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 .
Response to Amendment
This is an office action in response to Applicant's arguments and remarks filed on 11/07/2025. Claims 1-9, 11, and 14-29 are pending in the application. Claims 1-7 and 15-21 have been withdrawn, claims 10, 12-13 have been cancelled and claims 8-9, 11, 14, and 22-29 are being examined herein.
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Status of Objections and Rejections
The objection to the claims is obviated by Applicant's cancellation.
The rejections of claims 10 and 12-13 are obviated by Applicant's cancellation.
The rejections of claims 8-9 and 14 under 35 USC 102 as being anticipated by Tirén are withdrawn in view of Applicant's amendment.
The rejection of claim 11 under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tirén view of Shturm is withdrawn in view of Applicant's amendment.
New grounds of objection are necessitated by the amendments.
New grounds of rejection under 35 U.S.C. 112 are necessitated by the amendments.
New grounds of rejection under 35 U.S.C. 103 are necessitated by the amendments.
Claim Objections
Claim 25 and 29 are objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 25, please change “second light sources” to “second light source” in line 1.
Claim 29, please add “wherein” before “the at least one” in line 1.
Claim 29, please add “is” before “configured” in line 1.
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.
Claim 29 is 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) contain 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, claim 29 at lines 1-2 recites “the device of claim 22, the at least one fluorescent light source configured to have a narrowband wavelength output above 400nm.” This recitation would include all values above 400 nm which is inconsistent with the specification. The specification only discloses wherein the laugh sources may include narrow bandwidths of 10 nm or smaller centered around 405 nm [0042]; therefore, the specification does not contain support for wherein the at least one fluorescent light source configured to have a narrowband wavelength output above 400nm. Applicant is required to cancel the new matter in reply to this Office Action.
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 8 and 22 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.
Claim 8 recites the limitation "[the] riboflavin" in line 11. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Claims 9 and 14 are rejected due to dependency on claim 8 and failure to resolve the issue.
Claim 22 recites the limitation "[the] riboflavin" in line 9. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Claims 23-29 are rejected due to dependency on claim 8 and failure to resolve the issue.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
Claim(s) 22-23, 25, 27-28 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Tirén (US 20190298879).
Regarding claim 22, Tirén teaches a device for emitting photons into a fluid (Fig. 2, arrangement 200), the device comprising:
a fluid channel configured to transfer the fluid from an inlet to an outlet thereof (Fig. 2, inlet 102 and outlet 212 area connected by a fluid channel that houses light sources 104 and 204);
at least one first fluorescent light source emitting ultraviolet (UV) light (first light source 104 is a low-pressure mercury lamp energized by ballast 106 = fluorescent light source [0029-0030]) and at least one second light source adjacent the fluid channel (Fig. 2, first light source 104 and second light source 204 are adjacent to fluid channel [0030]),
the at least one first light source having a different peak wavelength than the at least one second light source (first and second light sources can be selectively activated at different wavelengths [0017] = understood to have different peak wavelengths).
Regarding the limitation “for producing inactivated viral particles” the Examiner points to MPEP 2111.02 (II) which states “During examination, statements in the preamble reciting the purpose or intended use of the claimed invention must be evaluated to determine whether or not the recited purpose or intended use results in a structural difference…between the claimed invention and the prior art. If so, the recitation serves to limit the claim….To satisfy an intended use limitation which is limiting, a prior art structure which is capable of performing the intended use as recited in the preamble meets the claim.” Tirén teaches a device that is capable of producing inactivated viral particles by emitting photons into a fluid, using both a fluid channel and a fluorescent light source (see claim 1 rejection above). Therefore, the limitation is considered an intended use of the apparatus and will not be given patentable weight.
Regarding the limitations of “the fluid containing a photosensitizer and viral particles” and “wherein the photosensitizer and riboflavin and UV light irradiated by the first light source activates the photosensitizer thereby selectively inactivating the virus particles,” the Examiner points to MPEP 2115 which states the "[i]nclusion of the material or article worked upon by a structure being claimed does not impart patentability to the claims.” Therefore, the material (a fluid containing a photosensitizer and viral particles) being worked upon by the claimed structure (photon emitter) will be given no patentable weight.
Regarding claim 23, Tirén the device of claim 22, including a device for emitting photons into a fluid (Fig. 2, arrangement 200). Regarding the limitation “the fluid containing a photosensitizer and viral particles, wherein the photosensitizer is riboflavin,” the Examiner points to MPEP 2115 which states the "[i]nclusion of the material or article worked upon by a structure being claimed does not impart patentability to the claims.” Therefore, the material (a fluid containing a photosensitizer, wherein the photosensitizer is riboflavin) being worked upon by the claimed structure (photon emitter) will be given no patentable weight.
Regarding claim 25, Tirén teaches the device of claim 22, wherein the at least one second light source is an LED light source (light source 204 is a non-mercury source [0030] such as a LED source [0011, 0042])
Regarding claim 27, Tirén teaches the device of claim 22, wherein at least one of the first and second light sources has a peak wavelength outside of UV-B, UV-C, or UV-A (first light source 104 is a mercury lamp configured to emit between 240-400 nm [0009] with a peak in the UV-A range of 315-400 nm, Fig. 4a).
Regarding claim 28, Tirén teaches the device of claim 22, including a device for emitting photons into a fluid (Fig. 2, arrangement 200). Regarding the limitation “wherein the inactivated viral particles comprise a vaccine” the Examiner points to MPEP 2115 which states the "[i]nclusion of the material or article worked upon by a structure being claimed does not impart patentability to the claims.” Therefore, the material (a fluid containing inactivated viral particles, wherein the viral particles comprises a vaccine) being worked upon by the claimed structure (photon emitter) will be given no patentable weight.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
Claim(s) 8-9, 14, and 24 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tirén (US 20190298879) in view of Mochizuki (US 20190247559 A1).
Regarding claim 8, Tirén teaches a device for emitting photons into a fluid (Fig. 2, arrangement 200), the device comprising:
a fluid channel configured to transfer the fluid from an inlet to an outlet thereof (Fig. 2, inlet 102 and outlet 212 area connected by a fluid channel that houses light sources 104 and 204);
at least one first fluorescent light source emitting ultraviolet (UV) light (first light source 104 is a low-pressure mercury lamp energized by ballast 106 = fluorescent light source [0029-0030]) and at least one second light source adjacent the fluid channel (Fig. 2, first light source 104 and second light source 204 are adjacent to fluid channel [0030]),
the at least one first light source having a different peak wavelength than the at least one second light source (first and second light sources can be selectively activated at different wavelengths [0017] = understood to have different peak wavelengths),
and the at least one first light source configured to have a narrowband wavelength output (first light source is a mercury lamp [0033] which can have a narrow wavelength peak at 254 nm [0008]) but does not teach wherein the fluorescent light source is configured to have a narrowband wavelength output of between 310-320 nm.
Mochizuki teaches a device for the purification of blood [abstract] including a light source unit (Fig. 1, 40) including a light emitting diode (42) configured to transmit ultraviolet light [0036]. Mochizuki teaches the light emitting diode to have a peak wavelength between 200-350 nm to optimize the efficiency of sterilization [0036].
Mochizuki is considered analogous to the claimed invention since both are drawn to sterilization devices. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the fluorescent light source as taught by Tirén to emit UV light with a peak wavelength between 200-350 nm as taught by as taught by Mochizuki to inactivate specific classes of microorganisms and increase the efficiency of sterilization and this involves the combination of elements to yield a predictable result with a reasonable expectation of success. See MPEP 2143(I)(A) and 2143(I)(G).
Regarding the limitation “for producing inactivated viral particles” the Examiner points to MPEP 2111.02 (II) which states “During examination, statements in the preamble reciting the purpose or intended use of the claimed invention must be evaluated to determine whether or not the recited purpose or intended use results in a structural difference…between the claimed invention and the prior art. If so, the recitation serves to limit the claim….To satisfy an intended use limitation which is limiting, a prior art structure which is capable of performing the intended use as recited in the preamble meets the claim.” Tirén teaches a device that is capable of producing inactivated viral particles by emitting photons into a fluid, using both a fluid channel and a fluorescent light source (see claim 1 rejection above). Therefore, the limitation is considered an intended use of the apparatus and will not be given patentable weight.
Regarding the limitations of “the fluid containing a photosensitizer and viral particles” and “wherein the photosensitizer and riboflavin and UV light irradiated by the first light source activates the riboflavin thereby selectively inactivating the virus particles,” the Examiner points to MPEP 2115 which states the "[i]nclusion of the material or article worked upon by a structure being claimed does not impart patentability to the claims.” Therefore, the material (a fluid containing a photosensitizer and viral particles) being worked upon by the claimed structure (photon emitter) will be given no patentable weight.
Regarding claim 9, Modified Tirén teaches the device of claim 8, wherein at least one of the first and second light sources is an LED light source (Tirén, light source 204 is a non-mercury source [0030] such as a LED source [0011, 0042])
Regarding claim 14, Modified Tirén teaches the device of claim 8, wherein at least one of the first and second light sources has a peak wavelength outside of UV-B, UV-C, or UV-A (Tirén, first light source 104 is a mercury lamp configured to emit between 240-400 nm [0009] with a peak in the UV-A range of 315-400 nm, Fig. 4a).
Regarding claim 24, Tirén teaches the device of claim 22, including at least one fluorescent light source (Fig. 1, first light source 104 is a low-pressure mercury lamp energized by ballast 106 = fluorescent light source [0029-0030]) configured to emit between 240-400 nm with a peak in the UV-A range of 315-400 nm,= ([0009], Fig. 4a) but does not teach the at least one fluorescent light source to have a narrowband wavelength output of between 310-320 nm.
Mochizuki teaches a device for the purification of blood [abstract] including a light source unit (Fig. 1, 40) including a light emitting diode (42) configured to transmit ultraviolet light [0036]. Mochizuki teaches the light emitting diode to have a peak wavelength between 200-350 nm to optimize the efficiency of sterilization [0036].
Mochizuki is considered analogous to the claimed invention since both are drawn to sterilization devices. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the fluorescent light source as taught by Tirén to emit UV light with a peak wavelength between 200-350 nm as taught by as taught by Mochizuki to inactivate specific classes of microorganisms and increase the efficiency of sterilization and this involves the combination of elements to yield a predictable result with a reasonable expectation of success. See MPEP 2143(I)(A) and 2143(I)(G).
Claim(s) 11 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tirén (US 20190298879) in view of Mochizuki (US 20190247559), further in view of Shturm (US 20150008167).
Regarding claim 11, Modified Tirén teaches the device of claim 8, wherein the first fluorescent light source has a peak wavelength within the UV-C spectrum of 200-240 nm (Tirén, first light source 104 configured to emit radiation with a peak in the UV-C range of 100-280 nm, Fig. 4a [0008-0009, 0041]) and the UV-A spectrum of 315-400 nm (Fig. 4a). Modified Tirén fails to teach wherein the first fluorescent light source has a peak UV-B wavelength.
Shturm teaches an ultraviolet water disinfection system with a plurality of light sources configured to emit ultraviolet light at different peak wavelengths [abstract], wherein the light sources are light emitting diodes (LEDs) configured to emit radiation having a peak wavelength below 300 nm and specifically within 250 and 290 nm (which is within the UV-B spectrum) to improve germicidal efficiency and target a plurality of microorganisms present in the fluid [0040].
Tirén and Shturm are considered analogous to the claimed invention since both are drawn to devices for the ultraviolet sterilization of a fluid. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the light sources as taught by Tirén to emit ultraviolet light with a peak in the UV-B spectrum as taught by Shturm since Shturm teaches the emittance of UV radiation at a plurality of peak wavelengths to improve germicidal efficiency and target a plurality of microorganisms present in the fluid [0040] and this involves the combination of elements to yield a predictable result with a reasonable expectation of success. See MPEP 2143 (I)(A).
Claim(s) 26 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tirén (US 20190298879) in view of Shturm (US 20150008167).
Regarding claim 26, Tirén teaches the device of claim 22, wherein the first fluorescent light source has a peak wavelength within the UV-C spectrum of 200-240 nm (first light source 104 configured to emit radiation with a peak in the UV-C range of 100-280 nm, Fig. 4a [0008-0009, 0041]) and the UV-A spectrum of 315-400 nm (Fig. 4a). Tirén fails to teach wherein the first fluorescent light source has a peak UV-B wavelength.
Shturm teaches an ultraviolet water disinfection system with a plurality of light sources configured to emit ultraviolet light at different peak wavelengths [abstract], wherein the light sources are light emitting diodes (LEDs) configured to emit radiation having a peak wavelength below 300 nm and specifically within 250 and 290 nm (which is within the UV-B spectrum) to improve germicidal efficiency and target a plurality of microorganisms present in the fluid [0040].
Tirén and Shturm are considered analogous to the claimed invention since both are drawn to devices for the ultraviolet sterilization of a fluid. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the light sources as taught by Tirén to emit ultraviolet light with a peak in the UV-B spectrum as taught by Shturm since Shturm teaches the emittance of UV radiation at a plurality of peak wavelengths to improve germicidal efficiency and target a plurality of microorganisms present in the fluid [0040] and this involves the combination of elements to yield a predictable result with a reasonable expectation of success. See MPEP 2143 (I)(A).
Claim(s) 29 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tirén (US 20190298879) in view of Corbin, III et al. (US 20030141260 A1).
Regarding claim 29, Tirén teaches the device of claim 22 (Fig. 1, 200) including a first fluorescent light source (light source 104) configured to emit radiation with a peak in the UV-C range of 240-270 nm (Fig. 4a [0008-0009, 0041]) but does not teach wherein the light source is configured to have a narrowband wavelength output above 400 nm.
Corbin, III teaches a system for decontaminating fluids [0101] including a translucent container for said fluid, a photosensitizer source for providing a photosensitizer to the fluid, and a photoirradiator for irradiating the container of fluid [0102-0105]. Corbin, III teaches wherein the photoirradiator may be a super actinic lamp with a spectral range from 400-440 nm and a peak of 420 nm [0115] wherein wavelengths within that spectrum are capable of inactivating microorganisms [0121].
Corbin, III is considered analogous to the claimed invention since both are drawn to fluid decontaminating systems. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the device as taught by Tirén to include a super actinic lamp as taught by Corbin, III to increase the sterilization of the fluid flowing through the fluid channel of the deivce since Corbin, III teaches the lamp to emit a peak of 400-440 [0115] wherein wavelengths within that spectrum are capable of inactivating microorganisms [0121] and this involves the combination of elements to yield a predictable result with a reasonable expectation of success. See MPEP 2143(I)(A) and 2143(I)(G).
Response to Arguments
In the arguments presented on pages 6-7 of the amendment, filed 11/07/2025, the Applicant argues that Tirén does not teach using a photosensitizer and UV light for inactivating viral particles in a fluid with respect to the rejection(s) of claim(s) 8-10 and 12-14 under 35 U.S.C. 102.
This argument has been fully considered and is unpersuasive. The Examiner respectfully asserts that the limitations of “the fluid containing a photosensitizer and viral particles” refer to a material acted upon by the claimed apparatus. The Examiner points to MPEP 2115 which states the "[i]nclusion of the material or article worked upon by a structure being claimed does not impart patentability to the claims.” Therefore, the material (a fluid containing a photosensitizer and viral particles) being worked upon by the claimed structure (photon emitter) will be given no patentable weight.
However, the rejection has been withdrawn in view of the amendments. Upon further consideration, a new ground(s) of rejection is made in view of Mochizuki (US 20190247559 A1).
In the arguments presented on page 7 of the amendment, filed 11/07/2025, the Applicant argues that Tirén in view of Shturm teach systems for disinfecting fluids at different peak wavelengths but does not teach a system for using UV light for activating a photosensitizer which inactivates viral particles within a fluid with respect to the rejection(s) of claim 11 under 35 U.S.C. 103.
This argument has been fully considered and is unpersuasive. The Examiner respectfully asserts that the limitations of “the fluid containing a photosensitizer and viral particles” refer to a material acted upon by the claimed apparatus. The Examiner points to MPEP 2115 which states the "[i]nclusion of the material or article worked upon by a structure being claimed does not impart patentability to the claims.” Therefore, the material (a fluid containing a photosensitizer and viral particles) being worked upon by the claimed structure (photon emitter) will be given no patentable weight.
However, the rejection has been withdrawn in view of the amendments. Upon further consideration, a new ground(s) of rejection is made in view of Mochizuki (US 20190247559 A1) and Shtrum (US 20150008167).
In the arguments presented on pages 7-8 of the amendment, filed 11/07/2025, the Applicant argues that one having ordinary skill in the art would not be motivated to modify Tirén in view of Shturm to use UV light for activating a photosensitizer which inactivates viral particles within a fluid with respect to the rejection(s) of claim 11 under 35 U.S.C. 103.
This argument has been fully considered and is unpersuasive. The Examiner respectfully asserts that the limitations of “the fluid containing a photosensitizer and viral particles” refer to a material acted upon by the claimed apparatus. The Examiner points to MPEP 2115 which states the "[i]nclusion of the material or article worked upon by a structure being claimed does not impart patentability to the claims.” Therefore, the material (a fluid containing a photosensitizer and viral particles) being worked upon by the claimed structure (photon emitter) will be given no patentable weight. Accordingluy, the teachings of Tirén and Shturm are both drawn to the fluid disinfection arts which is pertinent to the device as claimed by the Applicant.
However, the rejection has been withdrawn in view of the amendments. Upon further consideration, a new ground(s) of rejection is made in view of Mochizuki (US 20190247559 A1) and Shtrum (US 20150008167).
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 Nebyate Seged whose telephone number is (703)756-4611. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8-5:00 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.
/N.S.S./Examiner, Art Unit 1758
/MARIS R KESSEL/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1758