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 with traverse of Group I, encompassing claims 1-11, in the reply filed on 12/31/2025 is acknowledged. The traversal is on the ground(s) that search and examination can be made without serous burden because Group I and III are directed to a single inventive concept and are clearly similar and overlapping. This is not found persuasive because
(i) this application is not a national stage application that shall relate to one invention only or to a group of inventions so linked as to form a single general inventive concept; and
(ii) as noted by the applicant, Group I and III are different inventions. Each invention requires a different field of search. Applicants’ attention is drawn to the fact that the inventions in Group I and III are independent and distinct and require a different field of search (e.g., searching different classes/subclasses or electronic resources, or employing different search queries); and/or the prior art applicable to one invention would not likely be applicable to another invention, which introduces additional search and examination burden.
The requirement is still deemed proper and is therefore made FINAL.
Thus, claims 1-11 are examined on the merits and claims 12-20 are withdrawn.
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.
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: “a trigger mechanism that activates a cleaning cycle by activating the one or more light sources” in claim 1.
A review of the specification shows that the following appears to be the corresponding structure described in the specification for the 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph limitation: a controller (paragraph [0046]).
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.
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.
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 1-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mounier et al (WO 2020/104734, see the attached machine translation) in view of Shatalov et al (PG-PUB US 2019/0299260).
Regarding claim 1, Mounier et al disclose an air treatment device for a seat (ABSTRACT & Figure 5, page 8). The apparatus comprises
(1) a flexible sheet 9 coupled to photocatalytic material 3 thereupon (i.e., a cover layer with a photocatalyst, Figures 1-3, & 7-9, page 6 & page 10); and
(2) a light device 7 in UV spectrum including flexible optical fiber ( i.e., light emitting fiber layer, Figures 1-3, & 7-9, page 5, page 6, & page 9).
Mounier does not teach a light diffusing layer between the flexible layer and the light device or a trigger mechanism for activate the light source. However, Shatalov et al disclose an air treatment device (ABSTRACT & paragraph [0005]). Shatalov teaches that the apparatus comprises (i) a UV light source 16 covered with a diffusive material 32 for uniformly irradiate the UV light to the treatment region and (ii) a control component 20 (i.e., a trigger mechanism) to activate the light source 16 for the treatment in the treatment region (Figures 1, 3a & 3B, paragraphs [0034] – [0036], & [0046] –[0047]). Therefore, it would be obvious for one having ordinary skill in the art to cover the light source with a diffusive material and to include a control unit as suggested by Shatalov in order to uniformly irradiate the UV light to the treatment region and activate the light source for the treatment within the device of Mounier.
As such, the diffusive material is provided between the flexible structure 9 and the light source having the optical fiber.
Regarding claim 2, Mounier teaches that a porous substrate 5 is provided to support the components and to attach the seat (Figure 5, pages 7-8).
Regarding claims 3 and 4, Mounier teaches that the porous substrate 5 may comprises silicone (page 7-8). Shatalov teaches that the components may be supported on a moldable silicone (paragraph [0026]).
Regarding claim 5, Shatalov teaches that a reflector 38 is provided for reflecting the UV light to the treatment region 12 (Figure 3C, paragraph [0049]). Therefore, it would be obvious for one having ordinary skill in the art to include a reflector as suggested by Shatalov in order to reflect the UV light to the treatment region within the device of Mounier/Shatalov.
Regarding claims 6 and 7, Shatalov teaches that the light source may be toward or away from the diffusive layer and the reflector (Figures 3).
Regarding claim 8, Shatalov teaches that the diffusive cover 32 comprises a first/upper layer and a second/lower layer to surround the light source 16 and the reflector is provided (Figures 3A, 3B & 3C).
Regarding claim 9, Shatalov teaches that a heat sink/heat extraction module may be attached to the light source 16 (paragraph [0036]).
Regarding claim 10, Mounier teaches that the light sources 7 are connected in series and to conductive circuit 90 through cables 11 (Figures 1-2, page 7). Shatalov teaches that the control component 20 is connected to the light source 16 for controlling the operation of the light source 16 (Figure 1, paragraph [0034]).
Claim 11 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mounier et al (WO 2020/104734) and Shatalov et al (PG-PUB US 2019/0299260) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Farnworth et al (PB-PUB US 2009/0151058).
Regarding claim 11, Shatalov teaches that the diffusive covering material may comprises fluoropolymer (paragraph [0047]), but Mounier/Shatalov does not teach the diffusive covering material comprising polyester. However, Farnworth et al disclose diffusive protective material (ABSTRACT). Farnworth teaches that the diffusive protective material may comprises fluoropolymer or polyester (paragraphs [0022] -[0023]). The teaching of Farnworth shows that polyester is an equivalent diffusive material. Therefore, it would be obvious for one having ordinary skill in the art to utilize a diffusive material comprising polyester because it is an art-recognized equivalent.
Furthermore, the claimed limitations are obvious because all the claimed elements were known in the prior art and one skilled in the art could have combined the elements as claimed by known methods with no change in their respective functions, and the combination yielded nothing more than predictable results (MPEP 2143A).
Double Patenting
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a nonstatutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13.
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer.
Claim 1 is rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1, 4, 10, and 21-23 of U.S. Patent No. 12,144,902. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the instant application claims an apparatus comprises substantially the same elements as that of the issued patent.
Conclusion
Claims 1-11 are rejected. Claims 12-20 are withdrawn.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to XIUYU TAI whose telephone number is (571)270-1855. The examiner can normally be reached Mon.-Fri. 9:00-5:00.
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, Luan Van can be reached at 571-272-8521. 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.
/XIUYU TAI/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1795