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 .
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election without traverse of invention II in the reply filed on 8/26/25 is acknowledged.
Claims 30-41 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected invention, there being no allowable generic or linking claim.
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.
Claims 42-45 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 2021/0308301 A1 [Sperry] in view of WO 2016165203 A1 [He]
Regarding Claim 42:
Sperry teaches an enclosure (Fig. 1) comprising:
a rotatable base configured to support an object to be disinfected, the rotatable base configured to rotate the object within the enclosure (Fig. 1a (110), para 34);
at least one inner sidewall disposed adjacent to the rotatable base (Fig. 1a shows a plurality of inner sidewalls), and
a plurality of UVC light radiation sources ((106)) configured to emit UVC light radiation into the enclosure at 265 nm (paras 34, 38).
However, Sperry does not specify that
The UVC light radiation sources are configured to emit UVC light radiation at an intensity not less than about 0.4 mW/cm2 at any point within the enclosure.
He teaches an UV sterilizing enclosure (abstract) wherein the UV intensity is greater than 20 mW/cm2. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective time of filing to use the intensities and power densities taught by He in the UV irradiation of Sperry. One would have been motivated to do so in order to sterilize the sample in a reasonable and predictable fashion.
Regarding Claim 43:
The modified invention of claim 42 teaches the enclosure of claim 42, wherein the rotatable base is substantially transparent to UVC radiation. He teaches a rotatable base with such characteristics, stating, “The sterilized vessel and/or the supporting mechanism is made of a material that transmits ultraviolet rays of 200-280 nm, and the ultraviolet transmittance of the material of 1 mm thick and transparent to 200-280 nm is ≥60%.”
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective time of filing to use the UV transparent base taught by He in the UV irradiation of Sperry. One would have been motivated to do so in order to sterilize the bottom of the object of irradiation.
Regarding Claim 44:
The modified invention of claim 43 teaches the enclosure of claim 43, wherein at least one of the plurality of UVC light radiation sources is disposed opposite the rotatable base from the object. Sperry teaches that a UV source may be placed below the base in order to sanitize the bottom of the object. Para 44.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective time of filing to add the UV sources underneath the base of Sperry to the above modified invention. One would have been motivated to do so in order to sterilize the bottom of the object of irradiation.
Regarding Claim 45:
The modified invention of claim 42 teaches the enclosure of claim 42, wherein the enclosure does not include a rack or scaffold configured to support the object. Sperry Fig. 1 does not include a rack or scaffold.
Claims 47-49 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 2021/0308301 A1 [Sperry] in view of WO 2016165203 A1 [He] and further in view of US 2013/0269206 A1 [Parisi].
Regarding Claim 47:
The modified invention of claim 42 teaches the enclosure of claim 42 further comprising a lid. Sperry Fig. 1 (3).
However, the modified invention fails to teach that the lid is configured to seal the enclosure sufficient to prevent air and light from exiting the enclosure.
Parisi teaches a UV sterilization system comprising an enclosure with a lid having an O-ring providing an air-tight seal. Paras 19 and 21.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective time of filing to add the O-ring of Parisi to the lids of the above modified invention in such a fashion that light and air were prevented from exiting the enclosure. One would have been motivated to do so in order to isolate the item being sterilized.
Regarding Claim 48:
The modified invention of claim 47 teaches the enclosure of claim 47, wherein at least one of the plurality of UVC light radiation sources is disposed in the lid. See Sperry’s light sources (106) on interior of lid (104).
Regarding Claim 49:
Sperry teaches a device for disinfecting an object (abstract), the device comprising:
a rotatable base configured to support an object to be disinfected, the rotatable base configured to rotate the object within the enclosure and to permit substantially all UVC radiation to pass therethrough (Fig. 1a (110), para 34);
at least one inner sidewall disposed adjacent to the rotatable base (Fig. 1a shows a plurality of inner sidewalls);
a lid configured to seal the device sufficient to prevent light from exiting the device (Fig. 1a-c (103 and 104)); and
a plurality of UVC light radiation sources configured to emit UVC light radiation into the enclosure at 265 nm (paras 34, 38),
wherein at least one of the plurality of UVC light radiation sources is disposed in the at least one inner sidewall (Fig. 1 (106)), and
wherein at least one of the plurality of UVC light radiation sources is disposed in the lid (Fig. 1C shows a plurality of light source (106) disposed in lid (104)).
However, Sperry does not specify that:
The UVC light radiation sources are configured to emit UVC light radiation at an intensity not less than about 0.4 mW/cm2 at any point within the enclosure;
The rotatable base configured to permit substantially all UVC radiation to pass therethrough;
The lid is configured to seal the enclosure sufficient to prevent air and light from exiting the enclosure; or
At least one of the plurality of UVC light radiation sources is disposed opposite the rotatable base from the object.
He teaches an UV sterilizing enclosure (abstract) wherein the UV intensity is greater than 20 mW/cm2. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective time of filing to use the intensities and power densities taught by He in the UV irradiation of Sperry. One would have been motivated to do so in order to sterilize the sample in a reasonable and predictable fashion.
He teaches a rotatable base with such characteristics, stating, “The sterilized vessel and/or the supporting mechanism is made of a material that transmits ultraviolet rays of 200-280 nm, and the ultraviolet transmittance of the material of 1 mm thick and transparent to 200-280 nm is ≥60%.” It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective time of filing to use the UV transparent base taught by He in the UV irradiation of Sperry. One would have been motivated to do so in order to sterilize the bottom of the object of irradiation.
Parisi teaches a UV sterilization system comprising an enclosure with a lid having an O-ring providing an air-tight seal. Paras 19 and 21. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective time of filing to add the O-ring of Parisi to the lids of the above modified invention in such a fashion that light and air were prevented from exiting the enclosure. One would have been motivated to do so in order to isolate the item being sterilized.
Sperry teaches that a UV source may be placed below the base in order to sanitize the bottom of the object. Para 44. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective time of filing to add the UV sources underneath the base of Sperry to the above modified invention. One would have been motivated to do so in order to sterilize the bottom of the object of irradiation.
Claims 46 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 2021/0308301 A1 [Sperry] in view of WO 2016165203 A1 [He] as applied to claim 42, and further in view of US 3,954,407 [Andary].
Regarding Claim 46:
The modified invention of claim 42 teaches the enclosure of claim 42, but fails to teach that the inner sidewall forms a cylindrical shape.
Andary teaches a UV sterilizing enclosure (abstract) wherein the inner sidewalls thereof form a cylindrical shape. Fig. 1 cylindrical casing (3). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective time of filing to change the inner sidewall shape of the above modified invention to be cylindrical, as is taught by Andary. One would have been motivated to do so since Andary demonstrates the efficacy of this shape in UV sterilization chambers.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to WYATT A STOFFA whose telephone number is (571)270-1782. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 0700-1600 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, ROBERT KIM can be reached at 571 272 2293. 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.
WYATT STOFFA
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 2881
/WYATT A STOFFA/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2881