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 .
Response to Amendment
This is an office action in response to Applicant's arguments and remarks filed on 3/3/2026. Claims 1, 3-20 are pending in the application. Claims 13-20 have been withdrawn and claims 1 and 3-12 are being examined herein.
Status of Objections and Rejections
The rejection of claim 2 is obviated by Applicant's cancellation.
All rejections from the previous office action are withdrawn in view of Applicant's amendment.
New grounds of rejection under 35 U.S.C. 103 are necessitated by the amendments.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
Claim(s) 1, 4-7, and 9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Childress et al. (US 20160220716 A1) (cited in Applicant’s IDS dated 06/05/2023) in view of Burnell-Jones (hereinafter "Burnell") (US 20030085383 A1) (cited in Applicant’s IDS dated 06/05/2023).
Regarding claim 1, Childress teaches a vehicle lavatory monument assembly and disinfection system [0007] comprising:
an enclosure that includes a plurality of walls that cooperate to define a lavatory interior, wherein a door is positioned on one of the plurality of walls (Figs 2 and 3, depict the lavatory with 4 walls, and a door on one of the walls ([0009], [0035-0036]),
a first component positioned in the lavatory interior ([0033], reflective material 124 may be a reflective coating 125 applied to plurality of surfaces 128 inside lavatory [0036] = surfaces understood to be components), wherein the first component includes a first coating on an outer surface thereof [0033].
Childress does not teach wherein the first component includes a first visual indication coating on an outer surface thereof, wherein the first visual indication coating includes at least a first excitation additive, wherein the first excitation additive is a first fluorescing additive, and wherein the first excitation additive is configured to illuminate when irradiated by a first light that includes light waves within a predetermined wavelength range. One having ordinary skill in the art would be concerned with alerting users to the presence of harmful UV light during laboratory sterilization, motivating one towards Burnell.
Burnell teaches a phosphorescent resin which may be used to coat an article (para [0032]), wherein the coating is a visual indication coating (coating has luminescent properties, [0035]), wherein the first visual indication coating includes at least a first excitation additive [0033], and wherein the first excitation additive is configured to illuminate when irradiated by a first light that includes light waves within a predetermined wavelength range [0033]. Burnell also teaches wherein the additive can include fluorescent materials [0143].
Burnell is considered analogous to the claimed invention since both are drawn to the photochromatic coating arts. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the coating as taught by Childress to include the coating as taught by Burnell since Burnell teaches the coating to be used within a vehicle for emergency illumination [0054] and such coating would prevent users from entering an area being sterilization by UV light as a visual indication of sterilization would be provided and this involves the combination of elements to yield a predictable result with a reasonable expectation of success. See MPEP 2143(I)(A).
Regarding claim 4, Modified Childress teaches the vehicle lavatory monument assembly of claim 1, wherein the first visual indication coating includes a second excitation additive, and wherein the second excitation additive is a first phosphorescing additive (Burnell, [0033]).
Regarding claim 5, Modified Childress teaches the vehicle lavatory monument assembly of claim 1, wherein the first excitation additive comprises a phosphorescing additive (Burnell, [0033]).
Regarding claim 6, Modified Childress teaches the vehicle lavatory monument assembly of claim 5, wherein the phosphorescing additive is present in the first visual indication coating in a predetermined pattern (Burnell, [0054], teaches an application of the coating to be used for signage which is understood to be a predetermined pattern of words and symbols).
Regarding claim 7, Modified Childress teaches the vehicle lavatory monument assembly of claim 6, wherein the predetermined pattern is a word (Burnell, [0054], teaches an application of the coating to be used for signage which is understood to be a predetermined pattern of words and symbols).
Regarding claim 9, Modified Childress teaches the vehicle lavatory monument assembly of claim 6, wherein the predetermined pattern (Burnell, [0054], coating can be used for signage which is understood to be a predetermined pattern of words and symbols) also includes a first fluorescing additive (Burnell, [0033]). Modified Childress does not teach wherein the predetermined pattern defines a predetermined pattern portion of the first visual indication coating.
However, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to rearrange the fluorescing coatings and predetermined patterns as taught by Modified Childress so that the predetermined pattern defines a predetermined pattern portion of the first visual indication coating, so that the signage and symbols have a greater visual contrasts and better inform a user that the coating is current being exposed to UV light and this involves the rearrangement of parts which has already been found to be obvious. See MPEP 2144.04 (VI)(C).
Claim 3 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Childress et al. (US 20160220716 A1) in view of Burnell (US 20030085383 A1) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Walck et al. (US 20060066508 A1) (cited in Applicant’s IDS dated 06/05/2023).
Regarding claim 3, Modified Childress teaches the vehicle lavatory monument assembly of claim 1, wherein the first fluorescing additive is configured to emit a first color (Burnell, [0143] and wherein pigments can be added to emit a variety of colors ([0086, [0176]), but does not teach wherein the first visual indication coating includes a second fluorescing additive, and wherein the second fluorescing additive is configured to emit a second color. One having ordinary skill in the art would be concerned with a user visually identifying what wavelength of UV radiation is being used to sterilize the lavatory, motivating one to turn towards Walck.
Walck teaches a display system, comprising a fluorescent material (understood to be a coating) having an absorption band carried on a support, wherein the support is a laminated article having a first ply [0040], having a first major surface (48) and a second major surface (50) with the fluorescent material (11) deposited on one of the major surfaces [0049]. Walck teaches wherein multiple fluorescent materials may be applied to the substrate by any conventional coating method to emit different colors when exposed to different wavelengths [0067].
Walck is considered analogous to the claimed invention since both are drawn to the photochromatic coating arts. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the first visual indication coating as taught by Modified Childress with the a second fluorescing additive as taught by Walck to provide a visual indication of what wavelength of UV light is being used to sterilize the laboratory (and prevent a user from entering the when visually seeing an indication that a more harmful wavelength of UV light is present) and since Walck teaches the selective use of fluorescent coatings configured to emit different colors when exposed to different wavelengths [0067] and this involves the combination of elements to yield a predictable result with a reasonable expectation of success. See MPEP 2143(I)(A).
Claim(s) 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Childress et al. (US 20160220716 A1) in view of Burnell (US 20030085383 A1) and Thiagarajan (US 20160287758 A1).
Regarding claim 8, Modified Childress teaches the vehicle lavatory monument assembly of claim 1, wherein the first visual indication coating includes an antimicrobial additive (Burnell, “the following descriptions are examples of materials that may be utilized to practice the present invention [0145] ... LUMILUX(R) Green N-PM 50090 long afterglow ZnS:Cu (Zinc Sulfide: copper) pigment [0172]; copper is well known in the art to have antimicrobial properties as exemplified by Thiagarajan in para [0047]).
Claim(s) 10 and 12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Childress et al. (US 20160220716 A1) in view of Burnell (US 20030085383 A1), and Thiagarajan (US 20160287758 A1).
Regarding claim 10, Childress teaches a vehicle lavatory monument assembly and disinfection system [0007] comprising:
an enclosure that includes a plurality of walls that cooperate to define a lavatory interior, wherein a door is positioned on one of the plurality of walls (Figs 2 and 3, depict the lavatory with 4 walls, and a door on one of the walls ([0009], [0035-0036]),
a first component positioned in the lavatory interior ([0033], reflective material 124 may be a reflective coating 125 applied to plurality of surfaces 128 inside lavatory [0036] = surfaces understood to be components), wherein the first component includes a first coating on an outer surface thereof [0033].
Childress does not teach wherein the first component includes a first visual indication coating on an outer surface thereof, wherein the first visual indication coating includes at least an antimicrobial additive, a first excitation additive, wherein the first excitation additive is configured to illuminate when irradiated by a first light that includes light waves within a predetermined wavelength range. One having ordinary skill in the art would be concerned with a alerting users to the presence of harmful UV light during lavatory sterilization, motivating one towards Burnell.
Burnell teaches a phosphorescent resin which may be used to coat an article (para [0032]), wherein the coating is a visual indication coating (coating has luminescent properties, [0035]), wherein the first visual indication coating includes at least a first excitation additive [0033], and wherein the first excitation additive is configured to illuminate when irradiated by a first light that includes light waves within a predetermined wavelength range [0033].
Burnell is considered analogous to the claimed invention since both are drawn to the photochromatic coating arts. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the coating as taught by Childress to include the coating as taught by Burnell since Burnell teaches the coating to be used within a vehicle for emergency illumination [0054] and such coating would indicate that an area is currently being exposed/has been exposed to UV light and signal to users if it is appropriate to enter said area and this involves the combination of elements to yield a predictable result with a reasonable expectation of success. See MPEP 2143(I)(A).
Accordingly, Modified Childress teaches a first fluorescing additive (Burnell, [0143]) and a first phosphorescing additive (Burnell, [0033]), wherein the first fluorescing additive and the first phosphorescing additive are configured to illuminate when irradiated by a first light that includes light waves within a predetermined wavelength range (Burnell, [0033], [0143]), wherein the phosphorescing additive is present in the first visual indication coating in a predetermined pattern (Burnell, [0054], teaches an application of the coating to be used for signage which is understood to be a predetermined pattern of words and symbols), and wherein the first fluorescing additive includes an antimicrobial additive (Burnell, “the following descriptions are examples of materials that may be utilized to practice the present invention [0145] ... LUMILUX(R) Green N-PM 50090 long afterglow ZnS:Cu (Zinc Sulfide: copper) pigment [0172]; copper is well known in the art to have antimicrobial properties as exemplified by Thiagarajan in para [0047]).
Regarding claim 12, Modified Childress teaches the vehicle lavatory monument assembly of claim 10, wherein the predetermined pattern (Burnell, [0054], coating can be used for signage which is understood to be a predetermined pattern of words and symbols) also includes a first fluorescing additive (Burnell, [0033]). Modified Childress does not teach wherein the predetermined pattern defines a predetermined pattern portion of the first visual indication coating.
However, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to rearrange the fluorescing coatings and predetermined patterns as taught by Modified Childress so that the predetermined pattern defines a predetermined pattern portion of the first visual indication coating, so that the signage and symbols have a greater visual contrast and better inform a user that the coating is current being exposed to UV light and this involves the rearrangement of parts which has already been found to be obvious. See MPEP 2144.04 (VI)(C).
Claim 11 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Childress et al. (US 20160220716 A1) in view of Burnell (US 20030085383 A1), and Thiagarajan (US 20160287758 A1), as applied to claim 10 above, and further in view of Walck et al. (US 20060066508 A1) (cited in Applicant’s IDS dated 06/05/2023).
Regarding claim 11, Modified Childress teaches the vehicle lavatory monument assembly of claim 10 wherein the first fluorescing additive is configured to emit a first color (Burnell, [0143] and wherein pigments can be added to emit a variety of colors ([0086, [0176]), but does not teach wherein the first visual indication coating includes a second fluorescing additive, and wherein the second fluorescing additive is configured to emit a second color. One having ordinary skill in the art would be concerned with a user visually identifying what wavelength of UV radiation is being used to sterilize the lavatory, motivating one to turn towards Walck.
Walck teaches a display system, comprising a fluorescent material (understood to be a coating) having an absorption band carried on a support, wherein the support is a laminated article having a first ply [0040], having a first major surface (48) and a second major surface (50) with the fluorescent material (11) deposited on one of the major surfaces [0049]. Walck teaches wherein multiple fluorescent materials may be applied to the substrate by any conventional coating method to emit different colors when exposed to different wavelengths [0067].
Walck is considered analogous to the claimed invention since both are drawn to the photochromatic coating arts. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the first visual indication coating as taught by Modified Childress with the a second fluorescing additive as taught by Walck to provide a visual indication of what wavelength of UV light is being used to sterilize the laboratory (and prevent a user from entering the when visually seeing an indication that a more harmful wavelength of UV light is present) and since Walck teaches the selective use of fluorescent coatings configured to emit different colors when exposed to different wavelengths [0067] and this involves the combination of elements to yield a predictable result with a reasonable expectation of success. See MPEP 2143(I)(A).
Response to Arguments
In the arguments presented on pages 8-9 of the amendment, filed 3/3/2026, the Applicant argues that one having ordinary skill in the art would not be motivated to add an internal luminescent coating to the system of Childress and instead be motivated to add an external indicator light with respect to the rejection(s) of claim(s) 1 under 35 U.S.C. 103.
This argument has been fully considered and is unpersuasive. The Examiner respectfully asserts that the because the system of Childress is intended to prevent exposure of humans to far-ultraviolet radiation (Childress, [0022]) and because Childress discloses a plurality of surfaces within a lava oratory interior are coated with a reflective material [0033] it would be well within the purview of ordinary skill in the art to modify the system as taught by Childress to include the fluorescent coating as taught by Burnell to provide visual indication of UV light being present and prevent users from entering the lavatory when the coating is glowing, which involves a combination of elements to yield a predictable result (visual indication) with a reasonable expectation of success. See MPEP 2143(I)(A).
In response to Applicant's argument that the purpose of the fluorescing dyes in the present application is not to alert users to the presence of harmful UV light, the Examiner respectfully asserts the fact that the inventor has recognized another advantage which would flow naturally from following the suggestion of the prior art cannot be the basis for patentability when the differences would otherwise be obvious. See Ex parte Obiaya, 227 USPQ 58, 60 (Bd. Pat. App. & Inter. 1985). However, the rejection has been withdrawn in view of the amendments and a new rejection has been made over Childress in view of Burnell-Jones. See rejection above.
In the arguments presented on pages 9-10 of the amendment, filed 3/3/2026, the Applicant argues that the phosphorescent coating taught by Burnell would not provide a visual indication to both crew and passengers that a surface has been recently sanitized as using a phosphorescing dye that glows after UV-light has been turned off would not alert users of an active UV light with respect to the rejection(s) of claim(s) 10 under 35 U.S.C. 103.
This argument has been fully considered and is unpersuasive. The Examiner notes that the features upon which applicant relies (i.e., a phosphorescing dye that “provides a visual indication to both crew and passengers that the surface or visual indication has been recently sanitized” are not recited in the rejected claim(s). Although the claims are interpreted in light of the specification, limitations from the specification are not read into the claims. See In re Van Geuns, 988 F.2d 1181, 26 USPQ2d 1057 (Fed. Cir. 1993). Claim 10 merely recites that “the first fluorescing addition and the first phosphorescing additive are configured to illuminate when irradiated by a first light” which is taught by Modified Childress. However, the rejection has been withdrawn in view of the amendments and a new rejection has been made over Childress in view of Burnell-Jones. See rejection above.
In the arguments presented on page 11 of the amendment, filed 3/3/2026, the Applicant argues that one having ordinary skill in the art would not be motivated to modify the system of Childress with the dye of Burnell since Burnell teaches a variety of photoluminescent pigments that remain glowing for hours, not approximately 60 seconds after the UV sanitation system cleans the surface as described in the instant specification with respect to the rejection(s) of claim(s) 10 under 35 U.S.C. 103.
This argument has been fully considered and is unpersuasive. The Examiner notes that the features upon which applicant relies (i.e., a phosphorescent additive that glows “approximately 60 seconds after the UV sanitation system cleans the surface”) are not recited in the rejected claim(s). Although the claims are interpreted in light of the specification, limitations from the specification are not read into the claims. See In re Van Geuns, 988 F.2d 1181, 26 USPQ2d 1057 (Fed. Cir. 1993).
In the arguments presented on pages 10-11 of the amendment, filed 3/3/2026, the Applicant argues that one having ordinary skill in the art would not understand the role of copper in the pigment ZnS:Cu in the disclosure of Burtnell to extend beyond the context of creating a photoluminescent effect, and more specifically, recognize the role of copper to be an antimicrobial additive as doing so would be based on hindsight reasoning with respect to the rejection(s) of claim(s) 10 under 35 U.S.C. 103.
This argument has been fully considered and is unpersuasive. The Examiner respectfully asserts that copper is widely known in the sterilization arts to have broad spectrum anti-microbial effects, as exemplified by the reference Thiagarajan (US 20160287758) and that one having ordinary skill in the art would recognize the photoluminescent ZnS:Cu pigment as an antimicrobial additive under broadest reasonable interpretation of the instant claim.
In response to applicant's argument that the Examiner's conclusion of obviousness is based upon improper hindsight reasoning, it must be recognized that any judgment on obviousness is in a sense necessarily a reconstruction based upon hindsight reasoning. But so long as it takes into account only knowledge which was within the level of ordinary skill at the time the claimed invention was made and does not include knowledge gleaned only from the applicant's disclosure, such a reconstruction is proper. See In re McLaughlin, 443 F.2d 1392, 170 USPQ 209 (CCPA 1971).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
US 20070231194 A1 teaches a system for sterilization comprising phosphorescent sterilization indicators that emit light to indicate when one or more objects were last sterilized
US 20230390428 A1 teaches a system for sterilization with phosphorescent coatings to indicate exposure to disinfecting light sources such as UV.
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 Nebyate Seged whose telephone number is (703)756-4611. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8-5:00 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.
/N.S.S./Examiner, Art Unit 1758
/MARIS R KESSEL/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1758
Prosecution Insights