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 .
DETAILED ACTION
Claim Objections
Claims 1-20 are objected to because of the following informalities:
in line 1 of Claim 1, insert --an-- before “induction”;
in line 5 of Claim 1, insert --ultraviolet-- before “sterilization”;
in line 8 of Claim 1, insert --a-- before “turn-off”;
in line 12 of Claim 1, delete “1ms-8ms” and insert --1 ms – 8 ms--;
in line 20 of Claim 1, delete “by the infrared pulse testing circuit”;
in line 2 of Claim 2,
delete “for”,
delete “in” and insert --for--;
in line 3 of Claim 2, delete “in” and insert --during--;
in line 7 of Claim 3, delete “is” before “controlled”;
in line 8 of Claim 4, insert --the-- before “lid”;
in line 2 of Claim 5, insert --of the ultraviolet sterilization and deodorization circuit-- after both instances of “cycle”;
in line 3 of Claim 6,
insert --a-- before “turn-off”,
insert --an-- before “ultraviolet”;
in line 7 of Claim 6, delete “1ms-8ms” and insert --1 ms – 8 ms--;
in line 15 of Claim 6, delete “by the infrared pulse testing circuit”;
in line 2 of Claim 7,
delete “for”,
delete “in” and insert --for--;
in line 3 of Claim 7, delete “in” and insert --during--;
in line 7 of Claim 8, delete “is” before “controlled”;
in line 7 of Claim 9, delete “is” before “controlled”;
in line 8 of Claim 10, insert --the-- before “lid”;
in line 8 of Claim 11, insert --the-- before “lid”;
in line 8 of Claim 12, insert --the-- before “lid”;
in line 8 of Claim 13, insert --the-- before “lid”.
Appropriate correction is required.
Applicant is advised that should claim 2 be found allowable, claim 7 will be objected to under 37 CFR 1.75 as being a substantial duplicate thereof. When two claims in an application are duplicates or else are so close in content that they both cover the same thing, despite a slight difference in wording, it is proper after allowing one claim to object to the other as being a substantial duplicate of the allowed claim. See MPEP § 608.01(m).
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 1-20 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.
In claim 1, it is not clear what the limitation “which” in line 2 is attempting to point to.
In Claim 1, it is not clear what the limitation “each the working time” in line 12 is attempting to set forth.
In Claim 1, it is not clear what the limitation “and standby” in line 13 is attempting to set forth.
In Claim 1, it is not clear to what the limitation “the working cycle” in line 15 is attempting to point to, whether to a working cycle of the ultraviolet sterilization and deodorization circuit or of the infrared pulse testing circuit.
In Claim 1, it is not clear to what the limitation “to make the ultraviolet sterilization and deodorization circuit in a temporary…” in line 17 is attempting to set forth.
In Claim 1, it is not clear what the limitations “wherein the step S3 is returned” in line 25 and “…is ended” in line 26 are attempting to indicate.
In Claim 3, it is not clear what the limitation “when the infrared pulse testing circuit works” in lines 2-3 is attempting to set forth, whether working of the infrared pulse testing circuit is conditional (and it is not clear what is such condition) or when such work by the infrared pulse testing circuit is.
Claim 3 recites the limitation "the approaching" in line 3. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 3 recites the limitation "the object" in line 3. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
In Claim 3, it is not clear how “the approaching of the object” can be “induced through the emitted infrared detection pulses reflected…” as set forth in lines 3-4.
Claim 3 recites the limitation "the turn-off state" in line 7. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
In Claim 3, it is not clear what “the working cycle temporarily stops to time” (in line 8) is attempting to set forth, particularly as to what is being timed.
Claim 4 recites the limitation "the turn-off state" in line 2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
In Claim 4, it is not clear how “the emitted infrared detection pulses induce the approaching of the object” in lines 3-4.
Claim 4 recites the limitation "the approaching" in line 3. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 4 recites the limitation "the object" in lines 3-4. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 4 recites the limitation "the surface" in line 4. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 4 recites the limitation "the signal" in line 5. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
In Claim 4, it is not clear what the limitation “the turn-off cycle temporarily stops to time” in line 6 is attempting to set forth, particularly as to what is being timed.
In Claim 4, it is not clear what the limitation “the turn-off cycle in the microcontroller controller continues timing” in lines 8-9 is attempting to set forth, where it is not clear as to whether/how the turn-off cycle is “in the microcomputer controller” and how “the turn-off cycle” by itself can time itself.
In Claim 6, it is not clear what the limitation “each the working time” in lines 6-7 is attempting to set forth.
In Claim 6, it is not clear what the limitation “and standby” in line 8 is attempting to set forth.
In Claim 6, it is not clear what the limitations “wherein the step S3 is returned” in line 20 and “…is ended” in line 21 are attempting to indicate.
In Claim 6, it is not clear what the limitation “the cycle start timing” in line 33 is attempting to point to, particularly it is not clear what cycle the limitation “the cycle” is attempting to set forth and what “start timing” is being referred to.
Claim 6 recites the limitation "the turn-off cycle timer" in line 33. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
In Claim 8, it is not clear what the limitation “when the infrared pulse testing circuit works” in lines 2-3 is attempting to set forth, whether working of the infrared pulse testing circuit is conditional (and it is not clear what is such condition) or when such work by the infrared pulse testing circuit is.
Claim 8 recites the limitation "the approaching" in line 3. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 8 recites the limitation "the object" in line 3. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
In Claim 8, it is not clear how “the approaching of the object” can be “induced through the emitted infrared detection pulses reflected…” as set forth in lines 3-4.
Claim 8 recites the limitation "the turn-off state" in line 7. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
In Claim 8, it is not clear what “the working cycle temporarily stops to time” (in line 8) is attempting to set forth, particularly as to what is being timed.
Claim 8 recites the limitation "the can lid driving circuit" in line 9. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
In Claim 9, it is not clear what the limitation “when the infrared pulse testing circuit works” in lines 2-3 is attempting to set forth, whether working of the infrared pulse testing circuit is conditional (and it is not clear what is such condition) or when such work by the infrared pulse testing circuit is.
Claim 9 recites the limitation "the approaching" in line 3. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 9 recites the limitation "the object" in line 3. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
In Claim 9, it is not clear how “the approaching of the object” can be “induced through the emitted infrared detection pulses reflected…” as set forth in lines 3-4.
Claim 9 recites the limitation "the turn-off state" in line 7. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
In Claim 9, it is not clear what “the working cycle temporarily stops to time” (in line 8) is attempting to set forth, particularly as to what is being timed.
Claim 10 recites the limitation "the turn-off state" in line 2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
In Claim 10, it is not clear how “the emitted infrared detection pulses induce the approaching of the object” in lines 3-4.
Claim 10 recites the limitation "the approaching" in line 3. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 10 recites the limitation "the object" in lines 3-4. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 10 recites the limitation "the surface" in line 4. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 10 recites the limitation "the signal" in line 5. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
In Claim 10, it is not clear what the limitation “the turn-off cycle temporarily stops to time” in line 6 is attempting to set forth, particularly as to what is being timed.
Claim 10 recites the limitation "the can lid driving circuit" in line 7. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
In Claim 10, it is not clear what the limitation “the turn-off cycle in the microcontroller controller continues timing” in lines 8-9 is attempting to set forth, where it is not clear as to whether/how the turn-off cycle is “in the microcomputer controller” and how “the turn-off cycle” by itself can time itself.
Claim 11 recites the limitation "the turn-off state" in line 2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
In Claim 11, it is not clear how “the emitted infrared detection pulses induce the approaching of the object” in lines 3-4.
Claim 11 recites the limitation "the approaching" in line 3. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 11 recites the limitation "the object" in lines 3-4. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 11 recites the limitation "the surface" in line 4. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 11 recites the limitation "the signal" in line 5. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
In Claim 11,. it is not clear what the limitation “the turn-off cycle temporarily stops to time” in line 6 is attempting to set forth, particularly as to what is being timed.
In Claim 11, it is not clear what the limitation “the turn-off cycle in the microcontroller controller continues timing” in lines 8-9 is attempting to set forth, where it is not clear as to whether/how the turn-off cycle is “in the microcomputer controller” and how “the turn-off cycle” by itself can time itself.
In Claim 12, it is not clear how “the emitted infrared detection pulses” can “induce the approaching of the object…” as set forth in lines 3-4.
In Claim 12, it is not clear to which one of “the signals” of the parent claim 8 that the limitation “the signal” in line 5 is attempting to point to.
In Claim 12, it is not clear what the limitation “the turn-off cycle temporarily stops to time” in line 6 is attempting to set forth, particularly as to what is being timed
In Claim 12, it is not clear what the limitation “the turn-off cycle in the microcontroller controller continues timing” in lines 8-9 is attempting to set forth, where it is not clear as to whether/how the turn-off cycle is “in the microcomputer controller” and how “the turn-off cycle” by itself can time itself.
In Claim 13, it is not clear how “the emitted infrared detection pulses” can “induce the approaching of the object…” as set forth in lines 3-4.
In Claim 13, it is not clear to which one of “the signals” that the limitation “the signal” in line 5 is attempting to point to.
In Claim 13, it is not clear what the limitation “the turn-off cycle temporarily stops to time” in line 6 is attempting to set forth, particularly as to what is being timed
In Claim 13, it is not clear what the limitation “the turn-off cycle in the microcontroller controller continues timing” in lines 8-9 is attempting to set forth, where it is not clear as to whether/how the turn-off cycle is “in the microcomputer controller” and how “the turn-off cycle” by itself can time itself.
Claims 2, 5, 7 and 14-20 are rejected based on their dependence on a rejected claim.
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.
Claims 1 and 5 are provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 13, 15 and 18 of copending Application No. 18/634,951 (reference application). Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because claims 13 and 15 of the reference application discloses all the limitations of Claim 1 of the current application. Claim 18 of the reference application is same as Claim 5 of the current application.
This is a provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejection because the patentably indistinct claims have not in fact been patented.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. The following references relate either to the field of the invention or subject matter of the invention, but are not relied upon in the rejection of record: 20090194532, 20120313006, 20200268921, 20210188541, 20220008583, CN110155574, WO2022006471, KR20190105191, WO0170280.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to REGINA M YOO whose telephone number is (571)272-6690. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday, 9:00 am - 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.
/REGINA M YOO/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1758