DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
1. The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Response to Amendment
2. This is an office action in response to Applicant's arguments and remarks filed on 06/02/2026. Claims 1-5 and 7-20 are pending in the application and are being examined herein.
Status of Objections and Rejections
3. All 35 U.S.C. 103 rejections from the previous office action are maintained in view of Applicant's amendment.
Response to Arguments
4. In the arguments presented on p.6-15 of the amendment, the Applicant argues that primary reference Dayton (US 20160324997 A1, cited in prior Non-Final office action), alone or in combination, fails to teach the amended claim 1 and 18 limitation (and thus, by extension, the remaining dependent claims) of a drive motor disposed adjacent to the rotatable base and configured to rotate the rotatable base.
The Examiner does not find this argument persuasive. The limitation of the “drive motor disposed adjacent to the rotatable base” is broad and using the Applicant’s argument of Dayton’s drive motor disposed below the floor is still considered to be adjacent to the rotatable base.
Claim Objections
5. Claim 1 is objected to because of the following informalities: in lines 12-15, the claim construction should be indented to where the “base frame” and “UVC light source” limitations are not encompassed by the “rotatable base” limitation.
Claim 18 is objected to because of the following informalities: in line 8, “side wall” should recite “a side wall”, and in lines 17-21, the claim construction should be indented to where the “base frame” and “UVC light source” limitations are not encompassed by the “rotatable base” limitation.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
6. 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.
7. Claim 17 is 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.
Regarding claim 17, it is unclear if the “base” limitation is referring to claim 1’s “rotatable base” or the “base configured to support the object to be disinfected”. The “base” limitation in claim 17 will be interpreted as the “base configured to support the object to be disinfected”.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
8. The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior office action.
9. Claims 1, 4-5, and 8-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Dayton (US 20160324997 A1).
Regarding claim 1, Dayton teaches a device for disinfecting an object (decontamination apparatus 10, Fig. 7), the device comprising a chamber configured to house the object (chamber 14 houses objects to be decontaminated, Fig. 8 and [0027]), the chamber comprising:
an upper surface through which UVC light radiation passes from at least one UVC light radiation source disposed in or behind the upper surface (“UVC light sources may also be embedded in the ceiling in a manner similar to that described with respect to the floor 104”, Fig. 8 and [0052], to which “the floor 104 may be constructed of UVC light sources disposed within quartz tubes so that even at points of contact with the object to be rendered pathogen reduced, the UVC light is imparted on all externally-exposed surfaces of the object”, [0035]), and
a rotatable base (floor 20 and planar substrate 107, Fig. 8) comprising:
a base configured to support the object to be disinfected (planar substrate 107, Fig. 8), the base comprising a material that is transparent or translucent to UVC light radiation (“FEP polymeric material, fused silica or quartz”, [0035]),
a base frame including a bottom surface (floor 20 having bottom portion/surface 104, Fig. 8), the base frame configured to support the base at a distance above the bottom surface (floor 20 supports planar substrate 107, Fig. 8), and
at least one UVC light radiation source disposed in the bottom surface and configured to direct UVC light radiation upwards toward the base (“one or more UVC light bulbs 18 arranged vertically beneath the floor 20, thereby separating the objects to be disinfected from the UVC light bulbs 18”, [0035] and Fig. 8); and
a drive motor disposed adjacent to the rotatable base (25, Fig. 8) and configured to rotate the rotatable base ([0034]).
Dayton fails to explicitly teach in the embodiment of Fig. 7-8 at least one curved side wall through which UVC light radiation passes from at least one UVC light radiation source. Dayton teaches in the embodiment of Fig. 1-2 the same decontamination apparatus with at least one curved side wall (center rear sidewall portion of inner surface 32, Fig. 2, where both UV light sources 18 are adjacent to said portion) which UVC light radiation passes from at least one UVC light radiation source (UV light sources 18, Fig. 2), but does not mention the light source being embedded within the interior surface/housing of the sidewalls.
The embodiment of Fig. 7-8 of Dayton teaches light sources embedded/placed within the ceiling and floor walls. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the UVC light sources on the sidewalls of the Fig. 2 embodiment with UVC light sources housed within the walls of the sidewall (i.e., embedded) as taught in the ceiling and floor wall light sources of the Fig. 7-8 embodiment because the modification of this feature would yield the predictable result of increased sterilization lighting in the chamber (KSR Rationale A, see MPEP 2143).
Regarding claim 4, modified Dayton teaches wherein the rotatable base is configured to rotate about a central axis while UVC light radiation passes therethrough (rotatable base/floor 20 rotates on a central axis, “the floor motor 25 can be operatively connected to a controller 40, described below, to be rotated or pivoted about the central axis of the mounting post 21 according to computer-executable instructions in a non-transitory computer-readable memory 42”, Fig. 8 and [0034]).
Regarding claim 5, modified Dayton teaches wherein the rotatable base is configured to oscillate about a central axis (floor motor 25 rotates floor 20 in a circular motion which is an oscillation about a central axis, Fig. 8) while UVC light radiation passes therethrough from the at least one UVC light radiation source disposed in the base frame bottom surface (planar substrate 107 and floor 20 are made of UV transparent materials that the UVC light sources are disposed under, Fig. 8 and [0035]).
Regarding claim 8, modified Dayton fails to specifically teach wherein each of the UVC light radiation sources are UVC LED lamps, but does mention wherein UVC light radiation sources are UVC LED lamps with respect to a separate embodiment utilizing a hook (the hook 41 may itself support its own UVC light bulb such as a UVC LED or similar compact UVC light source, [0038], where the bulbs are the UVC light sources embedded, see claim 1 rejection above). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to substitute the embedded UV light sources within the ceiling, floor, and sidewall of modified Dayton with UVC LED light sources as described because the substitution of this feature would yield the predictable result of lighting and sterilizing the chamber [KSR Rationale B, see MPEP 2143]).
Regarding claim 9, modified Dayton teaches wherein the at least one UVC light radiation source disposed in the base frame bottom surface (UVC light sources under floor 20, Fig. 8 and [0035]) is configured to illuminate all of a top surface of the base (the upper surface of floor 20 is illuminated by said UV light because the floor is made of a UV transmissive material, [0035]).
Regarding claim 10, modified Dayton teaches wherein the device is configured to kill at least 99.9%, at least 99.99%, at least 99.999%, or at least 99.9999% of pathogens on the surface of the object (“achieving high-level disinfection of an object utilizing disinfecting apparatus can involve deactivation of a suitable portion of the biologically-active contagions to achieve at least a 6 log.sub.10 reduction (i.e., 1/1,000,000.sup.th) of such contagions on the object”, [0025]).
Regarding claim 11, the limitation of “the pathogens” is an inclusion of the material or article worked upon by a structure being claimed, which does not impart patentability to the claims (See MPEP 2115). Furthermore, apparatus claims cover what a device is, not what a device does; a claim containing a recitation with respect to the manner in which a claimed apparatus is intended to be employed does not differentiate the claimed apparatus from a prior art apparatus if the prior art apparatus teaches all the structural limitations of the claim (See MPEP 2114,II).
For purpose of compact prosecution, modified Dayton does not specifically disclose wherein the pathogens are killed within about 1 minute of an initial contact with UVC light radiation from the UVC light radiation sources. However, Dayton does mention a dosage determined by “other predetermined period of time programmed into the controller 40” ([0049] and Fig. 8) when discussing decontamination process interruptions. The disinfection potential (see claim 10 rejection above) in combination with the controllable aspect of the dosage of the UVC decontamination of the chamber would render the routine optimization of the time range of contact of UVC light obvious (i.e., under 1 minute). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have had a reasonable expectation of success to formulate the claimed range of under 1 minute through routine optimization (see MPEP 2144.05,II).
Regarding claim 12, modified Dayton fails to teach in the embodiment of Fig. 7-8, a door hingedly associated with the chamber and configured to prevent UVC light radiation from escaping the chamber (the door 114 of Fig. 7 slides with respect to the chamber, not hingedly). Dayton teaches in the embodiment of Fig. 1-2 the same decontamination apparatus with hinged doors (the doors 16 are described above as opposing, hinged doors that close in directions toward the opposite door 16, Fig. 2).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to substitute the sliding door of Fig. 7-8 with a hinged door(s) as taught in Fig. 2 because the modification of this feature would yield the predictable result of allowing or preventing access to the interior of the chamber (KSR Rationale B, see MPEP 2143).
Regarding claim 13, modified Dayton teaches wherein the door is associated with a safety switch (processor 44, Fig. 8, where “the timer component 46 transmits a signal notifying the computer processor 44 that the decontamination process is complete, and the UVC light bulbs 18 can be deactivated”, [0047], showing the processor 44 controls the UVC light sources) configured to prevent the UVC light radiation sources from emitting UVC light radiation when the door is in an open configuration (“the UVC light bulbs 18 were deactivated as a result of a command to open the doors 16, an attempt to manually open the doors 16”, [0048]).
Regarding claim 14, modified Dayton teaches wherein the rotatable base consists essentially of a solid material (the floor 20 itself can optionally be formed of the FEP polymeric material, fused silica or quartz, Fig. 8 and [0035]).
Regarding claim 15, modified Dayton teaches wherein the solid material consists essentially of quartz (the floor 20 itself can optionally be formed of… quartz, Fig. 8 and [0035]).
Regarding claim 16, modified Dayton teaches wherein the solid material consists essentially of a plastic (the floor 20 itself can optionally be formed of the FEP polymeric material, Fig. 8 and [0035]) that permits at least about 40% transmission of light radiation having a wavelength of about 265 nm to pass therethrough (FEP polymer is described as “substantially transparent” to which “any materials used to reinforce the UVC light sources should be substantially transparent to UVC light to permit transmission of a substantial portion (e.g., at least 60%, or at least 80%, or at least 90%, or at least 95%) of the UV light emitted”, [0035], and the wavelength of 265 nm light is within the disclosed range of 200-280 nm definitionally by UVC radiation – there is sufficient specificity to anticipate this claim because the sterilizing capability of 265 nm light is the same as 200-280 nm light).
Regarding claim 17, modified Dayton teaches wherein the base is replaceable (planar substrate 107 “can optionally be overlaid on top of the floor 20”, Fig. 8 and [0035]).
Regarding claim 18, Dayton teaches a device for disinfecting an object (decontamination apparatus 10, Fig. 7), the device comprising:
a chamber configured to house the object (chamber 14, Fig. 8), the chamber comprising:
an upper surface (ceiling 22, Fig. 8),
at least one upper surface UVC light radiation sources associated with the upper surface (UVC light sources may also be embedded in the ceiling in a manner similar to that described with respect to the floor 104”, Fig. 8 and [0052], to which “the floor 104 may be constructed of UVC light sources disposed within quartz tubes so that even at points of contact with the object to be rendered pathogen reduced, the UVC light is imparted on all externally-exposed surfaces of the object”, [0035]),
a side wall disposed below the upper surface (inner surface 32, Fig. 8), and
a rotatable base disposed below the upper surface and below the sidewall (floor 20 and planar substrate 107, Fig. 8), the rotatable base comprising:
a base comprising a solid material that is transparent or translucent to UVC light radiation (planar substrate 107, Fig. 8 and [0035]),
a base frame including a bottom surface (floor 20 having bottom portion/surface 104, Fig. 8), the base frame configured to support the base at a distance above the bottom surface (floor 20 supports planar substrate 107, Fig. 8), and
at least one UVC light radiation source disposed in the bottom surface and configured to direct UVC light radiation upwards toward the base (“one or more UVC light bulbs 18 arranged vertically beneath the floor 20, thereby separating the objects to be disinfected from the UVC light bulbs 18”, [0035] and Fig. 8);
a drive motor disposed adjacent to the rotatable base (25, Fig. 8) and configured to rotate the rotatable base ([0034]).
Dayton fails to explicitly teach in the embodiment of Fig. 7-8 a side wall having a generally truncated discorectangle shape with at least one side wall UVC light radiation sources. Dayton teaches in the embodiment of Fig. 1-2 the same decontamination apparatus with at least one curved side wall (center rear sidewall portion of inner surface 32, Fig. 2, where both UV light sources 18 are adjacent to said portion) which UVC light radiation passes from at least one UVC light radiation source (UV light sources 18, Fig. 2), but does not mention the light source being embedded within the interior surface/housing of the sidewalls.
The embodiment of Fig. 7-8 of Dayton teaches light sources embedded/placed within the ceiling and floor walls. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the UVC light sources on the sidewalls of the Fig. 2 embodiment with UVC light sources housed within the walls of the sidewall (i.e., embedded) as taught in the ceiling and floor wall light sources of the Fig. 7-8 embodiment because the modification of this feature would yield the predictable result of increased sterilization lighting in the chamber (KSR Rationale A, see MPEP 2143).
Dayton also fails to teach in the embodiment of Fig. 7-8 a door hingedly associated with the chamber and configured to prevent UVC light radiation from escaping the chamber (the door 114 of Fig. 7 slides with respect to the chamber, not hingedly). Dayton teaches in the embodiment of Fig. 1-2 the same decontamination apparatus with hinged doors (the doors 16 are described above as opposing, hinged doors that close in directions toward the opposite door 16, Fig. 2).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to substitute the sliding door of Fig. 7 with a hinged door(s) as taught in Fig. 2 because the modification of this feature would yield the predictable result of allowing or preventing access to the interior of the chamber (KSR Rationale B, see MPEP 2143).
Regarding claim 19, modified Dayton teaches wherein the generally truncated discorectangle shape (interior surface 32 of chamber 14, Fig. 2, also present in the original embodiment of Fig. 7) comprises: a first generally flat portion (portion of inner surface left of left UVC light source 18 in Fig. 2), a second generally flat portion (portion of inner surface right of right UVC light source 18 in Fig. 2), and a curved portion disposed between the first and second generally flat portions (center rear sidewall portion of inner surface 32, Fig. 2, including UV light sources 18 adjacent to said portion).
Modified Dayton fails to teach at least six apertures disposed in the curved portion through which the UVC light radiation passes from the side wall UVC light radiation sources.
Dayton mentions “one or a plurality of sources, shown in the illustrated embodiment as one or more UVC light bulbs 18, direct a disinfecting agent in the form of UVC light toward the surface(s) of the object in the disinfecting chamber 14 to be rendered pathogen reduced” ([0027]). The plurality of light sources can be applied individually to each surface (ceiling, floor, and sidewall), which includes six UV light sources.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention select a number from a number suggested in the prior art (i.e., select six UV light sources from the range of a plurality as disclosed in Dayton), because a prima facie case of obviousness exists when the claimed ranges "overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art" (see MPEP 2144.05,I).
It would have also been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have had a reasonable expectation of success to formulate the claimed range of six UV light sources through routine optimization (see MPEP 2144.05,II) because more light sources yields a higher dosage of light radiation, which achieves the intended effect of increased disinfection efficacy of Dayton’s UVC light sources.
The mention of six embedded light sources within the sidewalls necessitates the existence of at least one aperture/opening per light source to which the light sources can irradiate light into the chamber, reading on the “six apertures” limitation.
Regarding claim 20, modified Dayton teaches wherein no side wall UVC light radiation sources are associated with the first and second generally flat portions (portion of inner surface left of left UVC light source 18 and portion of inner surface right of right UVC light source 18 in Fig. 2 do not have any UV light sources).
10. Claim 2 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Dayton (US 20160324997 A1), as applied to claim 1 above, further in view of Mochizuki et al. (US 20180257953 A1).
Regarding claim 2, modified Dayton teaches a reflective interior surface (32, Fig. 2) that can be made of a UVC reflective material such as polished aluminum (“examples of the UVC reflective material include, but are not limited to polished aluminum”, [0030]), but fails to explicitly state PTFE as a potential candidate for the UVC reflective material.
Mochizuki teaches a fluid sterilization device (160, Fig. 6) with a reflector material within the device, to which “reflector 170 is made of a material having a high reflectivity for ultraviolet light and is made of, for example, mirror-polished aluminum, PTFE”.
Dayton and Mochizuki are both considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of disinfection of enclosures utilizing UV light.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to substitute the polished aluminum UVC reflective material of modified Dayton with PTFE as taught by Mochizuki because the selection of a known material based on its suitability for its intended use supports a prima facie obviousness determination. MPEP 2144.07.
11. Claim 3 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Dayton (US 20160324997 A1), further in view of Mochizuki et al. (US 20180257953 A1), as applied to claim 2 above, further in view of Lizotte (US 20120168641 A1).
Regarding claim 3, Dayton in view of Mochizuki teaches a reflective interior surface (32, Fig. 2) that can be made of a UVC reflective material such as polished aluminum (Dayton, “examples of the UVC reflective material include, but are not limited to polished aluminum”, [0030]), and Mochizuki teaches a fluid sterilization device (160, Fig. 6) with a reflector material within the device, to which “reflector 170 is made of a material having a high reflectivity for ultraviolet light and is made of, for example, mirror-polished aluminum, PTFE”. However, Dayton in view of Mochizuki fails to teach wherein the PTFE surface reflects at least about 90% of light radiation having a wavelength of 265 nm.
Lizotte teaches a UV disinfection system for objects such as food, water, or air (Fig. 7A and abstract) that utilizes UV radiation reflectors (diffusive reflective element 42B, Fig. 7A) that are comprised of compressed PTFE (“In the case of compressed PTFE materials… its diffuse reflectance is about 97%, over a wavelength range of 230 nm to 1080 nm”, [0067]) in order to “improve the efficiency of traditional and laser based UV reactor disinfection systems” ([0067]).
Dayton in view of Mochizuki and Lizotte are both considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of UV disinfection systems utilizing the reflective capability of PTFE.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to substitute the Dayton/Mochizuki combination of a UVC disinfection chamber with a reflective material comprising PTFE with a compressed PTFE material having diffuse reflectance of 97% between 230-1080 nm as taught by Lizotte in order to increase the disinfection efficiency (Lizotte, [0067]).
12. Claim 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Dayton (US 20160324997 A1), as applied to claim 1 above, further in view of Davis (US 20160271288 A1).
Regarding claim 7, modified Dayton teaches a chamber (14, Fig. 8), but fails to explicitly teach a fan configured to force air around but not into the chamber.
Davis teaches an air sterilizing apparatus (10, Fig. 1) that has a fan (60, Fig. 1) that does not introduce air into the chamber being disinfected (fan 60 does not introduce air to inner housing 30 but rather cycles air in the outer housing 20, see Fig. 2 and 4) in order to “dissipate heat that may build up from operation of the multiple UV light assemblies” ([0047]).
Dayton and Davis are both considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of disinfecting a chamber with UV light.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the walls of the chamber housing the UV light sources of modified Dayton by incorporating a fan within the chamber walls and not the into the chamber in order to dissipate the heat generated by the UV light sources (Davis, [0047]).
Conclusion
13. 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.
14. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Aham Lee whose telephone number is (703)756-5622. The examiner can normally be reached Monday to Thursday, 10:00 AM - 8:00 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 R. 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.
/Aham Lee/Examiner, Art Unit 1758
/MARIS R KESSEL/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1758
Prosecution Insights