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 20 November 2025 are acknowledged. Claims 1-9 are pending.
Amendments to the claims, specification, and drawings are sufficient to overcome each and every objection previously presented in the Non-Final Office Action mailed 22 August 2025.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim 1 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
The additional limitations specifying the angle of the UV radiation is sufficient to overcome the previously presented 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) rejection. However, Perry anticipates the invention of claim 1.
Following the above logic, claims 2-7 and 9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as anticipated by Perry. Claim 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 with respect to Perry in view of Bettles. It should be noted that Bettles is not relied upon for any teachings argued in the applicant’s reply filed 20 November 2025.
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 (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 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.
Claims 1-7 and 9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Perry (US 8431910 B1).
Regarding claim 1, Perry teaches a touch detection device comprising: a screen having a touch detection surface with the ability to recognize presence of one or more contact points (touch screen monitors, column 3 line 52); a covering body surrounding a perimeter of the touch detection surface (Figure 2 edge of touch screen “6”), and having a rim extending from the perimeter of the touch detection ahead of a plane of the touch detection surface, the rim having at least one opening facing inward (Figure 3 plastic housing extending over touch screen); at least one transmitter of UV radiation with a wavelength between 100nm and 380nm (UVC source of about 100 nm to 280 nm, column 2 lines 2-3) located inside the at least one opening of the rim and capable to decontaminate the touch detection surface of the screen (Figure 3 UV radiator “4” attached to plastic housing to radiate UV on the touch screen); wherein a wall of the at least one opening is inclined at a non-zero angle toward the touch detection surface, to direct the UV radiation of the at least one emitter toward the touch detection surface (radiators are oriented to radiate UVC parallel with the surface of the touch screen, column 3 lines 63-65).
Regarding claim 2, Perry teaches a reflector to reflect radiation emitted by one or more radiation emitters and configured to concentrate the radiation to a determined area (allow UV to be broadcast via reflectors, column 2 lines 4-5).
Regarding claim 3, Perry teaches an electrical circuit that can be programmed with a time when the radiation emitter will be turned on and off (software provided to pre-program a desired sanitization schedule, abstract).
Regarding claim 4, Perry teaches at least one transmitter of UV radiation located on the outside of the device and may be located inside one or more accommodations (Figure 3 UV radiator “4” in plastic housing outside of touch screen).
Regarding claim 5, Perry teaches fiber optics configured to direct the UV radiation to a region to be decontaminated (one or more fiber-optic filaments, abstract).
Regarding claim 6, Perry teaches a film on the touch detection surface configured to protect components of the screen from UV radiation (UV protective cover is provided to protect UV-sensitive portions of the hand-held electronic device, abstract).
Regarding claim 7, Perry teaches wherein the screen includes a touch-sensitive screens or a multi-touch screen (touch screen monitors, column 3 line 52).
Regarding claim 9, Perry teaches wherein the screen comprises one of a touch screens, a multi-touch screen, a resistive touch screen, a projected capacitive touch screen, an integrated touch screen (touch screen monitors, column 3 line 52).
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.
Claim 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Perry in view of Bettles (US 20160000953 A1).
Regarding claim 8, Perry teaches all aspects of the current invention as discussed above except at least one LED lighting configured to indicate that the touch detection surface is decontaminated. However, Bettles teaches at least one LED lighting configured to indicate that the touch detection surface is decontaminated (system can include an LED indicator to emit a visual light for the user, paragraph [0047]).
Perry and Bettles are considered analogous to the current invention because all are in the field of touch screen disinfection devices. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to combine the touch screen disinfection device taught by Perry with the indicator device taught by Bettles because Bettles teaches the visual light can advantageously show when the ultraviolet radiation is being generated, paragraph [0047]).
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 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