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 08/29/2025. Claims 1-5, 7-19, and 21 are pending in the application and are being examined herein.
Status of Objections and Rejections
The objection to the disclosure has been withdrawn in view of Applicant's arguments.
The rejection of claims 6 and 20 are obviated by Applicant's cancellation.
All rejections from the previous office action are withdrawn in view of Applicant's amendment.
New grounds of rejection under 35 U.S.C. 103 are necessitated by the amendments.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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.
Claim(s) 1-5, 13, and 15-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over De Francesco (US 20220062465 A1) in view of Yabu (TW 201728680 A).
Regarding claim 1, De Francesco teaches a sanitization apparatus (self-cleaning door handle 300, [0060], Fig. 3) comprising:
a heating part (sanitization source 318 provides UV irradiation [0078] which is understood to provide heat, also teaches UV irradiation and heat mechanism in combination [0079]);
a part to be heated by the heating part ([0078-0079] hygienic film 306 is irradiated by sanitization source 318, which is a UV light, and can also be heated = film 306 is part to be heated);
and a driving part (Fig. 3, rollers 312a-312c, [0070]) for switching a heating position where the part to be heated is heated by the heating part (Figures 3-4, drive rollers 312a-312c send the film to sanitization source 318 [para 0077] = heated by heating part),
and a position on a surface of a structural body where the part to be heated is exposed (first portion of the hygienic film 306A is accessible to the passenger and can be touched [0069] = exposed, structural body = hand grip 304 [0061], Fig. 3).
De Francesco teaches wherein the part to be heated is can plastic hygienic film or another suitable material that can be 0.1-1 mm thick ([0067], 100 micrometers-1000 micrometers) but does not teach wherein the thickness of the part to be heated is 30 micrometers or less. One having ordinary skill in the art would be concerned with how thick to fashion the hygienic film in order to optimize sterilization.
Yabu teaches a polyimide film for use in food packaging and discloses that its high heat resistance makes it a durable material for heat sterilization (page 2, para 1-2). Yabu further teaches multiple compositions of said film wherein an ideal thickness is between 1 -300 micrometers (page 8, para 5).
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 hygienic film as taught by De Francesco to be a polyimide film less than 30 micrometers thick as taught by Yabu since Yabu teaches the ideal thickness for a polyimide film for heat sterilization (page 2, para 1-2) to be within 1-300 micrometers (page 8, para 5). See MPEP 2143(I)(G).
PNG
media_image1.png
528
712
media_image1.png
Greyscale
[AltContent: textbox (Figure 1: Annotated Fig. 4)]Regarding claim 2, Modified De Francesco teaches the sanitization apparatus according to claim 1, wherein the heating position is a position where the part to be heated is not exposed to the surface of the structural body (See De Francesco Fig. 4, annotated below).
Regarding claim 3, Modified De Francesco teaches the sanitization apparatus according to claim 1, wherein the part to be heated comprises a thin film (De Francesco, [0067]).
Regarding claim 4, Modified De Francesco teaches the apparatus of claim 3, wherein the thin film is a resin film (Yabu, page 2, para 1-2).
Regarding claim 5, Modified De Francesco teaches the apparatus of claim 1, wherein the thin film is a polyimide film (Yabu, page 2, para 1-2).
Regarding claim 13, De Francesco teaches the sanitization apparatus according to claim 1, wherein the heating part is for heating the part to be heated by a length of the structural body where the part to be heated is exposed (De Francesco, part to be heated 306 is exposed over a length of the structural body 304 and is heated by heating part 318, See Figure 1 above).
Regarding claim 15, Modified De Francesco teaches a doorknob, comprising the sanitization apparatus according to claim 1 (De Francesco, Abstract, Title, Fig. 3, door handle 304 comprises apparatus 300).
Regarding claim 16, Modified De Francesco teaches the sanitization apparatus according to claim 2, wherein the part to be heated comprises a thin film (De Francesco, [0067]).
Regarding claim 17, Modified De Francesco teaches the apparatus of claim 2, wherein the thin film is a polyimide film (Yabu, page 2, para 1-2).
Regarding claim 18, Modified De Francesco teaches the apparatus of claim 3, wherein the part to be heated is a polyimide film (Yabu, page 2, para 1-2).
Regarding claim 19, Modified De Francesco teaches the sanitization apparatus according to claim 4, wherein the part to be heated is a polyimide film (Yabu, page 2, para 1-2).
Claim(s) 7-8 and 21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over De Francesco (US 20220062465 A1) and Yabu (TW 201728680 A), as applied to claim 1 above, further in view of Koehl (US 20210317681 A1).
Regarding claim 7, Modified De Francesco teaches the apparatus of claim 1, including a heating part (De Francesco, [0078], Fig. 3, sterilization source 318 understood to be heating part) for heating the part to be heated (hygienic film 306) but does not teach wherein the heating part is for heating the part to be heated to 100 degrees Celsius or higher.
Koehl teaches a system for a self-sanitizing door handle (abstract) comprising a heating circuit 425 that heats an outer shell of a door handle 434 to a temperature between 80 and 195 degrees Celsius for sterilization, wherein the outer shell is a coating made of a conductive material (understood to be a film [0041]).
Modified De Francesco and Koehl are considered analogous to the claimed invention since both are drawn to sanitization apparatuses. 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 heating part as taught by Modified De Francesco with the heating circuit as taught by Koehl since Koehl teaches the heating circuit to heat a door handle between 80 and 195 degrees Celsius for effective sterilization [0041] and this involves the combination of elements to yield a predictable result with a reasonable expectation of success. See MPEP § 2143(I)(A).
Regarding claim 8, Modified De Francesco teaches the apparatus of claim 1, including a heating part (De Francesco, [0078], Fig. 3, sterilization source 318 understood to be heating part) for heating the part to be heated (hygienic film 306) but does not teach wherein the heating part is for heating the part to be heated to 180 degrees Celsius or higher.
Koehl teaches a system for a self-sanitizing door handle (abstract) comprising a heating circuit 425 that heats an outer shell of a door handle 434 to a temperature above 180 degrees Celsius for sterilization, wherein the outer shell is a coating made of a conductive material (understood to be a film [0041]).
Modified De Francesco and Koehl are considered analogous to the claimed invention since both are drawn to sanitization apparatuses. 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 heating part as taught by De Francesco with the heating circuit as taught by Koehl since Koehl teaches the heating circuit to heat a door handle between 80 and 195 degrees Celsius for effective sterilization [0041] and this involves the combination of elements to yield a predictable result with a reasonable expectation of success. See MPEP § 2143(I)(A).
Regarding claim 21, Modified De Francesco teaches the apparatus of claim 1, including an occupancy sensor to determine whether a use has exited the vehicle (De Francesco, [0065]) does not teach a use detecting sensor for user of the sanitization apparatus.
Koehl teaches a proximity sensor 108 and a warning light indicator 110 to deter a user from contacting the door handle during sanitization ([0037], understood to be use detecting sensor).
Modified De Francesco and Koehl are considered analogous to the claimed invention since both are drawn to sanitization apparatuses. 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 sanitation apparatus as taught by Modified De Francesco with the proximity sensor and warning indicator as taught by Koehl since Koehl teaches the combination of the two elements as a safety feature to prevent a user to contact a door handle during sterilization [0037]. See MPEP 2143(I)(G).
Claim 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over De Francesco (US 20220062465 A1) and Yabu (TW 201728680 A), as applied to claim 1 above, further in view of Baarman (US 20220088250 A1).
Regarding claim 9, De Francesco teaches the sanitization apparatus according to claim 1, wherein the sanitization apparatus can be formed within a door handle (Fig. 3, handle 304 comprises apparatus 300) but does not teach wherein the sterilization apparatus comprises a cooling part for cooling the part to be heated.
Baarman teaches disinfecting human interface device (abstract) wherein the interface may be a knob in a vehicle, comprising a piezoelectric cooling portion 120 (Fig. 1) formed within the knob to provide cooling to the surface [0069].
De Francesco and Baarman are 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 door handle as taught De Francesco with the piezoelectric cooler as taught by Baarman to keep the temperature of the door handle within a comfortable range for a user and prevent injury after thermal sterilization 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) 10 and 12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over De Francesco (US 20220062465 A1) and Yabu (TW 201728680 A), as applied to claim 1 above, further in view of Szembrot (EP 1036999 A1).
Regarding claim 10, De Francesco teaches the sanitization apparatus according to claim 1, including a heating part (sterilization source 318 provides UV irradiation [0078] which is understood to provide heat, also teaches UV irradiation and heat mechanism in combination [0079]) for heating a part to be heated (film 306), but does not teach wherein the heating part comprises a Peltier element for heating the part to be heated.
Szembrot teaches a Peltier device for sterilizing fluid (Fig. 1, 20, abstract) comprising both a hot side (30) and a cold side (60) wherein the hot side contacts and sterilizes the fluid before rapidly cooling it with the opposing cold side [0013]. Szembrot teaches the device to provide efficiency as both sides of the Peltier device are used during the sterilization process [0009] and provide safety as users are shielded from the temperature extremes required for sterilization [0018].
De Francesco and Szembrot are considered analogous to the claimed invention since both are drawn to sterilization apparatuses. 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 sanitization apparatus as taught by De Francesco to include the Peltier device as taught by Szembrot wherein the hot side is distal to the user and the cold side is proximal to the user to thermally sterilize the part to be heated away from the user and provide a cooling interface proximal to the user since Szembrot teaches the Peltier device to simultaneously sterilize and cool a medium while shielding a user from temperature extremes ([0018], see annotation below). See MPEP § 2143(I)(A).
Regarding claim 12, Modified De Francesco teaches the sanitization apparatus according to claim 1, comprising an elastic part for causing the part to be heated to contact the heating part (roller 406 is understood to be elastic to some degree and causing film 306 to contact Peltier heating portion).
Claim 11 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over De Francesco (US 20220062465 A1) in view of Yabu (TW 201728680 A) and Szembrot (EP 1036999 A1), as applied to claim 10 above, further in view of Baarman (US 20220088250 A1).
Regarding claim 11, Modified De Francesco teaches the sanitization apparatus according to claim 10, wherein the Peltier element comprises a high-temperature part (Szembrot, Fig. 1, 30) and a low-temperature part (Szembrot, Fig. 1, 60), and the high-temperature part is for functioning as the heating part for sterilization and the low-temperature part is for functioning as a cooling part for cooling the part to be heated (Szembrot, [0013], see annotation below). However, Modified De Francesco does not teach wherein the cooling part is intended for cooling an object to be contacted by a user.
Baarman teaches disinfecting human interface device (abstract) wherein the interface may be a knob in a vehicle, comprising a piezoelectric cooling portion 120 (Fig. 1) formed within the knob to provide cooling to the surface contacted by a user [0069].
Modified De Francesco and Baarman are 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 sanitization apparatus as taught by De Francesco with the Peltier element as taught by Szembrot to cool the hygienic film proximal to the door handle to prevent injury to a user since Baarman teaches the cooling of an interface to be contacted by a user [0069] and this involves the combination of elements to yield a predictable result with a reasonable expectation of success.
PNG
media_image2.png
606
788
media_image2.png
Greyscale
[AltContent: textbox (Figure 2: Annotation 2)]See MPEP § 2143(I)(A).
Claim 14 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over De Francesco (US 20220062465 A1) further in view of Koehl (US 20210317681 A1).
Regarding claim 14, De Francesco teaches a sanitization apparatus (self-cleaning door handle 300, [0060], Fig. 3) comprising:
a heating part (sanitization source 318 provides UV irradiation [0078] which is understood to provide heat, also teaches UV irradiation and heat mechanism in combination [0079]);
a part to be heated by the heating part ([0078-0079] hygienic film 306 is irradiated by sanitization source 318, which is a UV light, and can also be heated = film 306 is part to be heated);
and a driving part (Fig. 3, rollers 312a-312c, [0070]) for switching a heating position where the part to be heated is heated by the heating part (Figures 3-4, drive rollers 312a-312c send the film to sanitization source 318 [para 0077] = heated by heating part),
and a position on a surface of a structural body where the part to be heated is exposed (first portion of the hygienic film 306A is accessible to the passenger and can be touched [0069] = exposed, structural body = hand grip 304 [0061], Fig. 3).
De Francesco also teaches an occupancy sensor to determine whether a use has exited the vehicle (De Francesco, [0065]) does not teach a use detecting sensor for user of the sanitization apparatus.
Koehl teaches a proximity sensor 108 and a warning light indicator 110 to deter a user from contacting the door handle during sanitization ([0037], understood to be use detecting sensor).
De Francesco and Koehl are considered analogous to the claimed invention since both are drawn to sanitization apparatuses. 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 sanitation apparatus as taught by De Francesco with the proximity sensor and warning indicator as taught by Koehl since Koehl teaches the combination of the two elements as a safety feature to prevent a user to contact a door handle during sterilization [0037]. See MPEP 2143(I)(G).
Response to Arguments
In the arguments presented on page 8 of the amendment, filed 08/29/2025, the Applicant argues that while use of the term “Kapton” is present in paragraph [0038] of the specification, there is no prohibition for mentioning the trade name with respect to the objection to the specification.
This argument has been fully considered and is persuasive. The Examiner points to MPEP 608.01(v)(I) which indicates that a trade name may be used in a patent application to identify a product if “its meaning is established by an accompanying definition in the specification which is sufficiently descriptive, enabling, precise and definite such that a claim including the mark or trade name complies with the requirements of 35 U.S.C. 112” and “its meaning is well-known to one skilled in the relevant art and is satisfactorily defined in the literature.” Upon further review of paragraph [0038] the Examiner determines that the inclusion of the phrase “(registered trademark)” and structure indicating the resin film is a polyimide film complies with 35 U.S.C. 112 and respects the proprietary nature of the commercial mark. Therefore, the objection to the specification is withdrawn.
In the arguments presented on pages 9-10 of the amendment, filed 08/29/2025, the Applicant argues that Okuzu does not teach the thickness of the polyimide film to be less than 30 micrometers since Okuzu puts to context the use of polyamide film for packaging purposes with respect to the rejection(s) of claim(s) 4-6 and 17-20 under 35 U.S.C. 103.
This argument has been fully considered and is persuasive. Therefore, the rejection has been withdrawn. However, upon further consideration, a new ground(s) of rejection is made in view of the prior art Yabu ((TW 201728680 A) who teaches the use of polyimide film for heat sterilizable packaging. See rejection above.
In the arguments presented on pages 10-11 of the amendment, filed 08/29/2025, the Applicant argues that none of De Francesco, Koehl, Baarman, or Szembrot, teach the thickness of the polyimide film to be less than 30 micrometers with respect to the rejection(s) of claim(s) 7-12 under 35 U.S.C. 103.
This argument has been fully considered and is persuasive. Therefore, the rejection has been withdrawn. However, upon further consideration, a new ground(s) of rejection is made in view of the prior art Yabu ((TW 201728680 A). See rejection above.
In the arguments presented on pages 11-12 of the amendment, filed 08/29/2025, the Applicant argues that claim 14 is in condition for allowance as it was not treated in the previous Office Action.
This argument has been fully considered but is unpersuasive. A new rejection is made in view of the prior art Koehl (US 20210317681 A1). See rejection above. As stated in the interview conducted on 08/12/2025, the lack of art applied to claim 14 was unintentional which renders this action non-final.
Conclusion
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
/SEAN E CONLEY/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1799