FINAL ACTION
Claim Status
Claims 1-20 are pending. Claims 4, 9, 11 and 13 are withdrawn as being directed to a non-elected species. Claims 1-3, 5-8, 10, 12 and 14-20 are up for examination.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed February 16th, 2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues that:
Jarausch is directed to systems and methods for light generation and use thereof. As disclosed in paragraph [0047]: "In embodiments, apparatus 100 may be implemented as a "retrofit" device that may be deployed in an existing space, e.g., in a shower, sauna, or gym without the need of providing an external power source or penetrating ceiling or wall structures."
It is clear that Jarausch is intended for use in a shower or sauna room and is typically implemented as a ceiling-mounted functional module. Jarausch, however, does not teach that the disclosed device possesses physical characteristics or visual integration features consistent with a "garnish." Accordingly, there is an inherent distinction between the claimed subject matter and Jarausch in terms of physical structure and installation context.
The Examiner would respectfully respond that:
A reasonable definition of “garnish” is a decoration; trimming, to decorate; trim, or to provide or supply with something ornamental (as set forth in dictionary.com). Jarausch specifically discloses that the structure is also utilized as an aesthetic structure. Jarausch specifically discloses in paragraph 107 that said structure has:
a spectral power distribution that mimics natural light and may vary with the time of day, time of year, and that may further mimic a particular location on earth. For example, during the day, the apparatus may deliver bright blue-rich light, while in early morning or late afternoon, the apparatus may deliver light that mimics a sunrise or sunset, respectively. In embodiments, different spectral power distributions may provide profoundly different aesthetic experiences for the user.
Because said light provides aesthetic effects to change the environment for a user to mimic certain natural settings such as sunrise and sunset, in which the structure is the ornament that provides aesthetic environments for said user, then said structure is an ornament and can be considered a garnish because said structure is trimming that decorates the surrounding environment for said user (not unlike lights on a Christmas tree). Therefore, it is respectfully submitted that the structured ornament of Jarausch can be considered a garnish.
Further, the Examiner maintains that the limitations of “garnish” bear no patentable significance in determining patentably for the claim. As noted in 2111.02 [II] of The Manual of Patent Examining Procedures specifically states that:
If the body of a claim fully and intrinsically sets forth all of the limitations of the claimed invention, and the preamble merely states, for example, the purpose or intended use of the invention, rather than any distinct definition of any of the claimed invention’s limitations, then the preamble is not considered a limitation and is of no significance to claim construction. Pitney Bowes, Inc. v. Hewlett-Packard Co., 182 F.3d 1298, 1305, 51 USPQ2d 1161, 1165 (Fed. Cir. 1999). See also Rowe v. Dror, 112 F.3d 473, 478, 42 USPQ2d 1550, 1553 (Fed. Cir. 1997) ("where a patentee defines a structurally complete invention in the claim body and uses the preamble only to state a purpose or intended use for the invention, the preamble is not a claim limitation")
Such is the case in this situation for the limitation of “garnish”. Because of the reasons set forth above, this response is not persuasive.
The Applicant also argues that:
Jarausch fails to disclose “a heat-dissipating layer, arranged below the circuit board.” As disclosed in paragraph [0049] of Jarausch: "In embodiments, as described in greater detail below, controller 104 may access and execute predetermined light recipes to recreate or simulate the spectral distribution of sunlight and/or create custom unnatural light exposures to achieve certain therapeutic, aesthetic, and/or disinfection benefits, while minimizing adverse effects of natural sunlight."
Jarausch focuses on simulating the spectral distribution of sunlight, and the arrangement of its heat-sink (111) and optical cavity (102) is intended to manage the heat of a high-power lighting system, rather than to integrate a UV sterilization function into a thin and flexible vehicle interior as in the present application.
It is clear that Jarausch fails to teach the claimed "a heat-dissipating layer, arranged below the circuit board" as recited in claim 1.
The Examiner would respectfully contend that:
It appears Applicant is reading limitations into the claim that are not currently claimed. The limitations simply disclose, “a heat dissipating layer, arranged below the circuit board”. Jarausch plainly states that a light source is on a circuit board (101) in paragraph 43, and that numeral 111 is a heat-sink, which is certainly a heat dissipating layer (paragraph 66). Dependent upon the orientation of said structure, heat dissipating layer (111) will be arranged below circuit board (part of structure 101). As such, Jarausch clearly discloses, “a heat dissipating layer (111), arranged below the circuit board (part of structure 101)”. Therefore, this response is not persuasive.
The Applicant further argues that:
Citing In re Seid, 161 F.2d 73, 73 USPQ 431 (CCPA 1947), the Examiner indicates that the claimed limitation of the matrix layer being black in color is not considered to be patentably distinct from the disclosed references of Jarausch in view of Shi.
In the present application, the black matrix layer not only reduces the visibility of the light-emitting module but is also required to possess the specific physical property of having a UVC transmittance greater than 50%. This feature imparts a functional effect directly related to the UV sterilization capability of the device and therefore cannot be characterized as merely decorative. Accordingly, the claimed black matrix layer provides a substantive and patentably significant distinction over the prior art.
The Examiner would respectfully respond that:
The Examiner would reiterate that, as set forth in the Office Action filed on December 2nd, 2025, paragraph 70 of Applicant’s instant specification notes that the black matrix layer can be many other colors such as blue, green, gray and the like as required. Thus, the specific coloring of black does not appear to be a necessary and specifically integral part of the novelty of the invention because Applicant specifically discloses that said matrix layer can be many different colors as required. To the Applicant’s assertion that the matrix layer being black to “reduce visibility of the light-emitting module”, such would appear to be common sense to one of ordinary skill that coloring a component “black” would reduce visibility of said component. Furthermore, to the Applicant’s declaration that said black matrix layer, “is also required to possess the specific physical property of having a UVC transmittance greater than 50%”, these are limitations that are not claimed. Therefore, because the UVC transmittance is not claimed, Applicant’s own disclosure denotes that many other colors may be utilized for said matrix layer, and the only limitations claimed are for the matrix layer to be black; then the limitations themselves are purely ornamental and cannot be relied upon to patentably distinguish the claimed invention from the prior art (See In re Seid, 161 F.2d, 73 USPQ 431 (CCPA 1947)). Therefore, this response is not persuasive because the limitations as claimed are purely ornamental as currently set forth.
As such, this rejection is proper and remains as noted below.
Applicant continues to argue that:
As described in technical field of Shi: "The utility model relates to an ultraviolet sterilizing device, especially a hand-held ultraviolet sterilizing device."
It is clear that Shi disclosed a hand-held ultraviolet sterilizing device. PHOSITA would have no motivation to incorporate the lens mounting seat 184 and the sealing gasket 186 from a hand-held device into the large-scale, fixed indoor system disclosed in Jarausch (as described in paragraph [0042] of Jarausch: "apparatus 100 may be removably attached to ceiling or wall 113.").
Shi's disclosure is therefore not combinable with Jarausch to teach or suggest the claimed black matrix layer. Accordingly, the claimed invention provides a functional and patentably significant distinction over the prior art.
The Examiner would respectfully respond that:
Both Jarausch and Shi are directed to ultraviolet sterilization utilizing light emitting diodes (page 4 of Shi; Abstract and Figure 1 of Jarausch). Further, a single light structure on a wall (See Figures 5A & 5C of Jarausch) is hardly a “large-scale, fixed indoor system” as opined by the Applicant. Because both are directed to ultraviolet sterilization utilizing light emitting diodes on relatively small structural components, then said both references of Jarausch and Shi are in the same field of art, in which one of ordinary skill would look to either to make improvements upon the other. Thus, Shi’s disclosure is combinable with Jarausch, and this response is not persuasive.
Applicant also argues that:
Lee fails to disclose, “a self-sterilizing garnish structure, arranged in the ride space and on an inner wall of the vehicle body.”
It is clear that Lee disclosed a movable UV sterilization apparatus. It is formed to be movable upwards and downwards from overhead console. Further, the sterilization performance of the sterilization apparatus depends on the distance to the target to be sterilized.
Integrating Lee's "movable UV sterilization apparatus" into the inner wall of the vehicle body, as in the present application, would undermine Lee's concept of controlling the distance through physical movement. Accordingly, PHOSITA would regard the present application as entirely different from Lee. Therefore, Lee fails to disclose "a self-sterilizing garnish structure, arranged in the ride space and on an inner wall of the vehicle body"
The Examiner would respectfully respond that:
Lee clearly discloses that the structure (1) is mounted in/on the overhead console (OC) of the vehicle, which said overhead console (OC) is a wall in the vehicle as shown in Figure 2. Thus, Lee clearly discloses a structure (1) arranged in the ride space (Figure 2) and on an inner wall of the vehicle body (Figure 2) because the overhead console is an inner wall of the vehicle body (See Figure 2; paragraph 59). To the connotation by the Applicant that Lee’s structure is movable, said structure is still mounted to the inner wall (i.e., overhead console) of the vehicle as set forth in paragraph 60 of Lee. Therefore, it is immaterial that components of the structure can ascend and descend (i.e., movable as stated by the Applicant), because said structure is still mounted to an inner wall of the vehicle (paragraph 60). As such, Lee clearly meets the limitations of “a self-sterilizing garnish structure (1), arranged in the ride space (V) and on an inner wall (i.e., overhead console OC) of the vehicle body” as shown in Figure 2 (paragraph 59).
Thus, this response is not persuasive as well.
Applicant finishes by arguing that:
Lee fails to disclose, “a light source, comprising a plurality of light-emitting modules being on the circuit board and arranged between the circuit board and the light-transmitting cover".
Citing In re Harza, 274 F.2d 669, 124 USPQ 378 (CCPA 1960), the Examiner indicates that the mere claiming of a plurality of light-emitting modules over Lee appearing to only disclose a single light-emitting module does not create a patentable distinction over Lee. Applicant respectfully disagrees.
Described in paragraph [0081] of the present application: "the self-sterilizing garnish structure 100 or the self-sterilizing vehicle 200 not only can sterilize the surface of the self-sterilizing garnish structure 100, but also can irradiate and sterilize the inner space (that is, the ride space 220 and/or the interior) of the vehicle body 210 in a long distance and/or in a large range." Thus, it is clear that in the present application, the self-sterilizing vehicle can irradiate and sterilize in a large range.
However, the UV sterilization apparatus of Lee can only move upwards and downwards from overhead console. Furthermore, while Lee provides only point-source irradiation, the self- sterilizing vehicle of the present application is capable of irradiating a large area, achieving an unexpected result.
Therefore, Lee fails to disclose "a light source, comprising a plurality of light-emitting modules being on the circuit board and arranged between the circuit board and the light- transmitting cover."
The Examiner would respectfully contend that:
The duplication of light source (302) of Lee will create a structure that is capable of irradiating a large area. Furthermore, the duplication of the entire structure (1) of Lee will certainly create a system that can irradiate and sterilize the inner space of the ride space and/or the interior of the vehicle body (V) in a long distance and/or in a large range." As such, the mere claiming of a plurality of light-emitting modules over Lee appearing to only disclose a single light-emitting module does not create a patentable distinction over Lee. See In re Harza, 274, F.2d 669, 124 USPQ 378 (CCPA 1960). Furthermore, the Applicant has shown no evidence of an unexpected result, and a review of the instant specification appears to show none.
Therefore, duplicating Lee’s light source (302) and/or Lee’s entire garnish structure (thus also duplicating said light source), will be able irradiate and sterilize the inner space of the ride space and/or the interior of the vehicle body (V) in a long distance and/or in a large range; wherein the courts have held that a mere duplication of parts for a multiplied effect has no patentable significance unless a new and unexpected result is produced. See In re Harza, 274, F.2d 669, 124 USPQ 378 (CCPA 1960).
As such, the rejection is proper, and this response is not persuasive.
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.
Claims 1-14 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 1 recites the limitation "the ride space" in line 2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claims 2-14 are rejected merely due to their dependency from claim 1.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1, 2 and 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Jarausch (U.S. Publication No. 2022/0016437).
Jarausch discloses a self-sterilizing garnish structure, which is applicable to a vehicle with the ride space (Abstract; Figures 1-3), comprising:
A light-transmitting cover (103) as set forth in paragraph 76;
A circuit board (paragraph 43), arranged below the light-transmitting cover (Figures 1A & 2C;
A light source (101), comprising a plurality of light-emitting modules being on the circuit board and arranged between the circuit board and the light-transmitting cover (103) as set forth in paragraphs 43, 44, 53 and 57 (Figures 1A, 1C and 2C);
Wherein a light-outgoing surface of the light source faces the light-transmitting cover (103), and is configured to emit ultraviolet (UV) toward the light-transmitting cover (paragraphs 53 & 56; Figures 1A, 1C and 2C); and
A heat-dissipating layer (111), arranged below the circuit board as shown in Figure 1C (paragraphs 42 and 66).
Concerning claim 2, Jarausch also discloses a lens layer arranged between the light-transmitting cover (103) and the light source (101) as shown in Figures 3D & 3F (paragraphs 77 & 79).
Regarding claim 14, Jarausch further discloses that the light transmitting cover (103), the circuit board, the heat-dissipating layer (111) and the lens layer are flexible (paragraph 75). Further, it is noted that the term “flexible” is sufficiently broad that the materials of the self-sterilizing garnish structure of Jarausch can be considered “flexible”.
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.
Claims 15 and 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Jarausch (U.S. Publication No. 2022/0016437) in view of Shi (Document Identification No. CN 216703003 U).
It is first noted that the English Translation of Shi provided with this Office Action and obtained by the United States Patent Office’s search database SEARCH will be referenced herein.
Concerning claims 15 & 16, Jarausch discloses a self-sterilizing garnish structure (Abstract; Figures 1-3), comprising:
A light-transmitting cover (103) as set forth in paragraph 76;
A circuit board (paragraph 43), arranged below the light-transmitting cover (Figures 1A & 2C;
A light source (101), comprising a plurality of light-emitting modules being on the circuit board and arranged between the circuit board and the light-transmitting cover (103) as set forth in paragraphs 43, 44, 53 and 57 (Figures 1A, 1C and 2C);
Wherein a light-outgoing surface of the light source faces the light-transmitting cover (103), and is configured to emit ultraviolet (UV) toward the light-transmitting cover (paragraphs 53 & 56; Figures 1A, 1C and 2C); and
A heat-dissipating layer (111), arranged below the circuit board as shown in Figure 1C (paragraphs 42 and 66).
Jarausch does not appear to disclose a black matrix layer, arranged on the circuit board, wherein the plurality of light-emitting modules are arranged in a plurality of openings extending through the black matrix layer such that at least one of the plurality of light-emitting modules is arranged in each of the openings. Shi discloses a self-sterilizing garnish structure that includes a circuit board substrate (182), a light source, comprising a plurality of light emitting modules (183/185) being on the circuit board substrate (page 4, lines 17-30), and a heat-dissipating layer (181) arranged below the circuit board substrate (182) as shown in Figures 3 & 4 (page 4, lines 15-25). The reference continues to disclose a matrix layer (184/186), arranged on the circuit board substrate (182), wherein the plurality of light-emitting modules (183/185) are arranged in a plurality of openings extending through the matrix layer such that at least one of the plurality of light-emitting modules (183/185) is arranged in each of the openings (Figures 3 & 4) in order to direct the emitted UV light in the desired direction (page 4, lines 15-35). As such, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide the structure of Jarausch with a matrix layer arranged on the circuit board, wherein the plurality of light-emitting modules are arranged in a plurality of openings extending through the matrix layer such that at least one of the plurality of light-emitting modules is arranged in each of the openings in order to direct the emitted UV light in the desired direction as exemplified by Shi.
Regarding the limitations of the matrix layer being a black matrix layer, it is first noted that the Applicant has indicated in paragraph 70 of the printed publication that the matrix layer can be other colors such as blue, green, gray and the like as required. As such, in In re Seid, 161 F.2d, 73 USPQ 431 (CCPA 1947), The court found that matters relating to ornamentation only which have no mechanical function cannot be relied upon to patentably distinguish the claimed invention from the prior art. Accordingly, the claimed limitation of the matrix layer being black in color is not considered to be patentably distinct from the disclosed references of Jarausch in view of Shi.
Therefore, claims 15 & 16 are not patentable over Jarausch in view of Shi.
Claim 20 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lee (U.S. Publication No. 2022/0401597).
Lee discloses a self-sterilizing vehicle (paragraph 59), comprising:
A vehicle body (V), provided with a ride space therein (Figure 2); and
A self-sterilizing garnish structure (1), arranged in the ride space and on an inner wall of the vehicle body (paragraph 59), wherein the self-sterilizing garnish structure comprises:
a light-transmitting cover (314) as set forth in paragraphs 73-77;
A circuit board (312), arranged below the light-transmitting cover (314) as shown in Figures 7, 8 and 11 (paragraphs 71-73);
A light source (302), comprising a light-emitting module (paragraph 67) being on the circuit board (312) and arranged between the circuit board (312) and the light-transmitting cover (314), wherein a light-outgoing surface of the light source faces the light-transmitting cover (314), and is configured to emit ultraviolet (UV) toward the light-transmitting cover (314) as shown in Figures 11A & 11B (paragraphs 71 & 72); and
A heat-dissipating layer (310), arranged below the circuit board (312) as shown in Figures 11A & 11B (paragraph 71).
Lee does not appear to disclose that the light source comprises a plurality of light-emitting modules however. Nonetheless, The Manual of Patent Examining Procedures discloses that in In re Harza, 274, F.2d 669, 124 USPQ 378 (CCPA 1960), a mere duplication of parts for a multiplied effect has no patentable significance unless a new and unexpected result is produced (See MPEP 2144.04). As such, the mere claiming of a plurality of light-emitting modules over Lee appearing to only disclose a single light-emitting module does not create a patentable distinction over Lee. Therefore, claim 20 is not patentable and stands rejected over Lee.
Allowable Subject Matter
Should the Applicant overcome the 35 U.S.C. 112(b) rejection noted above, then claims 3, 5-8, 10 and 12 would be merely 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. Claims 17-19 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.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 KEVIN C JOYNER whose telephone number is (571)272-2709. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 8:00AM-4:30PM.
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, MICHAEL MARCHESCHI can be reached at (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 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.
/KEVIN JOYNER/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1799
Prosecution Insights