DETAILED ACTION
Response to Arguments
Rejections under 35 USC 103
Applicant’s remarks with respect to the rejection of claims 1-18 under 35 USC 103 have been fully considered and in view of the amendments to the claim are persuasive (see also the interview summary filed 02/27/2026). Therefore, the rejection has been withdrawn. However, upon further search and consideration, a new grounds of rejection is made in view of Kikuchi (JP 2005080809 A).
Applicant’s remarks with respect to the rejection of claim 19 under 35 USC 103 have been fully considered and in view of the amendments to the claim are persuasive (see also the interview summary filed 02/27/2026). Therefore, the rejection has been withdrawn. However, upon further search and consideration, a new grounds of rejection is made in view of Kreitenberg, et. al. (US 20120248332 A1).
Rejections under 35 USC 112(b)
In view of the amendments to claims 1 and 18, the rejections under 35 USC 112(b) have been withdrawn.
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 .
Priority
Acknowledgment is made of applicant’s claim for foreign priority under 35 U.S.C. 119 (a)-(d) filed on 07/08/2020. 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 1-5, 7-12, and 16-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kikuchi (JP 2005080809 A; see translated document from Espacenet for paragraph numbers), in view of Houde (US 20120273693 A1) and Franc, et. al. (US 20160101201 A1), hereinafter Franc.
Regarding claim 1, Kikuchi teaches a device for decontaminating objects ([0005], [0006] medal washing device that can sterilize medals), including:
- a decontamination area in which the objects move between a decontamination area entrance and a decontamination area exit (area in cleaning device 1 where medals move through guide rail 600 to be decontaminated by ultraviolet light source 301, Fig. 5, [0040]-[0050]),
- at least one source for emitting a light radiation into the decontamination area, said light radiation being suitable for decontaminating said objects moving in said area (ultraviolet irradiation means 300 with light source 301, [0040], [0049], Fig. 5);
- a conduit which extends between the decontamination area entrance and the decontamination area exit (structural area within the cleaning device 1 where the guide rails guide the medals to be decontaminated, Figs. 5-8, [0040]-[0050]);
- a device for positioning the objects in said decontamination area, to position the objects in a predetermined arrangement, including at least two elements for guiding said objects (guide rail 600, [0040]);
said at least two elements for guiding said objects include at least one lateral rail included into said conduit and on which said objects are at least partially guided (guide rail 600 is comprised of two metal rails, [0045]), said at least one lateral rail comprising a contact area with at least one object (the two rails engage and contact the medal, Fig. 6, [0045]); and
said at least one lateral guide rail has a V-shaped profile, comprising two contiguous faces, the two faces extending on either side of a ridge, said contact area of said at least one lateral rail being constituted only by the ridge ([0045] teaches rails having a V-shaped cross sectional shape, with the concave sides facing each other to hold the medal in place between them. Consequently, only the points of the “Vs”, the ridge, contacts the medal so as to maximize the surface area of the medal exposed to the sterilizing ultraviolet light. Additionally, a V-shape inherently has two faces extending on either side of the point or ridge of the V.).
Kikuchi does not teach that the objects move by means of gravity. Further, Kikuchi does not explicitly teach said at least one lateral rail comprising at least one reflective area which is contiguous with said contact area and which is suitable for reflecting said light radiation onto said at least one object, said reflective area being constituted by a face of said at least one lateral guide rail.
Franc teaches in which the objects move by means of gravity ([0120]-[0121]) between a decontamination area entrance (area where the objects enter decontamination zone 10 located in box unit 55, [0119], Fig. 4) and a decontamination area exit (area where the objects leave decontamination zone 10 located in box unit 55, [0119], Fig. 4).
Franc modifies Kikuchi by suggesting using gravity to move through the decontamination area from entrance to exit.
Since both inventions are directed towards UV decontamination devices, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the teachings of Franc because gravity provides a means for the objects to progress through the decontamination zone and also allows them to roll on their side so as to be exposed to UV radiation evenly for proper decontamination (Franc, [0120]).
Houde teaches said at least one lateral rail comprising at least one reflective area which is contiguous with said contact area and which is suitable for reflecting said light radiation onto said at least one object (backscatters 21 on guides 7 which contact object 20, [0062], [0056]), said reflective area being constituted by a face of the lateral guide rail ([0062], Fig. 2).
Houde suggests that a face of the rail of Kikuchi that is contiguous with the contact area of the rail is suitable for reflecting light onto the object being sterilized.
Since both inventions are directed towards UV decontamination devices, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the teachings of Houde because putting reflective backscatters on the guides allows light to be scattered onto faces which are not directly illuminated, (Houde, [0062]).
Regarding claim 2, Kikuchi teaches characterized in that said contact area of said at least one lateral rail is situated at at least two different locations in said decontamination area, including a first location in said decontamination area in which the contact area of said at least one rail touches at least one of said objects at a first contact point, line or surface but not at a second contact point, line or surface and a second location in said decontamination area in which the contact area of said at least one rail touches the same object at the second contact point, line or surface but not at the first contact point, line or surface, said second contact point, line or surface on said object being different from said first contact point, line or surface (since the guide rails 600 are comprised of two rails the first rail makes contact with the medal at one point/line/surface, while the second rail makes contact at a second and different point/line/surface, [0045], Fig. 5).
Regarding claim 3, Kikuchi teaches a control device of the source for emitting the light radiation at least one of arranged and programmed to emit said light radiation in the form of a plurality of flashes of light ([0008] teaches a pulsed xenon lamp, and [0034] teaches using the light source intermittently. Some control device must inherently be present to cause the light source to turn on and off as disclosed in [0033]-[0034]).
Kikuchi does not explicitly teach in the first location in said decontamination area then in the second location in said decontamination area, a first flash of light of said plurality of flashes of light emitted in said first location being distinct from a second flash of light of said plurality of flashes of light emitted in the second location.
Franc teaches in the first location in said decontamination area (upper side of decontamination zone 10 (first exposure means 4 side) in Fig. 1 with lamps 5, [0100]) then in the second location in said decontamination area (lower side of decontamination zone 10 (second exposure means 1 side) in Fig. 1 with lamps 2, [0091]), a first flash of light of said plurality of flashes of light emitted in said first location being distinct from a second flash of light of said plurality of flashes of light emitted in the second location (the flashes are distinct since they come from different light sources, see [0091], [0100], Fig. 1).
Franc suggests controlling the light sources to emit flashes of light in two different locations of the decontamination area.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the teachings of Franc because the effects of the first and second illumination means combine to provide a global exposure to UV radiations of all parts of the cavity's inner surfaces sufficient for the decontamination purpose. (Franc, [0109]).
Regarding claim 4, Kikuchi teaches characterized in that with said at least one object moving in said decontamination area, said contact area being linear and straight (straight portions in Fig. 5 where rails touch medal).
Regarding claim 5, Kikuchi teaches characterized in that said at least one lateral rail is made of metal ([0045]).
Regarding claim 7, Kikuchi does not teach further including a circuit for cooling the decontamination area, to keep said positioning device at a temperature below a predetermined temperature when the decontamination area receives said light radiation, said cooling circuit being integrated into said positioning device at least partially in said at least one lateral rail.
Houde teaches further including a circuit for cooling the decontamination area, to keep said positioning device at a temperature below a predetermined temperature when the decontamination area receives said light radiation (cooler, Abstract, cooling means, [0021], cooling circuit, [0031]), said cooling circuit being integrated into said positioning device at least partially in said at least one lateral rail ([0024], [0059], tubes 8, [0056]-[0057]).
Houde modifies the combination by suggesting a cooling circuit integrated with the guides to keep the guides below a certain temperature when receiving light radiation.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the teachings of Houde because integrating the cooling circuit into the guide allows for the optimization of heat exchange for cooling the system, (Houde, [0057]).
Regarding claim 8, Kikuchi does not teach said guide elements include at least one plate, said plate being positioned above or below the objects and suitable for being passed through by said light radiation emitted by said at least one source for emitting light radiation.
Houde teaches said guide elements include at least one plate (window 4, [0057]), said plate being positioned above or below the objects (window 4 in Fig. 2) and suitable for being passed through by said light radiation emitted by said at least one source for emitting light radiation ([0055], transparent window 4).
Houde modifies the combination by suggesting plates positioned above or below objects, through which light from the light source can pass.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the teachings of Houde because the window can be used for guiding the object (Houde, [0057]) while also allowing only part of the optical spectrum of the light source to pass through to the object to allow for disinfection but avoid unwanted thermal effects, (Houde, [0068]).
Regarding claim 9, Kikuchi teaches further including a first source for emitting a first light radiation (first light source 301, [0032]) and a second source for emitting a second light radiation (second light source 301, [0035]).
Kikuchi does not teach the guide elements include two plates suitable for allowing a light radiation to pass through making it possible to decontaminate said objects, one of the two plates being positioned above said objects and suitable for being passed through by said first light radiation emitted by said first source of light radiation, for the decontamination of the exterior of said objects, and the other plate being positioned below said objects and suitable for being passed through by said second light radiation emitted by said second source of light radiation, for the decontamination of the interior and at least partially the exterior of said objects.
Houde teaches further including a first source for emitting a first light radiation (xenon flash lamp 1, [0055], Fig. 2), and in that the guide elements include a plate suitable for allowing a light radiation to pass through making it possible to decontaminate said objects ([0055], transparent window 4, Fig. 2), the plate being positioned below said objects (transparent window 4 in Fig. 2) and suitable for being passed through by said first light radiation emitted by said first source of light radiation, for the decontamination of the interior of said objects (Fig. 2, [0055], [0068]) and at least partially the exterior of said objects (light from lamp 1 passes through transparent window 4 (Fig. 2). Some of the light is then reflected by retroreflectors 21 to also reach and decontaminate the exterior of the objects, as taught by [0062]).
Houde modifies the combination by suggesting a plate positioned below said objects, through which light from the light source can pass to decontaminate the objects.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the teachings of Houde because the window can be used for guiding the object (Houde, [0057]) while also allowing only part of the optical spectrum of the light source to pass through to the object to allow for disinfection but avoid unwanted thermal effects, (Houde, [0068]).
Houde does not teach a second source for emitting a second light radiation or a second plate, with the second plate being positioned above said objects and suitable for being passed through by said second light radiation emitted by said second source of light radiation, for the decontamination of the exterior of said objects.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to incorporate a second source for emitting a second light radiation and a second plate positioned above said objects and suitable for being passed through by said second light radiation emitted by second source of light radiation, for the decontamination of the exterior of said objects because incorporating these elements is a duplication of parts that would not produce a new or unexpected result. See MPEP 21144.04 VI. B., “In re Harza, 274 F.2d 669, 124 USPQ 378 (CCPA 1960) (Claims at issue were directed to a water-tight masonry structure wherein a water seal of flexible material fills the joints which form between adjacent pours of concrete. The claimed water seal has a "web" which lies in the joint, and a plurality of "ribs" projecting outwardly from each side of the web into one of the adjacent concrete slabs. The prior art disclosed a flexible water stop for preventing passage of water between masses of concrete in the shape of a plus sign (+). Although the reference did not disclose a plurality of ribs, the court held that mere duplication of parts has no patentable significance unless a new and unexpected result is produced.).” Houde teaches that placing a light source and a transparent window in the manner claimed results in the object being illuminated for decontamination. Duplicating this arrangement on the opposite side would therefore produce the obvious result of illuminating and decontaminating the opposite side of the object. As a result, the combination of the teachings of Houde and a mere duplication of parts renders the claim obvious.
Regarding claim 10, Kikuchi teaches characterized in that said at least one source for emitting light radiation is a source for emitting pulsed light ([0008] teaches the light source is a pulsed xenon lamp).
Regarding claim 11, Kikuchi teaches characterized in that said at least one source for emitting light radiation is combined with a reflector, to focus said light radiation emitted by said at least one source onto the objects in said decontamination area (reflector 302, [0028]).
Regarding claim 12, Kikuchi teaches characterized in that the light radiation emitted by said at least one emission source is an ultraviolet radiation the wavelength of which is preferably comprised substantially between 200 and 300 nm ([0007]. Kikuchi renders the claimed invention obvious because “In the case where the claimed ranges ‘overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art’ a prima facie case of obviousness exists.” See MPEP 2144.05 I).
Regarding claim 16, Kikuchi teaches further including two lateral rails, each extending in a curved direction, to generate a lateral displacement of the objects moving in said decontamination area (Fig. 5 curved portion of the guide rails 600 produces lateral displacement).
Regarding claim 17, Kikuchi teaches characterized in that said at least one lateral rail extends in a curved direction (curved portion of guide rails 600 in Fig. 5) and generating a straight linear displacement of the objects in said decontamination area without lateral displacement (straight portion of guide rails 600 produces straight linear displacement without lateral displacement).
Regarding claim 18, Kikuchi teaches a method for decontaminating objects utilizing a device according to claim 1 ([0005], [0006] medal washing device that can sterilize medals, see also 103 rejection of claim 1 above.), said method ensuring:
- the movement in the decontamination area between said entrance of said decontamination area and said exit of said decontamination area, said objects being guided in a predetermined position by at least two guide elements of a positioning device (medals move through area in cleaning device 1 on guide rail 600 to be decontaminated by ultraviolet light source 301, Fig. 5, [0040]-[0050]),
- the decontamination of said objects moving in said area by emitting a light radiation into the decontamination area (ultraviolet irradiation means 300 with light source 301, [0040], [0049], Fig. 5);
- a conduit which extends between the decontamination area entrance and the decontamination area exit (structural area within the cleaning device 1 where the guide rails guide the medals to be decontaminated, Figs. 5-8, [0040]-[0050]);
- a device for positioning the objects in said decontamination area, to position the objects in a predetermined arrangement, including at least two elements for guiding said objects (guide rail 600, [0040]);
The decontamination of said objects is carried out at least partially by the reflection of said light radiation onto said at least one object (reflector 302, [0028]).
The movement of said objects is carried out by contact of said objects on a contact area of said at least one lateral rail, said contact area being contiguous with said reflective area of said at least one lateral rail, said reflective area being constituted by a face of said at least one lateral guide rail, and said at least one lateral guide rail has a V-shaped profile, comprising two contiguous faces, at least one of the two faces being suitable for reflecting said light radiation and constituting said at least one reflective area, the two faces extending on either side of a ridge, said contact area of said at least one lateral rail being constituted only by the ridge ([0045] teaches the guide rail 600 comprises two rails having a V-shaped cross sectional shape, with the concave sides facing each other to hold the medal in place between them. Consequently, only the points of the “Vs”, the ridge, contacts the medal so as to maximize the surface area of the medal exposed to the sterilizing ultraviolet light. Additionally, a V-shape inherently has two faces extending on either side of the point or ridge of the V.).
Although Kikuchi teaches decontamination of said objects is carried out at least partially by the reflection of said light radiation onto said at least one object, Kikuchi does not teach on at least one reflective area of at least one lateral rail which said at least two guide elements (4-6) include.
Houde teaches decontamination of said object by reflection of said light radiation on at least one reflective area of at least one lateral rail which said at least two guide elements include (backscatters 21 on guides 7, [0062], [0056], Fig. 2).
Houde suggests that a face of the rail of Kikuchi reflects light onto the object for decontamination.
Since both inventions are directed towards UV decontamination devices, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the teachings of Houde because putting reflective backscatters on the guides allows light to be scattered onto faces which are not directly illuminated, and consequently decontaminate these areas (Houde, [0062]).
Claim 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kikuchi (JP 2005080809 A; see translated document from Espacenet for paragraph numbers), Houde (US 20120273693 A1) and Franc (US 20160101201 A1), further in view of JP2014528802 A, hereinafter JP2014.
Regarding claim 6, Kikuchi, Houde, and Franc do not teach characterized in that said at least one reflective area has a roughness of less than 0.2 µm.
JP2014 teaches characterized in that said at least one reflective area has a roughness of less than 0.2 µm (JP2014, third paragraph of “DESCRIPTION-OF-EMBODIMENTS in the translated document).
JP2014 modifies Houde in view of Franc by suggesting a roughness less than 100 nm, which is in the claimed range.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the teachings of JP2014 because a surface roughness less than 100nm allows for further reflectability (JP2014, third paragraph of “DESCRIPTION-OF-EMBODIMENTS in the translated document). Furthermore, MPEP 2144.05 I. teaches “in the case where the claimed ranges ‘overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art’ a prima facie case of obviousness exists.”
Claims 13 and 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kikuchi (JP 2005080809 A; see translated document from Espacenet for paragraph numbers), Houde (US 20120273693 A1) and Franc (US 20160101201 A1), further in view of Zhou, et. al. (CN111134029 A) hereinafter Zhou.
Regarding claim 13, Kikuchi teaches said conduit including said at least one lateral rail on which the objects are at least partially guided (in the decontamination area of the cleaning device 1, guides 600 comprise two rails for guiding the medals, Fig. 5, [0040]).
Kikuchi does not teach including at least a first wall having at least a first window receiving a first plate, suitable for allowing a light radiation to pass through making it possible to decontaminate said objects, said first window extending substantially from a first end of the conduit to substantially a second end of the conduit under said source for emitting light radiation, said conduit being leakproof to allow it to be cleaned.
Houde teaches said conduit (channel surrounding and containing decontamination area 5 extending between where objects enter and exit on the production line, [0056], Fig. 2, Fig. 3) including said at least one lateral rail on which the objects are at least partially guided (guides 7, [0056], Fig. 2) including at least a first wall having at least a first window receiving a first plate (window is formed by optical cavity 3 in reflector 2 and has transparent window 4 consisting of a quartz plate, [0055], Fig. 2) , suitable for allowing a light radiation to pass through making it possible to decontaminate said objects (transparent window 4, [0055], [0068]), said first window extending substantially from a first end of the conduit to substantially a second end of the conduit under said source for emitting light radiation (since Figs. 1 and 2 is are a cross section of the device ([0054], it can be inferred that the transparent window 4 ([0055]) extends across the decontamination area from entry to exit).
Houde does not explicitly teach said conduit being leakproof to allow it to be cleaned.
Zhou teaches said conduit being leakproof (leak-proof edge provided on outer side of the bottom of the disinfection box, [0009], 49 in Fig. 5) to allow it to be cleaned ( [0028], cleaning the rabbit’s excrement and disinfecting the part where the rabbit steps, [0017]).
Zhou modifies Houde by suggesting a conduit that is leakproof allowing it to be cleaned.
Since Zhou is concerned with solving the problem of preventing leakage while cleaning a compartment, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the teachings of Zhou because a leak-proof edge prevents leaks while cleaning (Zhou, [0028] of the translated document).
Regarding claim 14, Kikuchi does not teach said conduit includes a second wall, opposite said first wall, said second wall having at least a second window receiving a second plate suitable for allowing a light radiation to pass through making it possible to decontaminate said objects, said second window extending substantially from a first end of the conduit to substantially a second end of the conduit under a second source for emitting light radiation.
although Houde teaches said conduit including at least a first wall having at least a first window receiving a first plate, suitable for allowing a light radiation to pass through making it possible to decontaminate said objects said first window extending substantially from a first end of the conduit to substantially a second end of the conduit under said source for emitting light radiation (see103 rejection of claim 13, above) Houde does not teach characterized in that said conduit includes a second wall, opposite said first wall, said second wall having at least a second window receiving a second plate suitable for allowing a light radiation to pass through making it possible to decontaminate said objects, said second window extending substantially from a first end of the conduit to substantially a second end of the conduit under a second source for emitting light radiation.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to incorporate a second wall, opposite said first wall, said second wall having at least a second window receiving a second plate suitable for allowing a light radiation to pass through making it possible to decontaminate said objects, said second window extending substantially from a first end of the conduit to substantially a second end of the conduit under a second source for emitting light radiation because incorporating these elements is a duplication of parts that would not produce a new or unexpected result. See MPEP 21144.04 VI. B., “In re Harza, 274 F.2d 669, 124 USPQ 378 (CCPA 1960) (Claims at issue were directed to a water-tight masonry structure wherein a water seal of flexible material fills the joints which form between adjacent pours of concrete. The claimed water seal has a "web" which lies in the joint, and a plurality of "ribs" projecting outwardly from each side of the web into one of the adjacent concrete slabs. The prior art disclosed a flexible water stop for preventing passage of water between masses of concrete in the shape of a plus sign (+). Although the reference did not disclose a plurality of ribs, the court held that mere duplication of parts has no patentable significance unless a new and unexpected result is produced.).” Houde teaches that placing a light source and a wall with a window receiving a plate allowing light radiation to pass through results in the object being illuminated for decontamination. Duplicating this arrangement on the opposite side would therefore produce the obvious result of illuminating and decontaminating the opposite side of the object. As a result, the combination of the teachings of Houde and a mere duplication of parts renders the claim obvious.
Claim 19 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kreitenberg, et. al. (US 2012024832 A1), hereinafter Kreitenberg, in view of Houde (US 20120273693 A1).
Regarding claim 19, Kreitenberg teaches, a device for decontaminating objects (system for sterilizing a sports ball, [0061]), including:
- a decontamination area in which the objects move by means of gravity between a decontamination area entrance and a decontamination area exit (housing 11 where balls 20 move by gravity between opening 13 and outlet 17, [0061], [0068], Fig. 1),
- at least one source for emitting a light radiation into the decontamination area, said light radiation being suitable for decontaminating said objects moving in said area (sterilizing UVC lights on internal surface of housing 11, [0061], [0065], Fig. 1);
- a conduit which extends between the decontamination area entrance and the decontamination area exit (area inside of the housing 11 through which the sports ball 20 moves from opening 13 to outlet 17);
- a device for positioning the objects in said decontamination area (track 18, [0063]), to position the objects in a predetermined arrangement, including at least two elements for guiding said objects (pair of rails 18, [0063], Fig. 1);
said at least two elements for guiding said objects include two lateral rails included into said conduit and on which said objects are at least partially guided (pair of rails 18 in housing 11, [0063], Fig. 1), said lateral rails each comprising a contact area with at least one object (as seen in Fig. 3) and
the contact area of a first of said lateral rails is situated at a first location in said decontamination area in which the contact area touches at least one of said objects only at a first contact point or line but not at a second contact point or line (As seen in Fig. 3, the left rail touches the ball 20 only along a first contact point/line), the contact area of a second of said lateral rails is situated at a second location in said decontamination area in which the contact area touches the same object only at the second contact point or line but not at the first contact point or line, said second contact point or line on said object being different from said first contact point or line (As seen in Fig. 3, the right rail touches the ball 20 along a different contact point/line than the left rail).
Kreitenberg fails to explicitly teach said lateral rails each comprising at least one reflective area which is contiguous with said contact area and which is suitable for reflecting said light radiation onto said at least one object, said reflective area being constituted by a face of the lateral guide rail.
Houde teaches said lateral rails each comprising at least one reflective area which is contiguous with said contact area and which is suitable for reflecting said light radiation onto said at least one object (backscatters 21 on guides 7 which contact object 20, [0062], [0056]), said reflective area being constituted by a face of the lateral guide rail ([0062], Fig. 2).
Houde modifies Kreitenberg by suggesting a face of the rail of Kreitenberg that is contiguous with the contact area of the rail being suitable for reflecting light onto the object being sterilized.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the teachings of Houde because putting reflective backscatters on the guides allows light to be scattered onto faces which are not directly illuminated, (Houde, [0062]).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 15 is objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
The device according to claim 1, further including
a first set of two guide rails which extends at a first height and over a first length of decontamination area between said entrance and said exit of decontamination area, and
a second set of two guide rails which extends at a second height, different from said first height, and over a second length of decontamination area,
said second set of guide rails being consecutive and contiguous with the first set of guide rails so that the objects moving in said decontamination area are guided first by said first set of rails then by the second set of guide rails and
so that a first contact area on the objects moving between the guide rails of the first set and corresponding to the contact area of the first set of guide rails is decontaminated by the light radiation when the objects move between the guide rails of the second set of guide rails.
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 LAURA E TANDY whose telephone number is (703)756-1720. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 8:00 am - 5:00 pm.
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, Robert Kim can be reached at 5712722293. 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.
LAURA E TANDY
Examiner
Art Unit 2881
/DAVID E SMITH/Examiner, Art Unit 2881