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 .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 30 January 2026 has been entered.
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election without traverse of claims 1-13 in the reply filed on 13 June 2025 is acknowledged.
Response to Amendment
Claim amendments filed 30 January 2026 are acknowledged. Claims 1-13, 21-23, and 25-26 are pending with claims 14-20, 24, and 27 being cancelled.
The 35 U.S.C. 112(a) rejection of claim 24 and the 35 U.S.C. 112(b) rejection of claim 27 have been withdrawn due to the cancellation of said claims.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, see pages 5-8 of the applicant’s remarks, filed 30 January 2025, with respect to the rejection of claim 1 under 35 U.S.C. 103 have been fully considered and are persuasive. Therefore, the rejection has been withdrawn. However, upon further consideration, a new ground of rejection is made in view of 35 U.S.C. 103 with respect to Berry in view of Bilenko and Zhou (US 20200086136 A1).
The combination of Berry and Bilenko does not teach a series of focused laser spots or a controller to adjust a degree of overlapping between adjacent focused laser spots. However, Zhou teach both a series of focused laser spots (abstract) or a controller to adjust a degree of overlapping between adjacent focused laser spots (paragraph [0044]). Therefore, a combination of Berry, Bilenko, and Zhou would render the current invention of claim 1 obvious.
Following the above logic, the rejections of claims 2-5, 7-11, 13, 23, and 26 are withdrawn. However, upon further consideration, new grounds of rejections are made in view of 35 U.S.C. 103 with respect to Berry in view of Bilenko and Zhou (US 20200086136 A1).
Additionally, the rejections of claims 6, 12, and 25 are withdrawn. However, upon further consideration, new grounds of rejections are made in view of Berry, Bilenko, and Zhou in view in Zacchigna. The rejections of claims 21-22 are withdrawn, but upon further consideration, new grounds of rejections are made in view of Berry, Bilenko, and Zhou in view of Baird.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
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.
Claims 1-5, 7-11, 13, 23, and 26 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Berry (US 20130248734 A1) in view of Bilenko (US 20210206664 A1) and Zhou (US 20200086136 A1).
Regarding claim 1, Berry teaches a system for fluid or structure disinfection (air purification, abstract), comprising: a laser source configured to generate a laser stream (energy source can comprise a laser, paragraph [0040]); an optical module configured to shape the laser stream and direct the laser stream toward a portion of a surface of a structure (Figure 3C optical element “52” to direct collimated light “22” to the surface of the structure “16”); and a controller coupled to the optical module and configured to control the optical module to direct the laser stream toward the portion of the surface of the structure (controller employed to control various parameters of the energy source including beam redirector, paragraph [0053]), but does not teach a detection module configured to detect shape and size of a portion of a surface of a structure; generate a series of focused laser spots on a target object under disinfection; or adjust a degree of overlapping between adjacent focused laser spots on the target object under disinfection. However, Bilenko teaches a detection module configured to detect shape and size of a portion of a surface of a structure (sensor units in conjunction with a controller to quantify the size, type, quantity, and density of the particles to be sterilized, paragraph [0149]), but does not teach generate a series of focused laser spots on a target object under disinfection; or adjust a degree of overlapping between adjacent focused laser spots on the target object under disinfection.
Berry and Bilenko are considered analogous to the current invention because all are in the field of pulsed laser disinfection systems. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to combine the laser system of Berry with the detection module taught by Bilenko because Bilenko teaches identifying the characteristics of the target particles allows the system to adapt the emitted wavelength to the match the target particle to improve disinfection (paragraphs [0097]-[0098]).
Zhou teaches generate a series of focused laser spots on a target object under disinfection (abstract); or adjust a degree of overlapping between adjacent focused laser spots on the target object under disinfection (degree of overlapping laser spots may vary, paragraph [0044]). Berry and Bilenko are considered analogous to the current invention as described above. Zhou is considered analogous to the current invention because both are in the field of optical modules to focus and shape pulsed laser systems. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to further combine the laser system of Berry and Bilenko with the shaping module of Zhou because Zhou teaches such laser spot control allows for the control of the power of the applied laser (paragraph [0046]).
Regarding claim 2, the combination of Berry, Bilenko, and Zhou teaches wherein the laser stream is a series of pulsed lasers (additional lasers may be employed and energy source may be pulsed employing a pulsed type, paragraph [0040], Berry), and each of the pulsed lasers is a series of bursts (controller may pulse or vary emitted beam, paragraph [0053], Berry).
Regarding claim 3, the combination of Berry, Bilenko, and Zhou teaches wherein the structure is an air duct (apparatus can be integrated into a duct or similar air transport conduit, paragraph [0034], Berry), and the surface of the structure is an internal wall of the air duct (Figure 3C collimated light beam “22” impacts internal surface of duct “16”, Berry), wherein the internal wall of the air duct comprises a first side and a second side opposite to the first side (Figure 3A interior volume of square duct “14” is comprised of 2 pairs of opposite side walls “12”, Berry).
Regarding claim 4, the combination of Berry, Bilenko, and Zhou teaches wherein each of the first side and the second side of the internal wall is coated with a laser reflector (entire interior surface may have highly reflective properties, paragraph [0044], Berry) and reflective surface can be a coating, paragraph [0045], Berry).
Regarding claim 5, the combination of Berry, Bilenko, and Zhou teaches wherein the laser reflector on the first side and the laser reflector on the second side are in parallel with each other (Figure 4B reflective surfaces “16” run parallel to one another, Berry).
Regarding claim 7, the combination of Berry, Bilenko, and Zhou teaches wherein the optical module comprises a focus unit configured to focus each of the pulsed lasers such that a dimension of a focuses laser spot on the surface of the structure is between 1 µm and 500 µm (each of the focused laser spots is between 1 µm and 500 µm, paragraph [0029], Zhou).
Berry, Bilenko, and Zhou are considered analogous to the current invention as discussed above. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to further modify the laser system taught by Berry, Bilenko, and Zhou with the focused dimensions as taught by Zhou as Zhou teaches that focusing the laser spots can significantly increase the energy density (paragraph [0029]).
Regarding claim 8, the combination of Berry, Bilenko, and Zhou teaches wherein the focus unit is further configured to control the pulsed lasers to allow the focused laser spot on the surface of the structure to have a predefined shape (shape of each focused laser can include round, rectangular, or square, paragraph [0029], Zhou).
Regarding claim 9, the combination of Berry, Bilenko, and Zhou teaches wherein the optical module comprises a scan unit configured to, based on the control of the controller, change a direction in which the pulsed lasers emit to the portion of the surface of the structure (controller configured to rotate a beam redirector to direct the beam of energy from the energy source into a chamber, paragraph [0031], and rotation is provided through motor and can change direction of the beam of light energy, paragraph [0048], Berry).
Regarding claim 10, the combination of Berry, Bilenko, and Zhou teaches, wherein, to change the direction of the pulsed laser, the scan unit is configured to emit the pulsed laser to the surface of the structure at a predefined angle (beam can be redirected at various incident angles within the chamber, paragraph [0049], Berry).
Regarding claim 11, the combination of Berry, Bilenko, and Zhou teaches wherein to change the direction of the pulsed lasers, the scan unit is configured to emit the pulsed lasers to the surface of the structure according to a predefined pattern (through rotation optical element can sweep beam around interior to form a field of energy, the field comprising either a two or three-dimensional shape, paragraph [0049], Berry).
Regarding claim 13, the combination of Berry, Bilenko, and Zhou teaches a mobile arm configured to hold the laser source to allow the laser source to move to a predefined location and orientation with respect to the surface of the structure (support member provides support to beam redirector and optical element, paragraph [0069], and optical element can be configured to move in the Y-plane while X-plane rotation occurs to direct beam, paragraph [0072], Berry).
Regarding claim 23, the combination of Berry, Bilenko, and Zhou teaches wherein the predefined shape is one of a circle, a rectangle, an ellipse, a polygon, and a diamond (shape of each focused laser can include round, rectangular, or square, paragraph [0029], Zhou).
Regarding claim 27, the combination of Berry and Bilenko teaches all aspects of the current invention including wherein the structure is an object in need of a surface disinfection (sterilization apparatus configured to sterilize one or more objects in within a chamber, paragraph [0072], Berry).
Claims 6, 12, and 25 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Berry, Bilenko, and Zhou in view of Zacchigna (US 20230165995 A1).
Regarding claim 6, the combination of Berry, Bilenko, and Zhou teaches all aspects of the current invention as discussed above except wherein the laser reflector is a high reflectivity mirror. However, Zacchigna teaches wherein the laser reflector is a high reflectivity mirror (laser beam created by the source will be carried by mirrors along the sterilization chamber (paragraph [0066]).
Berry, Bilenko, Zhou, and Zacchigna are considered analogous to the current invention because all are in the field of pulsed laser disinfection systems. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to combine the laser system of Berry, Bilenko, and Zhou with the mirrored reflectors taught by Zacchigna because Zacchigna teaches that the mirrors can be used to specifically control the reflection path of the beam to that the laser path covers the entire chamber volume (paragraph [0069]).
Regarding claim 12, the combination of Berry, Bilenko, and Zhou teaches all aspects of the current invention as discussed above except wherein the controller is further configured to adjust a power of the generated laser system. However Zacchigna teaches wherein the controller is further configured to adjust a power of the generated laser system (system may consist of a photodiode or thermopile to control the power of the laser source, paragraph [0070]).
Berry, Bilenko, Zhou, and Zacchigna are considered analogous to the current invention as discussed above. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to combine the laser system taught by Berry, Bilenko, and Zhou with the power control taught by Zacchigna because Zacchigna teaches the option of lowering power consumption which would reduce the costs of the apparatus (paragraph [0060]).
Regarding claim 25, the combination of Berry, Bilenko, Zhou, and Zacchigna teaches all aspects of the current invention including wherein, to adjust the power of the generated laser stream, the controller is further coupled to the laser source and configured to control the laser source to adjust at least one of a power of the laser source and a number of bursts in each of the pulsed lasers (ventilation system regulates the laser power, paragraph [0060], and a photodiode or thermopile system may control the power of the laser source, paragraph [0070], Zacchigna).
Claims 21-22 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Berry, Bilenko, and Zhou in view of Baird (US 20130244449 A1).
Regarding claim 21, the combination of Berry, Bilenko, and Zhou teaches all aspects of the current invention except wherein a duration of each of the pulsed lasers is not greater than 50 picoseconds. However, Baird teaches wherein a duration of each of the pulsed lasers is not greater than 50 picoseconds (picosecond laser pulses comprise a pulse width of preferably 1 ps to 50 ps, paragraph [0019]).
Berry, Bilenko, and Zhou are considered analogous to the current invention as described above. Baird is considered analogous to the current invention because both are in the field of patterned pulsed laser sources. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to combine the laser system taught by Berry, Bilenko, and Zhou with the picosecond pulse duration taught by Baird because Baird teaches that high output powers with reduced pulse widths will advantageously reduce the heat imparted to the target substrate (paragraph [0006]).
Regarding claim 22, the combination of Berry, Bilenko, Zhou, and Baird teaches all aspects of the current invention including wherein the duration of the pulsed lasers is between 50 femtoseconds and 50 picoseconds (picosecond laser pulses comprise a pulse width of preferably 1 ps to 50 ps, paragraph [0019], Baird).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to KAYLA ROSE SARANTAKOS whose telephone number is (703)756-5524. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri 7:00-4:00.
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, Michael Marcheschi can be reached at (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 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.
/K.R.S./Examiner, Art Unit 1799
/DONALD R SPAMER/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1799