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 .
DETAILED ACTION
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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 9/19/2025 has been entered.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments dated 1/20/2026 have been considered but are not persuasive.
Applicant’s remarks with respect to the rejection for indefiniteness are acknowledge but are now moot as applying to the indefiniteness issues of the current claims.
Applicants argue that Corbin does not disclose the germicidal light of the claims. The examiner respectfully disagrees. Corbin establishes the use of germicidal light at the wavelengths and energy density of the claims and for the purpose of safely applying germicidal light to kill pathogens in living tissue without damage. Their argument that the functional feature may not necessarily follow from the wavelength and energy density variables contradicts the disclosure of their own specification and their arguments for written disclosure support for their claims, as well as the disclosure of Corbin which establishes this connection. Applicant’s earlier arguments plainly states that these variables DO already establish the functional result with reasonable clarity and support for a person of ordinary skill in the art on page 6 of their 9/19/2025 remarks and specifically point to paragraph [0100] of their specification as proof. Their specification does support the conclusion that UVA light at that energy density provides the result as determined in their disclosed experiment 1, but not that the UVA light of their experiment is their invention (as their specification requires the germicidal light of their invention to be suitable in other ways as well). To rephrase, applicant’s specification acknowledges the fact that light with a peak in the UVA range and specified energy density would achieve the functional requirements but do not incorporate that particular light into their own invention. Further, Corbin teaches many types of germicidal light and anticipates the functional, energy, and wavelength requirements of the current claims as well as the previously claimed 405nm peak (which the applicant’s specification does have disclosure support for).
Applicant argues that Corbin includes a typo and therefore does not teach the energy density of the claims. The examiner respectfully disagrees. Corbin throughout their specification refers to the flux of light, time, and energy of exposure. Figure 9 for example, graphs inactivation against Energy J/cm^2 with total energies between the 6-10 J/cm^2 currently claimed achieving adequate inactivation. The key in that figure shows fluxes of J/cm^2*min at 1.5-2, which over several minutes results in the total energy of those shown in figure 9 as well as recited in paragraph [0086] and elsewhere. The total energy of Corbin matches those recited in the claims, but the applicant misinterprets the additional detail of duration recited in Corbin as proof of a conflicting typo that is purely speculative and not even conflicting in truth. In fact if one were to take applicant’s conjecture as persuasive, it would yield an absurd result producing an energy range between about 10 J/cm^2 to about 225 J/cm^2 (15 J/cm^2*min X 15 minutes). Nowhere does Corbin support 225 J/cm^2 as an upper limit except in that singular interpretation proffered by the applicant, whereas the clearly more reasonable interpretation of 5-15 J/cm^2 is consistent with examples across the entire specification. Further, purely for the sake of argument, applicant’s interpretation would still result in the conclusion that Corbin properly teaches the feature the applicant is attempting to argue it doesn’t. About 10 J/cm^2 lies within the claimed range of 6-10 J/cm^2 since ‘about’ communicates deviations that permit values under 10 J/cm^2. Applicant’s argument lives and breathes under the demand that Corbin teaches no less than 10 J/cm^2 and their claimed range goes to 10 J/cm^2 non-inclusive. At the very best one would conclude that the ranges touch and the infinitesimally small distinction lacks criticality and the ordinary skill in the art would recognize this as a distinction without a difference. But even if applicant were correct in their implausible conjecture that paragraph [0086] should be interpreted as a typo and that the ranges by technicality do not overlap, it wouldn’t rebut the conclusion of anticipation because Corbin elsewhere is replete with teachings of the range claimed.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 1,5,7-8,12,14-17 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. The applicant’s claims claim results that are unclear in whether they follow from features already claimed or further limit those features. Applicant further indefinitely claims ‘about 405 nm’ making it unclear what the inventor considers the peak wavelength to be.
For the purpose of applying prior art, the examiner will interpret the wavelength(s) of the germicidal light of the claims any germicidal light with an overlapping functional configuration and/or wavelength band and/or peak wavelength. The inclusion of light outside of germicidal properties and/or having additional peak wavelengths may or may not be interpreted as part of the ‘germicidal light’ as the claims as written merely require a germicidal light be present.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 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 the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 1,5,7-8,12,14-17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Corbin US 20030141260 A1.
Regarding Claim(s) 1,5,7-8,12,14-17, Corbin teaches: A sterilization module/system comprising: a substrate; and a light source including a light emitting diode disposed on the substrate and configured to emit germicidal light to kill pathogens in living cells, the living cells comprising normal cells and the pathogens, wherein the germicidal light has a peak at a wavelength of about 405 nm, that is capable of ensuring a viability of 80% or more for the normal cells and a viability of 20% or less for the pathogens, and wherein the light source is configured to emit the germicidal light having an energy density less than 10 J/cm2. wherein the light source is configured to emit the germicidal light to the living cells at an energy density greater than 6 J/cm2 and less than 10 J/cm2. wherein the light source delivers the germicidal light to body tissue or blood discharged from a human body. further comprising: a hemodialysis device for dialysis of the blood discharged from the human body. wherein the germicidal light ensures a tail intensity of less than 8% for the living cells, the tail intensity being a percentage of DNA in a comet tail resulting from DNA strand breaks in the living cells. (Corbin [0011],[0020]-[0021],[0035],[0071]-[0087],[0091]-[0094],[0115]-[0121],[0123]-[0126],[0161]-[0176]; figures 3-12; Claims 1-6,29-31,35-39 – [0086] 10 J/cm2 ; [0115] 365 nm)
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 SEAN M LUCK whose telephone number is (571)272-6493. The examiner can normally be reached 8-5 M-F.
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, Georgia Epps can be reached at (571) 272-2328. 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.
/SEAN LUCK/Examiner, Art Unit 2878