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
1. Applicant’s election without traverse of Species I, claims 1-19 in the reply filed on 12/22/25 is acknowledged. Claim 20, directed to non-elected Species II has been canceled by the amendment filed 12/22/25. New claim 21 reads on elected Species I and therefore, claims 1-19 and 21 are pending for examination.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
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.
2. Claims 18 and 19 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.
Claim 18 recites the limitation "the user identification and authentication " in line 2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. It appears as though this claim is intended to depend from claim 17.
Claim 19 depends from claim 18 and is also rejected for at least the reasons set forth above.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
3. 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.
4. Claim(s) 1-3, 5-6, 16, and 21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable Bonutti et al. (US 2015/0209457 A1) (hereafter “Bonutti”) in view of Randers-Pehrson et al. (US 2018/0169279 A1) (hereafter “Randers”).
Regarding claims 1-3, 16, and 21, Bonutti discloses (para [0048]-[0049] a UV-C sanitizing apparatus (401) comprising: (a) a main body (housing 402) defining an opening configured for receiving an item to be exposed to UV-C light emission (see figure 8); (b) one or more UV-C light emitting diodes (LEDs) (upper and lower UVC LEDs) configured to emit UV-C light to form a field for treatment, the LEDs positioned on lower and upper internal surfaces of the main body (see figure 8 – UVC LEDs 404 positioned above and below the treatment area); (c) a circuit board coupled to the LEDs and a power source (battery) operable to deliver power to the LED unit (see para [0028]-[0031]; figures 2-3; LEDs coupled to a circuit board and connected to a battery that supplies power); wherein the plurality of LEDs (404) emit UVC light in a wavelength between 100-400nm (see para [0027]). Bonutti does not explicitly disclose that the LEDs are configured to emit light at a wavelength between 205-230 nm, or 205nm-210nm.
However, Randers discloses a sterilization system that utilizes UV lamps emitting UVC light in a wavelength range of 205-210 nm in order to sterilize and kill viruses on surfaces of objects without damaging human skin or tissue (see para [0004]-[0009]). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the apparatus of Bonutti and configure the UVC LEDs to emit UV light at a specific wavelength range of 205-210nm in order to sterilize objects and kill viruses on the surface of the objects such as a hands without harming human cells as taught by Randers.
Regarding claims 5, Bonutti discloses that the UVC light is configured to disinfect a surface of gloves (see para [0049]; figure 8).
Regarding claim 6, Bonutti discloses that the UVC light is sufficient to disinfect ocular tissue (see para [100]).
5. Claim(s) 4 and 8-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bonutti in view of Randers as applied to claim 1, and further in view of Ogiwara et al. (JP 2010024572 A – English translation).
Regarding claim 4, Bonutti in view of Randers is set forth above with regards to claim 1, but Bonutti does not appear to disclose a power button positioned along the outside of the housing as claimed. Ogiwara et al. discloses a glove sterilization apparatus that utilizes UV lights to disinfect gloves that are inserted into the apparatus. The apparatus includes an on/off power switch as part of input unit (38b) wherein the switch enables power to be provided to the UV lights (see figures 8-9; English translation).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to further modify the apparatus of Bonutti to include an on/off power switch on the outside of the device for supplying power to the UV lights as taught by Ogiwara et al. in order to enable the user to physical control whether or not power is supplied to the UV LEDs.
Regarding claims 8-10, Bonutti in view of Randers is set forth above with regards to claim 1 and further discloses UV light sources positioned on upper and lower surfaces of the main body (see figure 8 – UVC LEDs 404 positioned above and below the treatment area, but Bonutti does not appear to disclose a partition as claimed. Ogiwara et al. discloses a glove sterilization apparatus that includes a partition wall (32) that separates the chamber into 2 sections for a user to insert their gloves. The partition (32) helps prevent light leakage from the device (see English translation; figure 4).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to further modify the apparatus of Bonutti to include a partition as arranged as claimed in order to prevent UV light leakage from the device as taught by Ogiwara et al. The UV LEDs (404) provided on the top and bottom are configured to sanitize the top and bottom sides of an item simultaneously.
6. Claim(s) 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bonutti in view of Randers as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Li et al. (CN 101366956 A – English translation) (hereafter “Li”).
Bonutti in view of Randers is set froth above with regards to claim 1 but Bonutti does not appear to disclose one or more visible colored or fluorescent lights configured to activate when the apparatus turns on as an indication that the apparatus is emitting UV-C light.
Li discloses a UV disinfection device that includes an indicator lamp (56) located on the housing that when lit indicates that the UV lamp is in operation (see figure 5; English translation). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to further modify the apparatus of Bonutti to include an indicator light on the surface of the apparatus that is configured to activate when the UV LEDs are operating thus providing an indication to the user that UVC light is being emitted as taught by Li.
7. Claim(s) 17-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bonutti in view of Randers as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Jarvis et al. (US 2022/0080060 A1) (hereafter “Jarvis”).
Bonutti in view of Randers is set forth above with regards to claim 1, but does not appear to disclose a user identification system as recited in claims 17-18.
Jarvis discloses a disinfection system (para [0015], [0138]-[0139]) that utilizes a user identification system for monitoring when a user is being disinfected by the system. The identification system uses biometric identification (para [0017], [0024]) to track compliance of a user and further includes a wireless communication module (para [0154]) that is used to track the identity of the user (see para [0017]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to further modify the apparatus of Bonutti to include a user identification system as recited in the present claims in order to track the compliance of a user in a disinfection process as taught by Jarvis.
8. Claim(s) 15 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bonutti in view of Randers as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Flaherty et al. (US 2022/0062454 A1).
Bonuttti in view of Randers is set forth above with regards to claim 1, however the combination does not teach a UV-C light element configured for output of UVC light at a wavelength of 222nm.
Flaherty disclose a UV hand sanitizer that includes UVC lights that emit light at a wavelength of 222 nm (see para [0011]). It is taught by UV light at a wavelength of 222nm prevents damage to human tissue (see para [0044] and [0050]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to further modify the apparatus Bonutti and emit UVC light at a wavelength of 222nm in order to sterilize human skin and tissue without damaging the human tissue as taught by Flaherty et al.
9. Claim(s) 1-2 and 11-12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over IN (KR 20090096538 A – English translation) in view of Randers (US 2018/0169279 A1).
Regarding claims 1 and 2, IN discloses a UV-C sanitizing apparatus (figures 1-2) comprising:(a) a main body (housing 10) defining an opening (hand insertion holes 12) configured for receiving an item to be exposed to UV-C light emission; (b) one or more UV-C elements (disinfecting UV lamps 20) configured to emit UV-C light to form a field for treatment (UV lamps emit both long and short wavelengths – See translation), the UV-C elements (20) positioned within the main body; and(c) a circuit board coupled to the UV-C elements and a power source operable to deliver power to the UV-C elements (IN discloses that the device includes an electronic controller for operation of the UV lamps and includes a timer – thus inherently teaching a power source and a circuit board). IN does not explicitly disclose that the plurality of UV-C elements are configured to emit light at a wavelength between 205 and 230 nm.
However, Randers discloses a sterilization system that utilizes UV lamps emitting UVC light in a wavelength range of 205-210 nm in order to sterilize and kill viruses on surfaces of objects without damaging human skin or tissue (see para [0004]-[0009]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the apparatus of IN and configure the UVC LEDs to emit UV light at a specific wavelength range of 205-210nm in order to sterilize objects and kill viruses on the surface of the objects such as a hand without harming human cells as taught by Randers.
Regarding claims 11 and 12, IN discloses (see figure 1 and English translation) that the UV lamps (20) are cylindrical and emit light in all directions (360 degrees). IN further discloses that the device includes a rotating reflector (72) that directs the UV light to the hands being disinfected (see English translation).
Double Patenting
10. 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.
11. Claims 1-19 and 21 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-3, 5-15, and 18-20 of U.S. Patent No. 12,263,257. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because claims 1-3, 5-15, and 18-20 of U.S. Patent No. 12,263,257 fully encompass the subject matter of presently pending claims 1-19 and 21.
Allowable Subject Matter
12. Claims 13-14 are 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, as well as overcome the double patenting rejection.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter: the prior art, alone or in combination, fails to teach or fairly suggest, in the claimed environment, an apparatus comprising a sensor and a controller having a microprocessor configured to adjust dosing based on item size and time of exposure, as recited in claim 13. Claim 14 depends from claim 13 and therefore is allowable for at least the reasons stated above with regards to claim 13.
13. Claim 19 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, as well as overcome the double patenting rejection, set forth in this Office action and to include 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 prior art, alone or in combination, fails to teach or fairly suggest, in the claimed environment, wherein the identification and authentication of a user determines dosing of time and exposure intensity of UV-C light and wherein the dosing determination is configured to analyze biometric, pathogen, and dosing data to determine a daily exposure threshold such that daily exposure will not exceed regulatory limits.
Conclusion
14. 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