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 .
This is a response to Applicant's amendment filed on February 12, 2026.
Status of Claims
Claims 1, 2, 5, 10, 12, 15, 18, 21, 22, 23, 25, 27, 34 and 38 have been amended. Claims 3-4, 6-9, 11, 13-14, 16-17, 19-20, 24, 26, 28-33, 35-37 and 39-49 have been cancelled. New claims 50-55 have been added. Claims 1, 2, 5, 10, 12, 15, 18, 21, 22, 23, 25, 27, 34, 38 and 50-55 are pending. Claims 1, 2, 5, 10, 12, 15, 18, 21, 22, 23, 25, 27, 34, 38 and 50-55 are examined herein.
Response to Amendments
The Amendments to the Claims filed 02/12/2026 have been entered. The minor informalities have been addressed by amendments and objections to claims 1, 2, 5, 11 and 16 thereto are withdrawn accordingly. The previous 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph rejections of claims 25 and 39 are withdrawn in view of the Applicant's amendments and arguments. Since claim 39 has been cancelled, the previous objection/rejection to claim 39 are considered moot.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's Remarks/Arguments and Amendments to the Claims both filed 02/12/2026 have been fully considered.
It is noted that claim 1, an independent claim from which all of the claims ultimately depend, has been amended to recite that “conveying the at least one object continuously past an irradiation zone at a speed of greater than 1.0 m/s, irradiating the surface of the at least one object with one or more pulsed ultraviolet light beams while the at least one object remains in continuous motion through the irradiation zone, wherein the irradiation comprises delivery of only a limited number of ultraviolet light pulses to the surface of the at least one object during passage of the at least one object through the irradiation zone, such that microorganisms, viruses, or drug substances present on the surface of the at least one object are sanitized by photochemical modification without any visible alteration of the surface of the at least one object” in the context of a method for sanitizing a surface of at least one object as recited in claim 1.
Applicant argues that: the claim 1 and its dependent claims are not anticipated nor prima facie obvious over cited prior art(s), Lu et al. (US 6,291,796 B1), this is because the cited prior art does not teach or suggest the amended features of “conveying the at least one object continuously past an irradiation zone at a speed of greater than 1.0 m/s, irradiating the surface of the at least one object with one or more pulsed ultraviolet light beams while the at least one object remains in continuous motion through the irradiation zone, wherein the irradiation comprises delivery of only a limited number of ultraviolet light pulses to the surface of the at least one object during passage of the at least one object through the irradiation zone, such that microorganisms, viruses, or drug substances present on the surface of the at least one object are sanitized by photochemical modification without any visible alteration of the surface of the at least one object”. Applicant argues that Lu teaches a fundamentally different mechanism and method from the invention as claimed in the present application. Indeed, Lu relies on laser induced photo-decomposition, ablation, surface vibration, and material removal to achieve sanitation. This is fundamentally different to the present invention where the amended claims recite the sanitization without visible alteration of the surface of the object. In other words, the claimed invention does not change the surface appearance of the object in any way, as such methods would not work with banknotes given that the ink would be removed, and thus the banknotes would no longer be useable. See Remarks, pages 8-11.
In response, the applicants’ arguments direct a newly amended claim limitation which is a new issue. Therefore, the arguments are considered moot. Applicant's amendment necessitated a modified/new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action.
Upon further consideration and search, a modified/new ground of rejections to claims 1, 2, 5, 10, 12, 15, 18, 21, 22, 23, 25, 27, 34, 38 and 50-55 are presented in the instant Office action.
MODIFIED REJECTIONS
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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claims 1, 12, 15, 18, 21, 27, 34 and 50-52 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lu et al. (US 6,291,796 B1, hereinafter “Lu”).
In regard to claim 1, Lu discloses a method for sanitizing a surface of an object, comprising:
conveying the object through UV light from an excimer laser (col. 2, lines 20-27; Figure 1; the process description in col. 3, line 1 thru col. 4, line 58), such that the UV light, for example a 248 nm KrF excimer laser is used having an energy density of 60 mJ/cm2 (Example 1), irradiates the surface of the object located on a belt conveyor (20, Fig. 1). Since the object is passed irradiation zone of laser light on the conveyor belt (20, Fig. 1) that is controlled by a conveyor belt speed controller (22, Fig. 1), this meets the recitation “object continuously past an irradiation zone” as recited in lines 3-4,
wherein the UV light has a wavelength, intensity, and pulse duration sufficient to reduce a concentration of organic contaminant on the surface (col. 1, lines 9-17; col. 2, lines 20-45; col. 3, lines 3-52; col. 4, lines 9-15; Examples 1-4).
Lu discloses that, in Example 1 (cols. 4-5), the UV light, for example a 248 nm KrF excimer laser is irradiating the surface of the at least one object while the at least one object remains in continuous motion through the irradiation zone located on the conveyor belt (20, Fig. 1) that is controlled by a conveyor belt speed controller (22, Fig. 1), thereby this meets the recitation “irradiating the surface of the at least one object with one or more pulsed ultraviolet light beams while the at least one object remains in continuous motion through the irradiation zone” as recited in lines 6-7.
Lu discloses that, in Example 1 (cols. 4-5), the UV light, for example a 248 nm KrF excimer laser which meets the recitation “the irradiation comprises delivery of only a limited number of ultraviolet light pulses to the surface of the at least one object during passage of the at least one object through the irradiation zone” as recited in lines 8-10.
Lu discloses that, when operating, the system of this invention removes surface contaminants by laser induced photo-decomposition, laser ablation and surface vibration by the impact of the laser pulse (col. 4, lines 9-16). The teachings of Lu direct the UV light, for example, a 248 nm KrF excimer laser is used having an energy density of 60 mJ/cm2, in Example 1, for a dry process which utilizes controlled laser energy to clean substrates surfaces while the surface of the object is not altered (cols. 4-5, Example 1). This mees the recitation “such that microorganisms, viruses, or drug substances present on the surface of the at least one object are sanitized by photochemical modification without any visible alteration of the surface of the at least one object” as recited in lines 11-13.
Regarding the belt conveyer (20, Fig. 1) speed, Lu discloses the belt conveyer (20, Fig. 1) is controlled by a conveyor belt controller (22, Fig. 1) which are controlled through an interface (28, Fig. 1) to a central computer (30, Fig. 1) (col. 3, lines 28-59).
But Lu does not explicitly disclose the conveyor speed of greater than 1.0 m/s as recited.
However, in light of teachings from Lu (col. 3, lines 28-59) set forth above, the claimed conveyor speed of greater than 1.0 m/s would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art through routine experimentation in an effort to optimize the UV light sanitizing apparatus activity and utility taking into consideration the operational parameters of the sanitizing the surface of an object operation (e.g., throughput), the geometry of the object bodies, the physical and chemical make-up of the object feedstock as well as the nature of the sanitized object end-products.
In regard to claims 12 and 15, Lu discloses an embodiment of applying UV light beams, wherein the UV lights have a wavelength of 248 nanometers, with an intensity of 60 mJ/cm2 (col. 5, lines 3-10). Lu also discloses that, when operating, the system of this invention removes surface contaminants by laser induced photo-decomposition, laser ablation and surface vibration by the impact of the laser pulse (col. 4, lines 9-16). The teachings of Lu direct the UV light, for example, a 248 nm KrF excimer laser is used having an energy density of 60 mJ/cm2 as used in Example 1. Lu discloses an embodiment FIG.2b that shows the slider surface of FIG.2a after cleaning. The treated surface area in FIG. 2b was verified to be completely cleaned by the laser dry-cleaning process by AES (Auger electron spectroscopy) measurements (col. 5, lines 3-10). The UV lights have a wavelength of 248 nanometers taught by Lu is encompassed by the recited wavelength range of 100 to 400 nanometers.
In light of teachings from Lu, the claimed UV light exposure time period of from 5 ns to 35 ns recited in claim 15 would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art through routine experimentation in an effort to optimize the UV light sanitizing apparatus activity and utility taking into consideration the operational parameters of the sanitizing the surface of an object operation (e.g., throughput), the geometry of the object bodies, the physical and chemical make-up of the object feedstock as well as the nature of the sanitized object end-products.
In regard to claim 18, Lu discloses that: after passing through aperture (14, Fig. 1), the laser beam passes through a lens (18, Fig. 1) which is mounted on a movable electric stage (16, Fig. 1) by which the lens (18, Fig. 1) may be moved to focus or defocus the laser beam thereby decreasing or increasing the laser beam coverage area which in turn adjusts the laser beam intensity. Lens (18, Fig. 1) is preferably a plano-convex lens (col. 3, lines 22-28). Lu discloses an embodiment of Example 2 wherein the entire object was cleaned with a single pulse, and wherein focal spot size can be adjusted to suit the target object using an adjustable lens (col. 5, lines 15-35). This meets the recitation of claim 18.
In regard to claim 21, Lu discloses that: after passing through aperture (14, Fig. 1), the laser beam passes through a lens (18, Fig. 1) which is mounted on a movable electric stage (16, Fig. 1) by which the lens (18, Fig. 1) may be moved to focus or defocus the laser beam thereby decreasing or increasing the laser beam coverage area which in turn adjusts the laser beam intensity. Lens (18, Fig. 1) is preferably a plano-convex lens (col. 3, lines 22-28). Lu discloses an embodiment of Example 2 wherein the entire object was cleaned with a single pulse, and wherein focal spot size can be adjusted to suit the target object using an adjustable lens (col. 5, lines 15-35). This meets the recitation “a single ultraviolet light pulse illuminates at least a portion of the surface of the or each object uniformly or substantially uniformly during passage of the at least one object through the irradiation zone” recited in claim 21.
In regard to claims 27 and 34, Lu discloses a method for sanitizing a surface of an object as set forth above (see the examiner’s assessment regarding claim 1).
Regarding the belt conveyer (20, Fig. 1) speed, Lu discloses the belt conveyer (20, Fig. 1) is controlled by a conveyor belt controller (22, Fig. 1) which are controlled through an interface (28, Fig. 1) to a central computer (30, Fig. 1) (col. 3, lines 28-59).
But Lu does not explicitly disclose the conveyor speed of between 1.0 m/s and 8.0 m/s as recited.
However, in light of teachings from Lu (col. 3, lines 28-59) set forth above, the claimed conveyor speed of between 1.0 m/s and 8.0 m/s would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art through routine experimentation in an effort to optimize the UV light sanitizing apparatus activity and utility taking into consideration the operational parameters of the sanitizing the surface of an object operation (e.g., throughput), the geometry of the object bodies, the physical and chemical make-up of the object feedstock as well as the nature of the sanitized object end-products.
Moreover, Lu discloses the laser beam passes through a beam homogenizer (12, Fig. 1) which dives the beam a flat intensity profile, i.e. the beam intensity is uniform across the beam face. After passing through the beam homogenizer (12, Fig. 1), the laser beam passes through an electrically and automatically controlled aperture (14, Fig. 1) which can modify the size and shape of the pulsed laser beam. The aperture may be used to eliminate the edge of the laser beam. This is useful because the beam intensity tends to drop at the edges of the beam cross section. After passing through aperture (14, Fig. 1), the laser beam passes through a lens (18, Fig. 1) which is mounted on a movable electric stage (16, Fig. 1) by which the lens (18, Fig. 1) may be moved to focus or defocus the laser beam thereby decreasing or increasing the laser beam coverage area which in turn adjusts the laser beam intensity. Lens (18, Fig. 1) is preferably a plano-convex lens. The laser 10, aperture 14, electric Stage 16, conveyor belt controller 22, mirror arrangement 24 homogenizer 12, and energy meter 26 are all controlled through an interface 28 to a central computer 30 (col. 3, lines 1-59).
Though Lu does not explicitly disclose the configuration of the apparatus recited in claim 27 and 34, since (i) Lu discloses that, when operating, the system of this invention removes surface contaminants by laser induced photo-decomposition, laser ablation and surface vibration by the impact of the laser pulse (col. 4, lines 9-16), wherein the teachings of Lu direct the UV light, for example, a 248 nm KrF excimer laser is used having an energy density of 60 mJ/cm2 as used in Example 1, is sufficient for reducing a concentration of drug substance and/or microorganisms/ viruses on a surface of the objects; and (ii) Lu’s method for sanitizing a surface of an object is as least comparable to the recited method for sanitizing a surface of at least one object, the recited configuration of claims 27 and 34 of claimed invention is considered as substituting equivalent known for the same purpose of conducting a method for sanitizing a surface of at least one object. See MPEP 2144.06 II. Moreover, it is the examiner’s assessment that the equivalency is recognized in the prior art and is not based on applicant’s disclosure or the mere fact that the components at issue are functional or mechanical equivalents.
In regard to claims 50, 51 and 52, Lu discloses that, in Example 1 (cols. 4-5), a 248 nm KrF excimer laser is used having an energy density of 60 mJ/cm2, in Example 1, for a dry process which utilizes controlled laser energy to clean substrates surfaces. This meets the recitation “the limited number of ultraviolet light pulses comprises one pulse delivered to any point on the surface of the at least one object” or “the limited number of ultraviolet light pulses comprises no more than ten pulses (i.e., from one to 10 pulse(s)) delivered to any point on the surface of the at least one object” as recited.
Claim 53 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lu, as applied to claim 1 above, and further evidenced by Siegman (Unstable Optical Resonators for Laser Applications, PROCEEDINGS OF THE IEEE, 1965).
In regard to claim 53, Lu discloses that, in Example 1 (cols. 4-5), a 248 nm KrF excimer laser is used having an energy density of 60 mJ/cm2, in Example 1, for a dry process which utilizes controlled laser energy to clean substrates surfaces. It is known in the art that unstable resonator to provide an extended depth of field is used for laser application because such resonators may be useful for transverse mode control as evidenced by Siegman (page 278, col. 2, 2nd paragraph from the bottom). Therefore, claim 53 is considered prima facie obvious over teachings of Lu, as evidenced by Siegman.
Claim 54 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lu, as applied to claim 1 above, and further evidenced by Houde (US 2012/0273693 A1).
In regard to claim 54, Lu discloses that, in Example 1 (cols. 4-5), a 248 nm KrF excimer laser is used having an energy density of 60 mJ/cm2, in Example 1, for a dry process which utilizes controlled laser energy to clean substrates surfaces. It is known in the art that object being irradiated without the use of a beam homogenizer is a known in the art as evidenced by Houde (US 2012/0273693 A1). Therefore, claim 54 is considered obvious over teachings of Lu, as evidenced by Houde.
Claim 55 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lu, as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Houde (US 2012/0273693 A1).
In regard to claim 55, Lu does not explicitly disclose the feature of the excimer laser operates at a repetition frequency greater than 5 Hz.
Houde discloses a device and a method for the high-speed decontamination of objects by means of pulsed light, comprising: an illuminating means for illuminating a decontamination area in which the objects are arranged, which illuminating means is suitable for producing streams of light pulses having wavelengths of 200 nm to 300 nm according to an adjustable pulse rate and a positioner suitable for positioning the objects in the decontamination area according to a predetermined arrangement (Abstract). Houde discloses systems capable of sanitizing a plurality of objects passing through a UV light source at a frequency of 5 Hz (Fig. 1; paragraphs [0054)-[0059]).
It is noted that both the Lu and Houde references direct a method for sanitizing a surface of an object using UV lights.
Therefore, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the method of Lu, in view of Houde, to provide the feature of the excimer laser operates at a repetition frequency greater than 5 Hz, because the feature of conveying plurality of objects through UV light from an excimer laser at a frequency of 5 Hz is known, effective feature in a method for sanitizing a surface of an object using UV lights as taught by Houde (Fig. 1; paragraphs [0054)-[0059]).
Claims 2, 22, 23 and 25 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lu, as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Houde (US 2012/0273693 A1).
In regard to claim 2, Lu does not explicitly disclose the feature of conveying plurality of objects past the irradiation zone in succession at a frequency of at least 5 Hz.
Houde discloses a device and a method for the high-speed decontamination of objects by means of pulsed light, comprising: an illuminating means for illuminating a decontamination area in which the objects are arranged, which illuminating means is suitable for producing streams of light pulses having wavelengths of 200 nm to 300 nm according to an adjustable pulse rate and a positioner suitable for positioning the objects in the decontamination area according to a predetermined arrangement (Abstract). Houde discloses systems capable of sanitizing a plurality of objects passing through a UV light source at a frequency of 5 Hz (Fig. 1; paragraphs [0054)-[0059]).
It is noted that both the Lu and Houde references direct a method for sanitizing a surface of an object using UV lights.
Therefore, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the method of Lu, in view of Houde, to provide the feature of conveying plurality of objects through UV light from an excimer laser at a speed of greater than 1.0 m/s and at a frequency of 5 Hz, because the feature of conveying plurality of objects through UV light from an excimer laser at a speed and at a frequency of 5 Hz is known, effective feature in a method for sanitizing a surface of an object using UV lights as taught by Houde (Fig. 1; paragraphs [0054)-[0059]).
In regard to claims 22, 23 and 25, Houde discloses systems capable of sanitizing a plurality of objects passing through a UV light source at a frequency of 5 Hz (Fig. 1; paragraphs [0054)-[0059]). Houde also discloses UV sanitization systems employing multiple UV excimer lasers (paragraph [0061]). Consequently, irradiation of the multiple target objects by two or more pulses of UV light is also considered a mere routine modification of the system of Lu, in view of Houde. The recitations recited in claims 22, 23 and 25 are considered prima facie obvious over the teachings of Lu, in view of Houde.
Claim 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lu, as applied to claim 1 above, and further evidenced by Bijlsma et al. (Investigation of degradation products of cocaine and benzoylecgonine in the aquatic environment, Science of The Total Environment, Volume 443, 15 January 2013, Pages 200-208).
In regard to claim 5, Lu discloses the surface contaminants such as oil, grease and other organic and inorganic compounds (col. 1, lines 20-22). It is known in the art that cocaine is decomposed by UV lights as evidenced by Bijlsma et al. (pages 201-202, Section 2.2 Degradation experiments). Therefore, claim 5 is considered obvious over teachings of Lu, as evidenced by Bijlsma et al.
Claim 10 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lu, as applied to claim 1 above, and further evidenced by Heilingloh et al. (Susceptibility of SARS-CoV-2 to UV irradiation, American Journal of Infection Control 48 (2020) 1273−1275).
In regard to claim 10, Lu discloses the surface contaminants such as oil, grease and other organic and inorganic compounds (col. 1, lines 20-22). It is known in the art that viruses such as SARS-CoV-2 is sterilized by UV lights as evidenced by Heilingloh et al. (page 1, Abstract). Therefore, claim 10 is considered obvious over teachings of Lu, as evidenced by Heilingloh et al.
Claim 38 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lu, as applied to claim 1 above, and further evidenced by Zhang et al. (CN 101352575A, see the attached English translation document).
In regard to claim 38, Lu discloses the surface contaminants such as oil, grease and other organic and inorganic compounds (col. 1, lines 20-22). It is known in the art that banknote is sterilized by UV lights as evidenced by Zhang et al. (page 1, Abstract). Therefore, claim 38 is considered obvious over teachings of Lu, as evidenced by Zhang et al.
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 YOUNGSUL JEONG whose telephone number is (571)270-1494. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday-Friday 9AM-5PM.
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, In Suk Bullock can be reached on 571-272-5954. 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). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/YOUNGSUL JEONG/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1772