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 .
FINAL ACTION
Response to Amendment
The amendment filed on 3/20/2026 has been received and claims 60, 62, 64-68, 71, 73-78 are pending.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement filed 10/22/2025 fails to comply with 37 CFR 1.98(a)(2), which requires a legible copy of each cited foreign patent document; each non-patent literature publication or that portion which caused it to be listed; and all other information or that portion which caused it to be listed. Specifically, the reference no. CA requires a copy as the URL provided no longer exists so that the reference could not be reviewed. It has been placed in the application file, but the information referred to therein has not been considered.
Claim Objections
Claims 64-65 are objected to because of the following informalities:
in line 1 of Claim 64, insert --the-- before “at”;
in line 2 of Claim 65, insert --the-- before “at”.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitation(s) is/are: “disinfection unit” in claim 60; “disinfection elements” in claim 64; “backup disinfection elements” in claim 65; “object communication element” in claim 68; “monitoring system” in claim 73; “disinfection elements” in claims 74 and 75.
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof. Specifically the structure(s) that correspond(s) to the “disinfection unit” is/are a unit with one or more disinfection elements (see [0033], [0148]-[0149]), or one or more disinfection elements with one or more backup disinfection elements (see [0150]) and a diagnostic element to determine whether the disinfection elements are functioning correctly (see [0151]). The structure(s) that correspond(s) to the “disinfection elements” is/are means for providing/generating ozone, plasma or corona discharge, one or more radiation sources in the wavelength ranges of UV, visible or infrared, a pulsed ultraviolet light source, a HINS radiation source(s), and means for providing an electric field (see [0033]-[0036]). The structure(s) that correspond(s) to the “backup disinfection elements” is/are additional disinfection elements such as one or more backup light sources (see [0073] and [0189]). The structure(s) that correspond(s) to the “object communication element” is/are communication means such as receiver/transmitter via RFID and WiFi (see [0079]-[0081] and [0195]-[0197]). The structure(s) that correspond(s) to the “monitoring system” is/are a detector such as an imaging sensor, camera, a closed circuit TV camera or other video monitoring unit (see [0067]); one or more illumination sources such as UV light sources, UVA light sources (see [0068]), a display unit (see [0069]).
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
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 76-77 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.
Claim 76 recites the limitation "the one or more external obstruction sensors" in lines 2-3. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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.
Claim(s) 60, 62, 64-68, 71 and 73-77 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Starkweather (20170340760).
As to Claim 60, Starkweather (‘760) discloses a disinfection apparatus (100; 200) (see Figures 1A-3B) comprising:
at least one disinfection unit (122a-d; 222a-c) operable to perform a disinfection operation on an object to be disinfected (see entire document, particularly Figures 1A, 1C, 1I and 2B, p. 4 [0030], p. 7 [0041]);
an outer casing (110, 112, 114, 116, 118; 210, 212, 214) (see Figures 1A-1C and 2A-3B);
at least one actuating door (117; 216; 219) (see Figures 1B, 2E and 3A-3B), the outer casing (110, 112, 114, 116, 118; 210, 212, 214) and the at least one actuating door (117; 216; 219) defining a disinfection compartment (115; 215) (see entire document, particularly Figures 1A-1C, 2D-2E and 3A-3B, p. 4 [0028], p. 5 [0032]-lines 1-2);
the at least one actuating door (117; 216; 219) moveable between open (see Figures 1A, 1C, 1F, 1H, 2B-2D and 2F-3B) and closed (see Figures 1B, 2A, 2E, and 3A-3B) positions to provide access to the disinfection compartment (115; 215);
at least one position sensor for detecting the presence of an object to be disinfected having been positioned within the disinfection compartment (115; 215) (see entire document, particularly pp. 1-2 [0010] - specifically 7th – 8th lines from the bottom of left column on p. 2, p. 8 [0049] – lines 1-6 and [0050]-[0053]);
a plurality of ultraviolet light sources (122a-d; 222a-c) operable to illuminate the object to be disinfected within the disinfection compartment (115; 215) (see entire document, particularly Figures 1A, 1C, 1I, 2B-2C and 2F-3B, p. 4 [0030], p. 7 [0041]);
one or more object sensors operable to detect at least one property of the object to be disinfected when the object is located within the disinfection compartment (115; 215) (see entire document, particularly pp. 1-2 [0010] - specifically last 3 lines of left column on p. 2 and lines 1-2 and 6-8 of right column on p. 2, p. 8 [0050] and [0052]-[0053]);
wherein the at least one property capable of including at least one of the type of object and the shape of at least a portion of the object to be disinfected (see entire document, particularly p. 8 [0052]-[0053]).
at least one obstruction sensor operable to detect whether at least a first safety zone is clear (see entire document, particularly pp. 1-2 [0010] - specifically 8th – 10th lines from the bottom of left column on p. 2, p. 8 [0049]-[0053]); and
a central control unit (150; 250), the central control unit (150; 250) comprising a processing unit and a memory unit (see entire document, particularly pp. 8-9 [0057] – lines 4-5) being operable/capable to control operation of the at least one actuating door (117; 216; 219) (see entire document, particularly Figure 7, p. 9 [0059]); the at least one position sensor (see entire document, particularly p. 8 [0049]); the at least one obstruction sensor (see entire document, particularly p. 8 [0049]); and the at least one disinfection unit (122a-d; 222a-c) (see entire document, particularly p. 8 [0048] - p. 9 [0059] );
wherein the central control unit (150; 250) is operable to classify the object according to the at least one property detected by the one or more object sensors (see entire document, particularly p. 8 [0049] – lines 1-3); and
wherein the central control unit (150; 250) is operable/capable to adjust the operating parameters of the at least one disinfection unit (122a-d; 222a-c) based, at least in part, on data received from the one or more object sensors (see entire document, particularly p. 8 [0049], pp. 8-9 [0057]).
As to Claim 62, Starkweather (‘760) discloses that:
the first safety zone (i.e. zone/area adjacent the housing/door) is located external to the outer casing (117; 216; 219) (see Figures 1A-1C, 2D-2E and 3A-3B); and
the at least one obstruction sensor comprises an external obstruction sensor operable to detect whether the first safety zone is clear (see entire document, particularly pp. 1-2 [0010] - specifically 7th – 8th lines from the bottom of left column on p. 2, p. 8 [0049] – lines 1-6).
As to Claim 64, Starkweather (‘760) discloses that the at least one disinfection unit (122a-d; 222a-c) comprises one or more disinfection elements (122a-d; 222a-c) (see entire document, particularly Figures 1A, 1C, 1I and 2B, p. 4 [0030], p. 7 [0041]).
As to Claim 65, Starkweather (‘760) discloses that:
the at least one disinfection unit (122a-d; 222a-c) comprises one or more backup disinfection elements (i.e. one or more of 122a-d; 222a-c); and
the central control unit (150; 250) is operable/capable to activate the one or more backup disinfection elements (i.e. one or more of 122a-d; 222a-c) in response to the status of the one or more disinfection elements (122a-d; 222a-c) being out of compliance with a predetermined value.
As to Claim 66, Starkweather (‘760) discloses that the central control unit (150; 250) is operable/capable to transmit one or more signals indicative of the status (see entire document, particularly p. 8 [0054]) of at least one of the at least one actuating door (117; 216; 219), the at least one position sensor (see entire document, particularly p. 8 [0049] – lines 1-3 and [0054]), the at least one obstruction sensor (see entire document, particularly p. 8 [0049] – lines 1-3 and [0054]), and the at least one disinfection unit (122a-d; 222a-c) (see entire document, particularly p. 8 [0054]), to a computing device (see entire document, particularly pp. 8-9 [0057]), a distributed computer network (see entire document, particularly p. 9 [0057]), and a computing device connected to a distributed computer network (see entire document, particularly p. 9 [0057]).
As to Claim 67, Starkweather (‘760) discloses that
the central control unit (150; 250) is operable/capable to store operation data associated with the use of the disinfection apparatus (100; 200) (see entire document, particularly p. 8 [0053]-[0056], p. 9 [0057]); and
the operation data capable of being/including at least one of the number of times the disinfection apparatus was used, the number of objects that have been disinfected using the disinfection apparatus, time data associated with the how long the disinfection apparatus has been used for, the time at which the disinfection apparatus was used, and the date on which it was used.
As to Claim 68, Starkweather (‘760) discloses that the central control unit (150; 250) comprises an object communication element (see entire document, particularly p. 8 [0048]-[0049] and [0053], p. 9 [0057]);
the object communication element is operable/capable to communicate with one or more identifier elements associated with the object to be disinfected (see entire document, particularly p. 8 [0048]-[0049] and [0053], p. 9 [0057]);
the object communication element is operable/capable to obtain object data from the one or more identifier elements (see entire document, particularly p. 8 [0048]-[0049] and [0053]); and
the object data capable of being/including data on at least one of the type of object, the identity of the object, information on when the object was disinfected by a disinfection apparatus, and location data associated with the object.
As to Claim 71, Starkweather (‘760) discloses that
the central control unit (150; 250) is operable/capable to classify the object to be disinfected according to the shape detected by the one or more object sensors (see entire document, particularly p. 8 [0049] – lines 1-3 and [0052]); and
the central control unit (150; 250) is operable/capable to classify the object to be disinfected as a simple shape object or a complex shape object (see entire document, particularly p. 8 [0049] – lines 1-3 and [0052]).
As to Claim 73, Starkweather (‘760) discloses that
the disinfection apparatus (100; 200) comprises a monitoring system operable to record one or more images and/or one or more videos of at least a portion of the disinfection compartment (150; 250) during disinfection operations (see entire document, particularly p. 8 [0052], p. 9 [0057]); and
the monitoring system is operable/capable to detect one or more shadows on the object to be disinfected.
As to Claim 74, Starkweather (‘760) discloses that the central control unit (150; 250) is operable/capable to modify the operation of one or more disinfection elements (122a-d; 222a-c) based on the detection of one or more shadows on the object to be disinfected (see entire document, particularly p. 8 [0052], p. 9 [0057]).
As to Claim 75, Starkweather (‘760) discloses that
one or more of the disinfection elements (120a-d, 122a-d; 220a-c, 222a-c) is movable between at least two positions in the at least one disinfection unit (see entire document, particularly p. 4 [0028] – lines 21-23 and [0029] – lines 7-9, p. 6 [0039] – lines 20-25, p. 7 [0040] – lines 6-9); and
modifying the operation of the one or more disinfection elements (120a-d, 122a-d; 220a-c, 222a-c) includes moving one or more disinfection elements (120a-d, 122a-d; 220a-c, 222a-c) between the at least two positions (see entire document, particularly p. 4 [0028] – lines 21-23 and [0029] – lines 7-9, p. 6 [0039] – lines 20-25, p. 7 [0040] – lines 6-9).
As to Claim 76, Starkweather (‘760) discloses that the central control unit (150; 250) is configured to using data from the external obstruction sensors to classify a person detected by the external obstruction sensor (see entire document, particularly p. 8 [0049] – lines 1-3 and [0053]); and
the central control unit (150; 250) is operable/capable to allocate user permission to one or more classifications of a person and to deny user permission to one or more classifications of a person.
As to Claim 77, Starkweather (‘760) discloses that
the disinfection apparatus (100; 200) comprises one or more first external obstruction sensors, orientated towards a first sensing area (i.e. such as where 150 is located and/or toward front of the apparatus where a user may be standing) (see entire document, particularly Figures 1A-1B, 2A, 2D-2E and 3A-3B, p. 8 [0049] – lines 4-14), and one or more second external obstructions sensors, orientated towards a second sensing area (i.e. downward adjacent the entrance/doorway) (see entire document, particularly Figures 1A-1B, 2A, 2D-2E and 3A-3B, p. 8 [0053]);
the first sensing area (i.e. such as where 150 is located and/or toward front of the apparatus where a user may be standing) is at a substantially higher height than the second sensing area (i.e. downward adjacent the entrance/doorway/plane of the door);
the first sensing area is capable of being defined to detect the presence of a first classification of a person at a predetermined distance range to a first external obstruction sensor (see entire document, particularly p. 8 [0053]); and
the second sensing area is capable of being defined to detect the presence of a second classification of a person at a predetermined distance range to a second external obstruction sensor (see entire document, particularly p. 8 [0049]).
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 3/20/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Specifically, as to applicant’s argument on p. 9 of Remarks in regards to Starkweather, examiner disagrees and points out that a recitation of the intended use of the claimed invention must result in a structural difference between the claimed invention and the prior art in order to patentably distinguish the claimed invention from the prior art. If the prior art structure is capable of performing the intended use, then it meets the claim. In particular, examiner indicates that as the object sensor of Starkweather (which is same as that of the claimed invention such as a camera, or an electronic nose which is able to detect a property/type such as based on a type of contamination, etc., or via RFID sensor which is able to obtain information with respect to a type/shape of an object possessing a RFID badge/tag) is fully able to observe/detect a type and/or shape of an item within the disinfection compartment and the central control unit of Starkweather is capable/operable to utilize the data obtained by the object sensor of Starkweather, the data capable of being a type and/or shape of an object within the disinfection compartment, as discussed in the rejection(s) set forth above.
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 REGINA M YOO whose telephone number is (571)272-6690. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday, 9:00 am - 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.
/REGINA M YOO/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1758
Prosecution Insights