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 .
Claim amendments filed 1/21/2026 are acknowledged. Claims 1-12 and 14-16 are pending.
Response to Arguments
Arguments filed 1/21/2026 have been considered.
The new limitations are addressed below.
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.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
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 of carrying out his invention.
Claims 1-7 and 14-16 are 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) contains 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.
With regards to claim 1, the specification does not support the new limitation “monitor information regarding operation time of the sterilizer based on a driver use pattern”. There is no mention of doing this in the specification.
Additionally, as to “determine an operation mode for the sterilizer based on the operation time and position of the vehicle”, the specification does not provide proper support with algorithms of how this control is achieved (see MPEP 2161.01 I). Here the specification never provides an algorithm or other explanation of how a determination is made to select an operation mode based on operation time and position of the vehicle. Nothing says when the vehicle position is X and the operation time is y, then select z operation mode. No explanation is given on how to determine the operation mode as a result of the determination based on vehicle position and operation time.
Dependent claims are rejected for the same reasons as the claims from which they depend.
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 1-12 and 14-16 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.
With regards to claim 1, it is unclear how monitoring the operation time of the sterilizer gives data to select the operation mode of the sterilizer based on the operation time. The operation time of the sterilizer would be set as part of an operation mode. It does not exist outside operating the sterilizer. Is the claim saying that you select the operation mode based on the expected/desired completion time of the operation mode (such as you need the car in 15 min so select an express mode)? Even if that was supported, it would still be unclear how one would monitor information on the operation time that has not yet been selected to get to selecting the operation time.
With regards to claim 2, “an operation time” is introduced in line 3. It is unclear if this is the same or different from the operation time previously introduced in claim 1. Additionally, “the operation time is reached, control the operation of the sterilizer for the operation time” is unclear. Which operation time is being referred to? Is the operation time a set time point (as in 5pm) or a duration (as in 5 min)? This part seems to use it both ways and is unclear in view of the amendments to claim 1 as only one operation time is introduced unless the one in line 3 is an additional one.
With regards to claim 3, it is unclear whether “a predetermined operation time” is the same or different from the operation time in claim 1. Same with claim 4.
With regards to claim 8, “and is configured to operate the LED lamp by changing colors depending on whether or not the sterilizer operates” is indefinite. It is unclear what is configured to operate the LED lamp. Is it the sterilizer or is it the processor? The processor would make more sense; however, this portion of the claim is under the indent “wherein the sterilizer further comprises:” which makes it potentially the sterilizer being referred to.
Dependent claims are rejected for the same reasons as the claims from which they depend.
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 DONALD R SPAMER whose telephone number is (571)272-3197. The examiner can normally be reached Monday to Friday from 9-5.
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.
/DONALD R SPAMER/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1799