DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
1. The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Claim Objections
2. Claims 1-2 are objected to because of the following informalities:
Regarding claim 1,
Line 1: “cabinet for sterilizing the belongings comprises” should be grammatically corrected to “cabinet for sterilizing the belongings comprising”;
Line 5: “wherein each inner wall of the cabinet body having a layer of metal foil” should be grammatically corrected to “wherein each inner wall of the cabinet body has a layer of metal foil”;
Line 7: “wherein a ultra-violet lights are placed in each side” should be grammatically corrected to “wherein an ultra-violet light is placed on each side”;
Line 9: “wherein a magnet switches is placed at the closing end of inner wall” should be grammatically corrected to “wherein a magnet switch is placed at the closing end of an inner wall”;
Line 11: “wherein an electric box fixed” should be grammatically corrected to “wherein an electric box is fixed”.
Regarding claim 2,
Line 2: “comprising following steps” should be grammatically corrected to “comprising the following steps”;
Line 5: “closing the door and the making the close contact” should be grammatically corrected to “closing the door and making close contact”;
Line 8: “within various cleaning media by ultraviolet radiation” should be corrected to “within various cleaning media”, as “by ultraviolet radiation” is repetitive and already has been mentioned via “radiating UV rays”.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
3. 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.
4. Claims 1-2 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, line 1 recites the limitation "the belongings" in the preamble. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Claim 2 is rejected via a dependency basis from claim 1.
Claim 2, line 1 recites the limitation "the belongings" in the preamble. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 2, line 5 recites “close contact”. The term “close contact” is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “close contact” is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention. The distance at which the contact is “close” is not defined and thus unclear. The Applicant may be referring to a form of “direct” contact.
Claim 2, line 7 recites “the ultra violates source”. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim and the spelling/grammar is incorrect. It is likely that Applicant is meaning “producing the ultraviolet rays” because the specification at p.5 lines 11-12 teach that the “ultra violates sources produces and radiates UV rays”. Thus, the limitation will be interpreted as “producing the ultraviolet rays”.
Claim 2, line 8 also recites “radiating UV rays on the object that disinfect or sanitize infestation agents within various cleaning media”. It is unclear as to how infestation agents can be within/inside the UV rays, and is likely that Applicant is referring to the space occupied by the irradiated UV rays.
Clarification is requested.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
5. The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
6. Claims 1-2 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yerby (US 20130256560 A1), further in view of Rizzone (US 20160074546 A1, provided in Applicant’s IDS filed 08/29/2023).
Regarding claim 1, Yerby teaches an ultraviolet light based sterilizing cabinet (sanitizing device 20, Fig. 1-2 and 9) for sterilizing belongings ([0025]) comprising a cabinet body (housing 22, Fig. 1) having a door (door 36, Fig. 1) and an indicator (“One or more indicator lamps or displays may be provided on the outside of the housing 22 to indicate the status of the sanitizing device 20”, Fig. 1 and [0045]);
said cabinet body having six inner walls inside the cabinet including door (interior surface of door 36, floor 34, sidewalls 28, rear wall 30, ceiling 32, Fig. 1-2); characterized in that, wherein ultra-violet lights are placed on each side of the inside walls of the cabinet body (UV lamps 42 on sidewalls 28, rear wall 30, and ceiling 32, Fig. 2 and [0037]);
wherein a magnet switch is placed at the closing end of inner wall of the door (magnet 69, Fig. 2) and the opposite wall of the cabinet body (sensor 68, Fig. 2, where “the sensor comprises a contact on the housing 22 and a magnet 69 in the door 36, the completed circuit activating the UV radiation source only when the door 36 is in the closed position to enclose the chamber 38”, [0042]);
wherein an electric box is fixed at the back side of cabinet body to provide electric power supply (control box 60 having power supply 64, Fig. 9 and [0041]).
Yerby teaches the light sources being mounted to every wall except the door and floor of the interior surface ([0037]), and thus fails to teach all of the inside walls having UV lights.
Rizzone teaches an ultraviolet sterilization chamber for objects (Fig. 1-2), where UV light sources are mounted to the door, sidewalls, ceiling (Fig. 2), even suggesting mounting UV lights to the floor ([0013]), to which “other numbers of UV light bulbs and other arrangements are also possible” ([0059]).
Yerby and Rizzone are both considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of UV disinfection chambers for sterilizing objects.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to try modify the arrangement and number of UV light sources of Yerby so that every wall (including the door and floor) of the interior has a UV light source as taught by Rizzone, because doing so facilitates light being provided to all areas with more coverage (Rizzone, paras. [0053], [0059]) .
Modified Yerby teaches wherein the inner walls are reflective (“The inner surfaces of the walls 24, 28, 30, the floor 34 and the ceiling 32 of the housing 22 are provided with a reflective material. A suitable material is aluminum… the inside surface of the door 36 may also be provided with a reflective material”, Fig. 2 and [0029-0030]), but fails to teach wherein each inner wall of the cabinet body has a layer of metal foil and a glass interior fixed at each side of inner walls of the cabinet.
Rizzone teaches an ultraviolet sterilization chamber for objects (Fig. 1-2), where the interior can have a UV-transparent protective material made of glass ([0058]) “placed as an additional inner wall layer” ([0058]) for the “one or more inner walls (including any corrugated or otherwise patterned lining/insulation) of the chamber 10, the door 16, the ceiling, and/or the floor” ([0058]) in order to “prevent damage to the UV light bulbs and thereby prevent injury to the user from cuts or electrocution associated with broken bulbs” ([0058]).
Rizzone further teaches that the walls of the interior are formed of with a sheet of aluminum ([0056]) rather than Yerby’s teachings of an aluminum interior surface.
Yerby and Rizzone are both considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of UV disinfection chambers for sterilizing objects.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to: one, substitute the aluminum surface of Yerby with an aluminum sheet/foil layer as taught by Rizzone because the substitution of this feature yields the predictable result of reflecting UV light; and two, modify the housing’s interior space of Yerby by incorporating glass UV-transparent protective material to all interior walls as taught by Rizzone in order to “prevent damage to the UV light bulbs and thereby prevent injury to the user from cuts or electrocution associated with broken bulbs” (Rizzone, [0058]).
Regarding claim 2, Modified Yerby teaches a method for sterilizing the belongings from ultraviolet light (“With the article placed in the chamber and the door closed and the electronic circuit activated, the UV lamp is illuminated for the predetermined period of time for sanitizing the article”, abstract) based sterilizing cabinet as claimed in claim 1 (see claim 1 rejection above) comprising the following steps;
a. Opening the door and placing the belongings into the chamber of the interior of the cabinet for sterilizing (“The door 36 is slideable in the track 44 for moving between an open position (FIG. 2) wherein articles can be inserted into, or removed from, the chamber 38”, Fig. 1-2 and [0027]);
b. closing the door (“only when the door 36 is in the closed position”, Fig. 1-2 and [0042]) and making close contact of the magnetic switches (“the sensor comprises a contact on the housing 22 and a magnet 69 in the door 36”, Fig. 1-2 and [0042]) for generating the electric signals to turn on the ultra-violet lights (“the sensor comprises a contact on the housing 22 and a magnet 69 in the door 36, the completed circuit activating the UV radiation source only when the door 36 is in the closed position to enclose the chamber 38. For example, the ultraviolet radiation source is disabled from emitting ultraviolet light when the door 36 is in the open position and is enabled to emit ultraviolet light when the door 36 is in the closed position”, Fig. 1-2 and [0042]);
c. producing the ultraviolet rays and radiating UV rays on the object that disinfect or sanitize infestation agents within the space occupied by various cleaning media ([0047]).
Yerby fails to teach, however, placing the belongings into the chamber of a glass interior.
Rizzone teaches an ultraviolet sterilization chamber for objects (Fig. 1-2), where the interior can have a UV-transparent protective material made of glass ([0058]) “placed as an additional inner wall layer” ([0058]) for the “one or more inner walls (including any corrugated or otherwise patterned lining/insulation) of the chamber 10, the door 16, the ceiling, and/or the floor” ([0058]) in order to “prevent damage to the UV light bulbs and thereby prevent injury to the user from cuts or electrocution associated with broken bulbs” ([0058]).
In view of the method limitation of placing the belongings on the glass interior, Rizzone teaches the placement of the item to be sterilized on the protective material to “support the weight of objects placed in the sterilization area for sterilization” ([0013]).
Yerby and Rizzone are both considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of UV disinfection chambers for sterilizing objects.
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 housing’s interior space of Yerby by incorporating glass UV-transparent protective material to all interior walls as taught by Rizzone in order to “prevent damage to the UV light bulbs and thereby prevent injury to the user from cuts or electrocution associated with broken bulbs” (Rizzone, [0058]), thus allowing for placement of the item to be sterilized on the glass interior to ““support the weight of objects placed in the sterilization area for sterilization” (Rizzone, [0013]).
Conclusion
7. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Aham Lee whose telephone number is (703)756-5622. The examiner can normally be reached Monday to Thursday, 10:00 AM - 8:00 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 R. 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.
/Aham Lee/Examiner, Art Unit 1758
/MARIS R KESSEL/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1758