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
Claim amendments filed 21 November 2025 are acknowledged. Claims 1-6 and 17 are pending with claims 7-16 being withdrawn.
Claim amendments are sufficient to overcome all objections and 35 U.S.C. 112(b) rejections previously presented in the Non-Final Office Action mailed 22 August 2025.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 21 November 2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues that a combination of Liu and Li does not teach the invention described in claim 1 because the shifting handle taught by Li does not rotate to perform sterilization. However, it should be notes that the rotation mechanism claimed was already identified in the Liu reference. More specifically, Liu teaches a transition between a hidden state and a working state (paragraphs [n0010]-[n0012]) and the rotational force of a spherical mechanism (paragraph [n0014]). Liu is replied upon only to provide reference that an electronic shifting device having a hemispherical shape with a sterilizing function exists within the art. In response to applicant's arguments against the references individually, one cannot show nonobviousness by attacking references individually where the rejections are based on combinations of references. See In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 208 USPQ 871 (CCPA 1981); In re Merck & Co., 800 F.2d 1091, 231 USPQ 375 (Fed. Cir. 1986). Therefore, a combination of Liu and Li teaches all limitations in claim 1.
In response to applicant's argument that a combination of Liu and Li does not explicitly teach the construction of the sterilizing electronic shifting device, the test for obviousness is not whether the features of a secondary reference may be bodily incorporated into the structure of the primary reference; nor is it that the claimed invention must be expressly suggested in any one or all of the references. Rather, the test is what the combined teachings of the references would have suggested to those of ordinary skill in the art. See In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 208 USPQ 871 (CCPA 1981). The limitations emphasized on pages 9 and 10 of the applicant’s response filed 21 November 2025 have all been taught by Liu as identified in the rejection of claim 1 in the Non-Final Office Action mailed 22 August 2025. Additionally, in response to the argument that Li teaches away from the claimed invention as in that instance the handle identified by reference “4” is exposed to perform sterilization, the reference should not be taken in individual piecemeal interpretation. The rejection is made in light of a combination of Liu in view of Li. Thus, it is explained that a combination of the teachings of Liu and Li would suggest to one of ordinary skill in the art a device capable of the rotational limitations as explained in the rejection of claim 1.
Following the above logic, the rejections of claims 1-6 and 17 are maintained.
Election/Restrictions
Claims 7-16 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b), as being drawn to a nonelected method, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Applicant timely traversed the restriction (election) requirement in the reply filed on 14 July 2025.
Applicant's election with traverse of invention I in the reply filed on 14 July 2025 is acknowledged. The traversal is on the ground(s) that search of both inventions together would not cause undue burden. This is not found persuasive because as explained in the requirement for restriction/election mailed 14 May 2025, invention I related to claims 1-6 and 17 would require a different field of search and falls into a separate statutory class in view 35 U.S.C. 101 from invention II related to claims 7-16.
The requirement is still deemed proper and is therefore made FINAL.
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
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 1-3, 5-6 and 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Liu (CN 113428075 A) in view of Li (CN 204774652 U).
Regarding claim 1, Liu teaches a spherical mechanism configured to be rotatable relative to a housing installed in an interior of a vehicle (germicidal lamp installed in housing, paragraph [n0014], and germicidal lamp rotates to any angle, paragraph [n0023]), the spherical mechanism comprising: one side at which a sterilizing unit having a hemispherical shape is provided (Figure 2 hemispherical lamp housing “21” with ultraviolet germicidal lamp bead “2”); a drive mechanism configured to adjust a rotation angle of the spherical mechanism by providing a rotational force to the spherical mechanism (when the motor is driven the transmission shaft is driven to rotate, paragraph [n0014]); a controller configured to control the sterilizing unit so that the sterilizing unit performs a sterilization function in a state in which shifting unit is hidden in the housing and the sterilizing unit is exposed to the interior of the vehicle by a rotation of the spherical mechanism (lamp switches between working state and hidden state, in working state ultraviolet germicidal lamp moves toward the cabin and the in the hidden state the lamp is hidden inside the interior panel, paragraphs [n0010]-[n0012]), but does not teach an electronic shifting device with a sterilizing function and one side at which a shifting unit having a hemispherical shape is provided. However, Li teaches an electronic shifting device with a sterilizing function (sterilizing device for a gear shifting device, paragraph [0002]) and one side at which a shifting unit having a hemispherical shape is provided (in-vehicle gear shift device, paragraph [0011]).
Liu and Li are considered analogous to the current invention because all are in the field of ultraviolet disinfection devices for vehicles. Therefore, it would have been obvious to combine the rotating sterilizing device taught by Liu with the sterilizing gear shifter taught by Li because Li teaches including sterilizing lights on the lower side of the gear shift would greatly improve the hygiene of the vehicle (paragraph [0020]).
Regarding claim 2, the combination of Liu and Li teaches all aspects of the current invention including sterilizing lamps configured to emit sterilization rays embedded in the sterilizing unit (ultraviolet lamp beads installed on inner side of the interior panel, paragraph [n0010], Liu), wherein the sterilization lamps are configured to be turned on or off by the controller (lamp controlled to working state to emit light and hidden state to turn off, paragraphs [n0078]-[n0079], Liu).
Regarding claim 3, the combination of Liu and Li teaches all aspects of the current invention including wherein the sterilization lamps are embedded along a surface of the sterilizing unit so that the sterilization rays are concentrated at a center of the sterilizing unit (Figure 2 ultraviolet lamp bead “2” embedded in lamp housing “21”, and ultraviolet lamp bead rotates around central axis, paragraph [n0073], Liu).
Regarding claim 5, the combination of Liu and Li teaches all aspects of the current invention including wherein the controller is configured to reciprocating rotate the spherical mechanism at a predetermined rotation angle during a process in which the sterilizing unit performs the sterilizing function (in working state germicidal lamp rotates until its irradiation surface is exposed, paragraph [n0015], Liu).
Regarding claim 6, the combination of Liu and Li teaches all aspects of the current invention including wherein the controller is configured to control the sterilizing unit so as to cause the sterilizing unit to not perform the sterilizing function in the state in which the sterilizing unit is hidden in the housing and the shifting unit is exposed to the interior of the vehicle (in the hidden state the germicidal lamp is turned off and closed in interior panel, paragraph [n0079], Liu).
Regarding claim 17, the combination of Liu and Li teaches all aspects of the current invention including a vehicle comprising an electronic shifting device of claim 1 (gear shifting device in a vehicle, paragraph [0002], Li).
Claims 4 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Liu and Li as applied to claims 1-2 above, and further in view of Kang (KR 20220010617 A).
Regarding claim 4, the combination of Liu and Li teaches all aspects of the current invention as discussed above except a reflection unit provided in the interior of the vehicle to which the sterilization rays are emitted from the sterilizing unit. However, Kang teaches a reflection unit provided in the interior of the vehicle to which the sterilization rays are emitted from the sterilizing unit (reflective member, paragraph [0025]).
Liu, Li, and Kang are all considered analogous to the current invention because all are in the field of ultraviolet sterilizing systems for vehicles. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to combine the sterilizing lamp taught by Liu and Li with the reflectors taught by Kang because Kang teaches that the use of reflectors increases the distance that can be sterilized and sufficient sterilization effect can be obtained (paragraph [0033]).
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 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