Prosecution Insights
Last updated: April 19, 2026
Application No. 18/032,495

ULTRAVIOLET LIGHT IRRADIATION SYSTEM AND ULTRAVIOLET LIGHT IRRADIATION METHOD

Non-Final OA §112
Filed
Apr 18, 2023
Examiner
CONLEY, SEAN EVERETT
Art Unit
1799
Tech Center
1700 — Chemical & Materials Engineering
Assignee
Nippon Telegraph and Telephone Corporation
OA Round
1 (Non-Final)
70%
Grant Probability
Favorable
1-2
OA Rounds
2y 8m
To Grant
82%
With Interview

Examiner Intelligence

Grants 70% — above average
70%
Career Allow Rate
635 granted / 903 resolved
+5.3% vs TC avg
Moderate +12% lift
Without
With
+11.5%
Interview Lift
resolved cases with interview
Typical timeline
2y 8m
Avg Prosecution
16 currently pending
Career history
919
Total Applications
across all art units

Statute-Specific Performance

§101
0.8%
-39.2% vs TC avg
§103
39.9%
-0.1% vs TC avg
§102
30.8%
-9.2% vs TC avg
§112
21.5%
-18.5% vs TC avg
Black line = Tech Center average estimate • Based on career data from 903 resolved cases

Office Action

§112
DETAILED ACTION Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status 1. The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112 2. 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. 3. Claim 6 is 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. The phrase “at least one of the optical fiber that propagates the transmission infrared light and the optical fiber that supplies the ultraviolet light from the wavelength conversion unit to the irradiation unit is” is indefinite as claim 1 only discloses a single optical fiber. The limitations of claim 56 appear to indicate that there are 2 separate optical fibers thus rendering the claim unclear. Additionally, the terms “solid core type”, “hole-assisted type”, and “hole-structured type” in claim 6 are relative terms which renders the claim indefinite. The terms are not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention. The addition of the word "type" to an otherwise definite expression extends the scope of the expression so as to render it indefinite. Allowable Subject Matter 4. Claims 1-5 and 7 are allowed. The following is an examiner’s statement of reasons for allowance: regarding claim 1, the prior art, alone or in combination, fails to teach or fairly suggest an ultraviolet light irradiation system and comprising: a light source unit that injects transmission infrared light of two polarized waves orthogonal to each other into an optical fiber in combination with a wavelength conversion unit that converts the transmission infrared light propagated through the optical fiber into ultraviolet light, and an irradiation unit that irradiates the ultraviolet light to a desired location. Regarding claim 7, the prior art also fails to teach or suggest the step of injecting transmission infrared light of two polarized waves orthogonal to each other into an optical fiber, in the claimed environment. The closest prior art to the claimed invention is Tribelski (US 6,468,433). Tribelski discloses a device and method for disinfecting a liquid or gas, comprising: a chamber containing the liquid or gas to be disinfected; optical fibers distributed inside the chamber; a radiation unit having a high luminance light source connected to the optical fibers; and nonlinear crystals attached to the optical fiber terminations, wherein the primary frequency of the light source is in the IR region, and the nonlinear crystals convert IR radiation into UV radiation (see claims 1, 16). However, Tribelski does not teach or suggest a light source unit that injects transmission infrared light of two polarized waves orthogonal to each other into an optical fiber, in the claimed environment. Therefore, claims 1 and 7 are allowed. Claims 2-3 and 5 are allowable for at least the reasons applied to claim 1 above by virtue of claim dependency. Regarding claim 4, the prior art, alone or in combination, fails to teach or fairly suggest a wavelength conversion unit has a polarization diversity configuration that separates the transmission infrared light into orthogonal polarized waves and converts each of the transmission infrared light into ultraviolet light, in the claimed environment. Tribelski (of record) is considered to be the closest prior art to the claimed invention and is set froth above. However, there is no teaching or suggestion in the prior art to combine a wavelength conversion unit which has a polarization diversity configuration that separates the transmission infrared light into orthogonal polarized waves and converts each of the transmission infrared light into ultraviolet light, with the invention disclosed by Tribelski. Therefore, claim 4 is allowable over the prior art. Any comments considered necessary by applicant must be submitted no later than the payment of the issue fee and, to avoid processing delays, should preferably accompany the issue fee. Such submissions should be clearly labeled “Comments on Statement of Reasons for Allowance.” 5. Claim 6 would be allowable if rewritten to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 2nd paragraph, set forth in this Office action and to include all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims. Conclusion 6. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to SEAN E CONLEY whose telephone number is (571)272-8414. The examiner can normally be reached on M-F, 8:30am-4pm. If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Mike Marcheschi can be reached on 571-272-1374. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300. Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). /SEAN E CONLEY/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1799
Read full office action

Prosecution Timeline

Apr 18, 2023
Application Filed
Oct 16, 2025
Non-Final Rejection — §112 (current)

Precedent Cases

Applications granted by this same examiner with similar technology

Patent 12599686
STERILIZATION CASE FOR SURGICAL DEVICE
2y 5m to grant Granted Apr 14, 2026
Patent 12595928
SYSTEM FOR DETECTING AND CLEANING AIR POLLUTION IN INDOOR SPACE WITH HEATING, VENTILATION AND AIR CONDITIONING
2y 5m to grant Granted Apr 07, 2026
Patent 12595921
SPACE PURIFICATION DEVICE
2y 5m to grant Granted Apr 07, 2026
Patent 12588679
SYSTEMS, METHODS, AND APPARATUSES FOR DISINFECTION AND DECONTAMINATION
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 31, 2026
Patent 12589172
ULTRAVIOLET DISINFECTION WITH AUGMENTED REALITY MONITORING
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 31, 2026
Study what changed to get past this examiner. Based on 5 most recent grants.

AI Strategy Recommendation

Get an AI-powered prosecution strategy using examiner precedents, rejection analysis, and claim mapping.
Powered by AI — typically takes 5-10 seconds

Prosecution Projections

1-2
Expected OA Rounds
70%
Grant Probability
82%
With Interview (+11.5%)
2y 8m
Median Time to Grant
Low
PTA Risk
Based on 903 resolved cases by this examiner. Grant probability derived from career allow rate.

Sign in with your work email

Enter your email to receive a magic link. No password needed.

Personal email addresses (Gmail, Yahoo, etc.) are not accepted.

Free tier: 3 strategy analyses per month