otice 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 .
DETAILED ACTION
Response to Amendment
The amendment filed on 3/25/2026 has been received and claims 18-19, 23-24, 26, 28, 31-32 and 36 are pending.
Election/Restrictions
All withdrawn claims drawn to a nonelected group have been cancelled by applicant. Election was made without traverse in the reply filed on 10/28/2025.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to as failing to comply with 37 CFR 1.84(p)(4) because reference character “450” has been used to designate different components/portions in Figures 5-7. Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
Claim Objections
Claims 18-19, 23-24, 26, 28, 31-32 and 36 are objected to because of the following informalities: in line 2 of Claim 18, insert --automated optical detection-- before “system”. 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: “optical assembly”, “sanitary condition detection assembly” and “disinfecting system” in claim 18; “rotation mechanism” in claim 26.
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. In particular, “optical assembly” is being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in [0024] and [0032]-[0035] of the specification, for example, at least one of a coherent optical system, a holographic optical system, an interferometric optical system and a diffraction optical system, or in different configuration such as dark field illumination schemes, transmission, resonator-mode reflection, a Total Internal Reflection Fluorescence (TIRF) microscopy scheme, and the like. The corresponding structure for the “sanitary condition detection assembly” is being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in [0036]-[0044] of the specification, namely a system comprised of a processor, a storage medium/memory having processor-readable instructions for processing optical signal of the button and for comparing the captured optical signal by the optical assembly with optical signatures (or reference optical signals) of cell cultures of viruses and/or bacteria; or an assembly comprised of one or more computers or servers, provided with processors, memory and communication interfaces, where a software application may run on the assembly; and further including a programmable gate array such as a Field-programmable gate array FPGA configured to treat a continuous data flow produced by the pixels of the CMOS sensor and/or one or more complementary digital modules, such as a microcontroller and an embedded RAM memory. The corresponding structure for the “disinfecting system” is being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in [0046]-[0049] of the specification, namely three germicidal UV lamps having a spectral profile ranging from about 200 nm to about 280 nm, or from about 220 nm to about 270 nm, or from about 250 nm to about 260 nm and a skirt assembly shaped and positioned so as to prevent exposure of human operators to the UV light.
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.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that use the word “means” or “step” but are nonetheless not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph because the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure, materials, or acts to entirely perform the recited function. Such claim limitation(s) is/are: “communication module” in claim 23.
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are not being interpreted to cover only the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant intends 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 remove the structure, materials, or acts that performs the claimed function; or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) does/do not recite sufficient structure, materials, or acts to perform the claimed function.
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.
Claim 26 is 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. Specifically, there is no written description support for corresponding structure(s) for a “rotation mechanism” within the Specification.
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 26, 28 and 31 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.
In Claim 26, it is not clear what is/are specific structures comprising the “rotation mechanism” are being set forth as corresponding structure(s) for the “rotation mechanism” since the illustrated component 450 (i.e. “rotation mechanism”) are pointed to multiple components in Figures 5-7 and appear to set forth different structures.
In Claim 28, it is not clear what the limitation “being for” is attempting to set forth, whether an intended use/capability or a function (i.e. “is configured for”).
Claim 31 is rejected due to its dependence on a rejected 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) 18 and 32 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Zhao (CN209815425).
As to Claim 18, Zhao (‘425) discloses an automated optical detection system (see Figures 1-3), the automated optical detection system comprising:
a button housing (1) defining a button-receiving cavity (i.e. within 1) and comprising an inner side (i.e. to the side where 2 are attached to);
at least one button (2) disposed at least partially in the button-receiving cavity (i.e. within 1);
an optical assembly (17, 18) to capture at least one optical signal of at least a physical feature of the at least one button (2);
a sanitary condition detection assembly (16) to detect a predetermined sanitary condition of the at least one button (2) from information derived from said at least one captured optical signal of said at least a physical feature of the at least one button (2); and
a disinfecting system (12, 13) for disinfecting the at least one button (2) (see Figure 1).
As to Claim 32, Zhao (‘425) discloses that the disinfecting system (12, 13) comprises an ultra-violet lamp (13) positioned on the inner side of the button housing (1) (see Figure 2).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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(s) 19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zhao (CN209815425) as applied to claim 18 above, and further in view of Ross (20090123331).
Zhao (‘425) is relied upon for disclosure described in the rejection of claim 18 under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1).
Zhao (‘425) does not appear to specifically teach that the sanitary condition detection assembly comprises a processor and a storage medium having stored thereon processor-readable instructions for processing the at least one captured optical signal of the at least one button, comparing said at least one captured optical signal with optical signatures of cell cultures of at least one of viruses and bacteria, and outputting an indication of whether at least one of a virus and a bacterium is detected on the at least one button in real-time.
It was known in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide a processor and a storage medium having stored thereon process-readable instructions. Ross (‘331) discloses an automated optical detection system (see Figures 1A-6B) comprising: a button housing (i.e. body/base of the keyboard 140/306) defining a button-receiving cavity (i.e. on/in the body/base of the keyboard 140/306); at least one button (i.e. keys of keyboard 140; number keys/keypad on 306) disposed at least partially in the button-receiving cavity (i.e. on/in the body/base of the keyboard 140/306); an optical assembly (see to capture at least one optical signal of at least one of physical and electrical features of the at least one button; a sanitary condition detection assembly (110); and a disinfecting system (106; 308) for disinfecting the at least one button (i.e. keys of keyboard 140; number keys/keypad on 306/312), wherein the sanitary condition detection assembly (110) comprises a processor (see entire document, particularly p. 5 [0061] and [0062] – lines 1-8) and a storage medium having stored thereon processor-readable instructions (see entire document, particularly p. 5 [0060] – specifically lines 3-5 and [0061] and [0062]- lines 8 to end) capable for processing the at least one captured optical signal of the at least one button, comparing said at least one captured optical signal with optical signatures of cell cultures of at least one of viruses and bacteria, and outputting an indication of whether at least one of a virus and a bacterium is detected on the at least one button in real-time, in order to control the operation of the system (see entire document, particularly p. 5 [0060]). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in this art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide a sanitary condition detection assembly comprised of a processor and a storage medium having stored thereon processor-readable instructions in the system of Zhao as a known configuration of an automatic controller in order to provide control of the operation of the system as shown by Ross.
Thus, Claim 19 would have been obvious within the meaning of 35 U.S.C. 103 over the combined teachings of Zhao (‘425) and Ross (‘906).
Claim(s) 23 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zhao (CN209815425) as applied to claim 18 above, and further in view of Baarman (WO2021178764).
Zhao (‘425) is relied upon for disclosure described in the rejection of claim 18 under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1).
Zhao (‘425) does not appear to specifically teach that the sanitary condition detection assembly comprises a communication module including one or more of the following interfaces: a Wi-Fi interface, a Bluetooth interface, a 4G interface or a 5G interface to communicate the indication of whether said at least one of a virus and a bacterium is detected on the at least one button.
It was known in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide a communication module including one or more of the following interfaces: a Wi-Fi interface, a Bluetooth interface, a 4G interface or a 5G interface in an automated optical detection system. Baarman (‘764) discloses an automated optical detection system (see Figures 1-25) capable of detecting of a sanitary condition of a button (212), the system comprising: an optical assembly (208) to capture at least one optical signal of at least one of physical and electrical features of the at least one button (212); a sanitary condition detection assembly (100) to detect a predetermined sanitary condition of the at least one button from information derived from said at least one captured optical signal of said at least one of physical and electrical features of the at least one button (212); and a disinfecting system (116) for disinfecting the at least one button (212), wherein the sanitary condition detection assembly (100) comprises a communication module (112) (see Figure 1) including one or more of the following interfaces: a Wi-Fi interface, a Bluetooth interface, a 4G interface or a 5G interface (see entire document, particularly pp. 22-23 [0093], pp. 28-29 [0107]-[0108]) capable to communicate the indication of whether said at least one of a virus and a bacterium is detected on the at least one button (212), in order to enable the system to communicate with external devices/services (see entire document, particularly pp. 22-23 [0093], pp. 28-29 [0107]-[0108]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in this art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide a communication module with the sanitary condition detection assembly of Zhao as a known configuration in order to enable communication of the system with external devices/ systems/services as shown by Baarman.
Thus, Claim 23 would have been obvious within the meaning of 35 U.S.C. 103 over the combined teachings of Zhao (‘425) and Baarman (‘764).
Claim(s) 36 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zhao (CN209815425) as applied to claim 18 above, and further in view of Kil (WO2022065695).
Zhao (‘425) is relied upon for disclosure described in the rejection of claim 18 under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1).
Zhao (‘425) does not appear to specifically teach that the system further comprises a sensor operatively coupled with at least one of the optical assembly and the disinfecting system, the sensor being positioned proximate to said at least one button for detecting actuation thereof.
It was known in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide a sensor adjacent at least one button in a disinfection system. Kil (‘695) discloses an automated optical detection system (see Figures 1-10) comprising: a button housing (i.e. base/substrate portion of B); at least one button (i.e. numeric buttons of B) disposed at least partially in a button-receiving cavity (see Figure 1); a sanitary condition detection assembly (300) (see Figure 10); a disinfecting system (200, 230C) for disinfecting the at least one button (i.e. numeric buttons of B) (see Figures 1 and 5-10); and a sensor (115) operatively coupled with at least one of the disinfecting system (200, 230C) (see Figures 1-3 and 10), the sensor (115) being positioned proximate to said at least one button (i.e. numeric buttons of B) capable of detecting actuation thereof (see Figures 1-2), in order to control the operation of the disinfection system to ensure safety of the user (see entire English translation, p. 7 – 9th -13th lines from the bottom, p. 7 last 5 lines to first line on p. 8). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in this art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide a sensor in the system of Zhao as a known additional component in order to control operation of the disinfection system so as to ensure safety of the user from the disinfection system as shown by Kil.
Thus, Claim 36 would have been obvious within the meaning of 35 U.S.C. 103 over the combined teachings of Zhao (‘425) and Kil (‘695).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 24 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 following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter: the primary reason for indication of allowable subject matter is due to inclusion of limitation that “the optical assembly comprises at least one of: a coherent optical system, a holographic optical system, an interferometric optical system and a diffraction optical system” .
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. The following references relate either to the field of the invention or subject matter of the invention, but are not relied upon in the rejection of record: 20140300581 (a touchscreen with a built-in UV sanitizer), CN212593137 (UV irradiation/disinfection device with a touch switch), WO2022034479 and CN106237350 (UV surface disinfection system for vehicular surfaces), WO2015051024 (a touchscreen sanitizing system with a processor, a memory, and a sensor), WO2007136906 (a sterilization system for user interface devices), 20060188389 (a disinfection system for a mobile phone/handset).
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