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
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election without traverse of Group I in the reply filed on 12/26/2025 is acknowledged.
However, all claims 1-12, previously pending, have been cancelled and new claims 13-32 drawn to the same group as the elected group are now pending.
Claim Objections
Claims 13-31 are objected to because of the following informalities:
in line 4 of Claim 13, delete “the” before “medical” and insert --a--;
in line 1 of Claims 14-31, insert --disinfection-- before “device”;
in line 2 of Claim 19, insert --the-- before “UV”;
in line 3 of Claim 27, insert --a-- before “detection”;
in line 3 of Claim 28, insert --the-- before “UV”;
in line 3 of Claim 31, insert --medical-- before “probe”.
Appropriate correction is required.
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.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
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(s) is/are: “cable accommodating portion” in claim 20.
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. Specifically, “cale accommodating portion” corresponds to a recess or an indent at the opening, and/or a soft/flexible rubber seal and/or a seal or lining at the opening (see Specification, p. 7 [0045]).
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.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that use the word “means” or “step” but are nonetheless not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph because the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure, materials, or acts to entirely perform the recited function. Such claim limitation(s) is/are: “memory device” in claim 24.
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are not being interpreted to cover only the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant intends 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 remove the structure, materials, or acts that performs the claimed function; or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) does/do not recite sufficient structure, materials, or acts to perform the claimed function.
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)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 13-14, 21, 26-27 and 31 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Hyun (KR102095253).
As to Claim 13, Hyun (‘253) discloses a disinfection device (10) for an object (1) capable of being a medical probe (see Figures 1-11), comprising:
a container (11, 12) having an opening (i.e. between 11 and 12 when 12 is separated from 11 – see Figures 1 and 4);
a plurality of ultraviolet (UV) light emitters (13; 11c) positioned within the container (12) and configured to emit UV light to disinfect a surface of the object (1) capable of being a medical probe (see Figures 7 and 9-11); and
a probe holder (11a, 11b) disposed within the container (11, 12) and configured to hold the object (1) capable of being a medical probe at a predetermined spacing from the plurality of UV light emitters (13; 11c) such that UV light is dispersed over the surface of the object (1) capable of being a medical probe when at least a portion of the object (1) capable of being a medical probe is inserted through the opening (i.e. between 11 and 12 when 12 is separated from 11 – see Figures 1 and 4) into the container (11, 12) and into the probe holder (11a, 11b) (see Figures 9-10).
As to Claim 14, Hyun (‘253) discloses that the probe holder (11a, 11b) is configured to hold the object (1) capable of being a medical probe (i.e. vertically – see Figures 9-10) to be substantially perpendicular to a direction of the UV light emitted from one of the plurality of UV light emitters (13; 11c) (see Figure 9-11).
As to Claim 21, Hyun (‘253) discloses that the disinfection device (10) further comprises a vent (11d) to vent fluid capable of being exhaust air from the container (11, 12) (see Figure 3).
As to Claim 26, Hyun (‘253) discloses that the disinfection device (10) further comprises a sensor (DS; proximity sensor) configured to detect insertion of the object (1) capable of being a medical probe into the probe holder (11a, 11b) (see English translation, particularly p. 4 – 14th – 15th lines from the bottom, p. 4 last line - p. 5 line 1).
As to Claim 27, Hyun (‘253) discloses that the sensor (DS; proximity sensor) is operatively coupled to a controller (13d) configured to activate at least one of the plurality of UV light emitters (13; 11c) in response to detection of insertion of the object (1) capable of being a medical probe (see English translation, particularly p. 4 – last 4 lines and 6th – 8th lines from the bottom, p. 6 last 12 lines to line 8 on p. 7).
As to Claim 31, Hyun (‘253) discloses that the container (11, 12) is configured to store the object (1) capable of being a medical probe after completion of disinfection while inhibiting recontamination until the object (1) capable of being a medical probe is removed from the container (11, 12).
Claim(s) 13-17, 19, 26-27 and 31-32 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Koc (DE102020006483).
As to Claim 13, Koc (‘483) discloses a disinfection device for an object (4) capable of being a medical probe (see Figure 1), comprising:
a container (1) having an opening (i.e. at the top of 2 which can be closed by cover 5 - see Figure 1);
a plurality of ultraviolet (UV) light emitters (3) positioned within the container (1) and configured to emit UV light to disinfect a surface of the object (4) capable of being a medical probe (see Figure 1); and
a probe holder (7) disposed within the container (1) and configured to hold the object (4) capable of being a medical probe at a predetermined spacing from the plurality of UV light emitters (3) such that UV light is dispersed over the surface of the object (4) capable of being a medical probe when at least a portion of the object (4) capable of being a medical probe is inserted through the opening (i.e. at the top of 2 which can be closed by cover 5) into the container (1) and into the probe holder (7) (see Figure 1).
As to Claim 14, Koc (‘483) discloses that the probe holder (7) is configured to hold the object (4) capable of being a medical probe (i.e. horizontally – see Figure 1) to be substantially perpendicular to a direction of the UV light emitted from one of the plurality of UV light emitters (3) (see Figure `1).
As to Claims 15-16, Koc (‘483) discloses that the disinfection device further comprises a meter in the form of a timer (see English translation, particularly p. 3 – 6th and 13th - 14th lines from the bottom) capable to determine a degree of exposure of the surface to the UV light applied to the surface of the object (4) capable of being a medical probe.
As to Claim 17, Koc (‘483) discloses that the UV light comprises UVC (see English translation, particularly p. 2 lines 1 and 25, p. 3 line 16).
As to Claim 19, Koc (‘483) discloses that the disinfection device further comprises a cap (5) to close the opening (i.e. at the top of 2 which can be closed by cover 5) and inhibit the UV light from exiting the container (1) (see Figure 1).
As to Claim 26, Koc (‘483) discloses that the disinfection device further comprises a sensor (i.e. pressure switch) configured to detect insertion of the object (4) capable of being a medical probe into the probe holder (7) (see English translation, particularly p. 3 – 8th line from the bottom).
As to Claim 27, Koc (‘483) discloses that the sensor (i.e. pressure switch) is operatively coupled to a controller (8) (see Figure 1) configured to activate at least one of the plurality of UV light emitters (3) in response to detection of insertion of the object (4) capable of being a medical probe (see English translation, particularly p. 3 – 5th – 8th lines from the bottom).
As to Claim 31, Koc (‘483) discloses that the container (1) is configured/capable to store the object (4) capable of being a medical probe after completion of disinfection while inhibiting recontamination until the object (4) capable of being a medical probe is removed from the container (1).
As to Claim 32, Koc (‘483) discloses a disinfection device for an object (4) capable of being a medical probe (see Figure 1), comprising:
a container (1) having an opening (i.e. at the top of 2 which can be closed by cover/lid 5) and an interior region (2) (see Figure 1);
a plurality of ultraviolet (UV) light emitters (3) positioned within the interior region (2) and arranged to emit UV light toward an object (4) capable of being a medical probe (see Figure 1); and
a probe holder (7) disposed within the interior region (2) and configured to support the object (4) capable of being a medical probe at a predetermined spacing from the plurality of UV light emitters (3), wherein the plurality of UV light emitters (3) are arranged along opposing interior surfaces of the container (1) to produce multidirectional UV light dispersion over the object (4) capable of being a medical probe when at least a portion of the object (4) capable of being a medical probe is inserted through the opening (i.e. at the top of 2 which can be closed by cover/lid 5) into the probe holder (7) (see Figure 1).
Claim(s) 13, 17, 26-28 and 31-32 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Messina (WO2016001776).
As to Claim 13, Messina (‘776) discloses a disinfection device (1) for a medical probe (T) (see Figures 1A-10), comprising:
a container (2) having an opening (i.e. adjacent 11a) (see Figures 1-4 and 7-10);
a plurality of ultraviolet (UV) light emitters (3, 3’, 3”) positioned within the container (2) and configured to emit UV light to disinfect a surface of the medical probe (T) (see Figures 1-10); and
a probe holder (33, 33’, 33”, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 36) disposed within the container (2) (see Figures 2-3, 8 and 10) and configured to hold the medical probe (T) at a predetermined spacing from the plurality of UV light emitters (3, 3’, 3”) such that UV light is dispersed over the surface of the medical probe (T) when at least a portion of the medical probe (T) is inserted through the opening (i.e. adjacent 11a) into the container (2) and into the probe holder (33, 33’, 33”, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 36) (see Figures 1-10).
As to Claim 17, Messina (‘776) discloses that the UV light comprises UVC (see entire document, particularly p. 11 last 2 lines, p. 12 lines 1-6).
As to Claim 26, Messina (‘776) discloses that the disinfection device (1) further comprises a sensor (35; 37) configured to detect insertion of the medical probe (T) into the probe holder (33, 33’, 33”, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 36) (see entire document, particularly Figures 7 and 10, p. 18 last 8 lines to p. 19 line 15).
As to Claim 27, Messina (‘776) discloses that the sensor (35; 37) is operatively coupled to a controller (4) configured to activate at least one of the plurality of UV light emitters (3, 3’, 3”) in response to the detection of insertion of the medical probe (T) (see entire document, particularly p. 19 lines 3-15).
As to Claim 28, Messina (‘776) discloses that a region (11) of the container (2) adjacent the opening (i.e. adjacent 11a) into the container (2) is funnel-shaped or conically shaped (i.e. structure of 11) to facilitate insertion of the medical probe (T) and enhance optical distribution of the UV light within the container (2) (see entire document, particularly Figures 1A-1B, 3 and 9, p. 10 lines 5-6, p. 11 lines 3-11).
As to Claim 31, Messina (‘776) discloses that the container (2) is configured/capable to store the medical probe (T) after completion of disinfection while inhibiting recontamination until the medical probe (T) is removed from the container (2).
As to Claim 32, Messina (‘776) discloses a disinfection device (1) for a medical probe (T) (see Figures 1-10), comprising:
a container (2) having an opening (i.e. adjacent 11a) and an interior region (i.e. within 2) (see Figures 1-4 and 7-10);
a plurality of ultraviolet (UV) light emitters (3, 3’, 3”) positioned within the container (2) and configured to emit UV light toward a medical probe (T) (see Figures 1-10); and
a probe holder (33, 33’, 33”, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 36) disposed within the interior region (i.e. within 2) (see Figures 2-3, 8 and 10) and configured to support the medical probe (T) at a predetermined spacing from the plurality of UV light emitters (3, 3’, 3”), wherein the plurality of UV light emitters (3, 3’, 3”) are arranged along opposing interior surfaces (11) of the container (2) to produce multidirectional UV light dispersion over the medical probe (T) (see entire document, particularly Figures 4 and 8, p. 12 lines 4-20) when at least a portion of the medical probe (T) is inserted through the opening (i.e. adjacent 11a) into the probe holder (33, 33’, 33”, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 36) (see Figures 1-10).
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.
Claim(s) 18 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hyun (KR102095253) or Koc (DE102020006483) as applied to claim 13 above, and further in view of Rock (CA2832380).
Hyun (‘253) or Koc (‘483) is relied upon for disclosure described in the rejection of claim 13 under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1).
While Koc (‘483) discloses that the plurality of UV light emitters comprises UV-C LEDs (3) arranged longitudinally along interior surfaces of the container to provide substantially 360-degree UV exposure around the object (4) capable of being a medical probe (see Figure 1), Hyun (‘253) does not specifically teach that the plurality of UV light emitters comprises UV-C LED strips and Koc (‘483) does not appear to specifically teach that the UV-C LEDs are grouped as strips. However, it was well known in the art to provide a plurality of LEDs in various configurations and 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 LEDs in strips for arrangement/attachment to the interior surfaces of the container in the disinfection device of Hyun or Koc as a known alternate configuration in order to irradiate all surfaces of the object. Only the expected results would be attained.
In addition, it was known in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide UV LED light strips as a UV light source. Rock (‘380) discloses a disinfection device (1) for an object capable of being a medical probe, comprising:
a container (70, 60) having an opening (i.e. which is closed by 50);
a plurality of ultraviolet (UV) light emitters (10, 20, 30) positioned within the container (70, 60) and configured to emit UV light to disinfect a surface of the object/medical probe,
wherein the plurality of UV light emitters (10, 20, 30) comprise UV-C LED strips longitudinally along interior surfaces of the container to provide substantially 360-degree UV exposure around the object capable of being a medical probe (see entire document, particularly Figure 1(a), p. 13 lines 13-17); and
a probe holder (80) disposed within the container and configured to hold the medical probe at a predetermined spacing from the plurality of UV light emitters (10, 20, 30) such that UV light is dispersed over the surface of the medical probe when at least a portion of the medical probe is inserted through the opening into the container (70, 60) and into the probe holder (80),
in order to provide a 360-degree illumination source (see entire document, particularly p. 13 lines 13-17).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in this art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide UV-C LED strips as the plurality of UV light emitters in the disinfection device of Hyun or Koc as a known alternate configuration in order to provide illumination/irradiation of surfaces of an object for disinfection as shown by Rock.
Thus, Claim 18 would have been obvious within the meaning of 35 U.S.C. 103 over the combined teachings of Hyun (‘253) or Koc (‘483) and Rock (‘380).
Claim(s) 20 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Koc (DE102020006483) as applied to claim 19 above, and further in view of Yang (KR20150016694) or Moon (KR20140003473).
Koc (‘483) is relied upon for disclosure described in the rejection of claim 19 under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1).
Koc (‘483) does not appear to specifically teach that the disinfection device further comprises a cable accommodating portion to accommodate a cable of the medical probe around the opening, to block the UV light around the cable, when at least a portion of the medical probe is inserted into the opening and the cap closes the opening.
It was known in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide a cable accommodating portion in a disinfection device for an object such as a medical device/probe. Yang (‘694) discloses a disinfection device (10) for a medical probe (20, 22), comprising:
a container (100) having an opening (110);
an ultraviolet (UV) light emitters (410) positioned within the container (100) and configured to emit UV light to disinfect a surface (22) of the medical probe (20, 22) (see Figure 3; English translation, particularly p. 3 15th – 18th lines from the bottom); and
a cable accommodating portion (200) around the opening (110) (see Figures 1-2), to block the UV light around a cable, when at least a portion (22) of the medical probe (20, 22) is inserted into the opening (110) and capable of closing the opening with a cap,
in order to interact with and aid in cleaning of at least a portion of the medical device/probe (see Figure 3; English translation, particularly p. 3 lines 14-20).
Moon (‘473) also discloses a disinfection device (100) for a medical probe (60), comprising:
a container (20) having an opening (i.e. opening covered by 50) (see Figures 1-3);
an ultraviolet (UV) light emitter (30) positioned within the container (20) and configured to emit UV light to disinfect a surface of the medical probe (60); and
a probe holder (40, 43) disposed within the container (20) and configured to hold the medical probe (60) at a predetermined spacing from the UV light emitter (30) (see Figures 1-3) such that UV light is dispersed over the surface of the medical probe (60) when at least a portion of the medical probe (60) is inserted through the opening (i.e. opening covered by 50) into the container (20) and into the probe holder (40, 43) (see Figures 1-3), and
a cable accommodating portion (28) to accommodate a cable of the medical probe around the opening (i.e. opening covered by 50) (see Figure 3), to block the UV light around the cable, when at least a portion of the medical probe (60) is inserted into the opening (i.e. opening covered by 50) and a cap (50) closes the opening (i.e. opening covered by 50) (see Figure 3),
in order to locate the cable of the medical probe to extend out from the container (see Figure 3).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in this art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide a cable accommodating portion in the disinfection device of Koc as a known additional component in order to aid in the cleaning and disinfection of an object such as a medical device/probe as well as to allow extension of a portion of the object/medical device/medical probe through the container as shown by Yang or Moon.
Thus, Claim 20 would have been obvious within the meaning of 35 U.S.C. 103 over the combined teachings of Koc (‘483) and Yang (‘694) or Moon (‘473).
Claim(s) 21-25 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hyun (KR102095253) or Koc (DE102020006483) as applied to claim 13 above, and further in view of Swart (20020159917).
Hyun (‘253) or Koc (‘483) is relied upon for disclosure described in the rejection of claim 13 under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1).
Neither Hyun (‘253) or Koc (‘483) appears to specifically teach that the disinfection device further comprises a vent to vent exhaust air from the container or a filter coupled to the vent and configured to remove odor or UV-generated by-product from the exhaust air or that the disinfection device further comprises a reader coupled to the container to obtain information from the medical probe.
It was known in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide a reader with a disinfection device for a medical device. Swart (‘917) discloses a disinfection device (1) for medical devices (see entire document, particularly Figures 1-8, Abstract), comprising:
a container (3 , 25, 33, 37, 43, 47) having an opening (i.e. at the entrance of 3 where 31 enters);
a plurality of ultraviolet (UV) light emitters (51) positioned within the container (i.e. within 33 and 43) and configured to emit UV light to disinfect a surface of the medical devices (see entire document, particularly Figure 7, p. 16 [0150] – lines 5-12);
a probe holder (31) disposed within the container (3 , 25, 33, 37, 43, 47) and configured to hold the medical devices at a predetermined spacing from the plurality of UV light emitters (51) (see Figure 7) such that UV light is dispersed over the surface of the medical probe when at least a portion of the medical probe is inserted through the opening (i.e. at the entrance of 3 where 31 enters) into the container (3 , 25, 33, 37, 43, 47) and into the probe holder (31);
a vent (23) to vent exhaust air from the container (43);
a filter (see entire document, particularly p. 5 [0062] – 5th – 7th lines from the bottom) coupled to the vent (23) and configured to remove odor or UV-generated by-product from the exhausted air (see entire document, particularly p. 5 [0062] – last 7 lines);
a reader to obtain information from the medical device from a bar code (see entire document, particularly p. 5 [0064] – lines 10-11); and
an electronic controller configured to automatically log identification information and disinfection cycle information obtained by the reader (see entire document, particularly p. 5 [0064] – lines 10-12),
in order to prevent exposure of an operator or bystander to any undesirable chemicals (see entire document, particularly p. 5 [0062] – last 2 lines) and to obtain sterilization cycle details for the medical device(s) under treatment (see entire document, particularly p. 5 [0064] – lines 7-11).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in this art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide a vent with a filter and a reader in the disinfection device of Hyun or Koc as a known additional component in order to prevent exposure to any undesirable chemicals and to obtain sterilization cycle information/details as shown by Swart.
Thus, Claims 21-25 would have been obvious within the meaning of 35 U.S.C. 103 over the combined teachings of Hyun (‘253) or Koc (‘483) and Swart (‘917).
Claim(s) 29 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hyun (KR102095253) or Koc (DE102020006483) as applied to claim 13 above, and further in view of Yang (KR20150016694).
Hyun (‘253) or Koc (‘483) is relied upon for disclosure described in the rejection of claim 13 under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1).
Neither Hyun (‘253) or Koc (‘483) appears to specifically teach that the disinfection device further comprises a UV-light diffuser or optical disperser associated with at least one of the plurality of UV light emitters to widen an emission pattern and increase surface coverage of the medical probe.
It was known in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide a UV-light diffuser or optical disperser associated with at least one of a plurality of UV light emitters in a disinfection device. Yang (‘694) discloses a disinfection device (10) for a medical probe (20, 22), comprising:
a container (100) having an opening (110);
an ultraviolet (UV) light emitters (410) positioned within the container (100) and configured to emit UV light to disinfect a surface (22) of the medical probe (20, 22) (see Figure 3; English translation, particularly p. 3 15th – 18th lines from the bottom); and
a UV-light diffuser or optical disperser (420) associated with the UV light emitter (410) (see Figures 2-3, English translation, particularly p. 3 12th – 14th lines from the bottom),
in order to widen an emission pattern so as to uniformly irradiate ultraviolet rays to the entire interior of the container and increase surface coverage of the medical probe (see English translation, particularly p. 3 13th – 14th lines from the bottom).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in this art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide a UV-light diffuser or optical disperser in the disinfection device of Hyun or Koc as a known additional component in order to uniformly irradiate ultraviolet rays to the entire interior of the container and increase surface coverage of the medical probe as shown by Yang.
Thus, Claim 29 would have been obvious within the meaning of 35 U.S.C. 103 over the combined teachings of Hyun (‘253) or Koc (‘483) and Yang (‘694).
Claim(s) 30 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hyun (KR102095253) as applied to claim 13 above, and further in view of Chu (5126572).
Hyun (‘253) is relied upon for disclosure described in the rejection of claim 13 under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1).
Hyun (‘253) does not appear to specifically teach that the disinfection device further comprises a plurality of probe holders and corresponding sets of UV light emitters arranged within the container to concurrently disinfect a plurality of medical probes.
It was known in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide a plurality of probe holders and corresponding UV light emitters in a disinfection device. Chu (‘572) discloses a disinfection device (10) for objects (14) capable of being medical probes (see Figure 1), comprising:
a container (11) having an opening (i.e. at 12) (see Figure 2);
a plurality of ultraviolet (UV) light emitters (16) positioned within the container (11) and configured to emit UV light to disinfect a surface of the objects (14) capable of being medical probes; and
a plurality of probe holder (20) and the corresponding UV light emitter (16) disposed within the container (11) and configured to hold the objects/medical probes (14) at a predetermined spacing from the plurality of UV light emitters (16) (see Figures 1-2) such that UV light is dispersed over the surface of the objects/medical probes (14) when at least a portion of the objects/medical probes (14) are inserted through the opening (12) into the container (11) and into the probe holders (20),
in order to disinfect a plurality of objects (14)/medical probes (see Figure 1).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in this art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide a plurality of probe holders and corresponding UV light emitters in the disinfection device of Hyun as a known alternate configuration in order to disinfect a plurality of objects/medical probes as shown by Chu.
Thus, Claim 30 would have been obvious within the meaning of 35 U.S.C. 103 over the combined teachings of Hyun (‘253) and Chu (‘572).
Claim(s) 30 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Koc (DE102020006483) as applied to claim 13 above, and further in view of Noh (KR20080006371).
Koc (‘483) is relied upon for disclosure described in the rejection of claim 13 under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1).
Koc (‘483) does not appear to specifically teach that the disinfection device further comprises a plurality of probe holders and corresponding sets of UV light emitters arranged within the container to concurrently disinfect a plurality of medical probes.
It was known in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide a plurality of probe holders and corresponding UV light emitters in a disinfection device. Noh (‘371) discloses a disinfection device (100) for objects capable of being medical probes (see Figures 1-7), comprising:
a container (i.e. body/housing to which 101 is attached to) having an opening (i.e. opening covered by 101) (see Figure 1);
a plurality of ultraviolet (UV) light emitters (130) positioned within the container (i.e. body/housing to which 101 is attached to) and configured to emit UV light to disinfect a surface of the objects/medical probes (see Figures 2-4); and
a plurality of probe holders (110) disposed within the container (i.e. body/housing to which 101 is attached to) and configured to hold the objects/medical probes at a predetermined spacing from the corresponding plurality of UV light emitters (130) such that UV light is dispersed over the surface of the objects/medical probes when at least a portion of the objects/medical probes is inserted through the opening (i.e. opening covered by 101) into the container (i.e. body/housing to which 101 is attached to) and into the probe holder (110) (see Figures 2-3),
in order to concurrently disinfect a plurality of objects capable of being medical probes (see Figures 1-4).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in this art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide a plurality of probe holders and corresponding sets of UV light emitters arranged within the container of Koc as a known alternate configuration in order to disinfect a plurality of objects capable of being medical probes as shown by Noh.
Thus, Claim 30 would have been obvious within the meaning of 35 U.S.C. 103 over the combined teachings of Koc (‘483) and Noh (‘371).
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: WO2022022848 (equivalent to prior art DE102020006483), 20160302567 and 20210046198 and KR200373808 and KR101043616 and KR20170130065 (UV light sanitizer for toothbrushes/brushes), 20140178248 and 20200368379 (medical probe disinfecting system), CA3157269 and WO2011146730 (UV sterilizer for medical instrument ends), KR20130035627 and CN212349606 (UV sterilizer for objects with filters), 4772795 (UV sterilizer for a dental implement).
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