (‘440), Alvarez (‘988), Sawhney (‘518) and/or Walsh (‘416), Das (‘177), and McGeorge (‘891). Response to Arguments Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 1, 3-7, 9-11 and 21-22 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

Aug 31, 2021
Application Filed
Jan 20, 2025
Non-Final Rejection — §103
Apr 23, 2025
Response Filed
May 13, 2025
Final Rejection — §103
Jul 16, 2025
Response after Non-Final Action
Jul 25, 2025
Request for Continued Examination
Jul 29, 2025
Response after Non-Final Action
Aug 07, 2025
Non-Final Rejection — §103
Nov 10, 2025
Response Filed
Feb 21, 2026
Final Rejection — §103 (current)

Precedent Cases

Applications granted by this same examiner with similar technology

Patent 12551585
Sanitizing Appliance
2y 5m to grant Granted Feb 17, 2026
Patent 12544471
VEHICLE SANITIZING SYSTEMS AND METHODS FOR USING THE SAME
2y 5m to grant Granted Feb 10, 2026
Patent 12544466
Instrument Sterilization Device
2y 5m to grant Granted Feb 10, 2026
Patent 12544473
Medical Instrument Sterilization Case Tracking
2y 5m to grant Granted Feb 10, 2026
Patent 12521464
AIR DISINFECTION APPARATUS FOR USE IN AIR CONDITIONING SYSTEMS
2y 5m to grant Granted Jan 13, 2026
Study what changed to get past this examiner. Based on 5 most recent grants.

AI Strategy Recommendation

Get an AI-powered prosecution strategy using examiner precedents, rejection analysis, and claim mapping.
Powered by AI — typically takes 5-10 seconds

Prosecution Projections

5-6
Expected OA Rounds
64%
Grant Probability
69%
With Interview (+5.7%)
3y 4m
Median Time to Grant
High
PTA Risk
Based on 884 resolved cases by this examiner. Grant probability derived from career allow 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