DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Response to Amendment
Claim amendments filed 09 March 2026 are acknowledged. Claims 1-20 are pending.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claims 1-20 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
The 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) rejections of claims 1-5, 7-11, 12-17, and 19-20 in view of Lizotte (US 20120168641 A1) have been withdrawn. Additionally, the 35 U.S.C. 103 rejections of claims 6, 12, and 18 in view of Lizotte have been withdrawn. However, after further consideration, new grounds of rejections are made in view of 35 U.S.C. 103 with respect to Shatalov (US 20180243458 A1) in view of Blanchard (US 20180346868 A1).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
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.
Claims 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Shatalov (US 20180243458 A1) in view of Blanchard (US 20180346868 A1).
Regarding claim 1, Shatalov teaches a method for prophylactically disinfecting a laboratory instrument having a housing (ultraviolet light to disinfect a compartment) and wherein the laboratory instrument has a down time when the laboratory instrument is not being used (disinfection of stored items such as medical and chemical equipment using ultraviolet radiation during storage, paragraphs [0002]-[0003]), comprising the steps of providing a plurality of UVC light sources within the housing (ultraviolet radiation source in storage device including a plurality of emitters, paragraph [0089], and peak wavelength can include 275 nm, paragraph [0092]), activating the light sources during the down time (detecting the presence of one item stored on the shelf and controlling the ultraviolet radiation sources to generate ultraviolet radiation, paragraph [0021]), and moving the pathogens in the housing and the light from the UVC sources relative to each other to effect disinfection during the down time (computer system can operate the environmental control component to circulate air in the chamber, paragraph [0129]), but does not teach wherein the laboratory instrument having a housing relates specifically to laboratory imaging instruments, However, Blanchard teaches a laboratory imaging instrument (abstract).
Shatalov is considered analogous to the current invention because both are in the field of ultraviolet light disinfecting housings. Blanchard is considered analogous to the current invention because both are in the field of cell culture imagers. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to combine the integrated UV disinfection method taught by Shatalov with the cell culture imager taught by Blanchard because Blanchard teaches the need to minimize cell culture contamination by performing the manipulation of cell cultures under aseptic conditions (environment that has been disinfected and the air been filtered, paragraph [0063]) and disinfecting equipment prior to use using irradiation (paragraph [00062]).
Regarding claim 2, the combination of Shatalov and Blanchard teaches wherein the step of moving comprising running a fan or blower to move the pathogens relative to the light from the UVC light source (computer system can operate the environmental control component to circulate air in the chamber, paragraph [0129], and one or more air convention components such as a fan, paragraph [0126], Shatalov).
Regarding claim 3, the combination of Shatalov and Blanchard teaches wherein the step of moving comprises providing at least one mirror or one reflective surface to move the UVC light relative to the pathogens (structure can include a set of reflecting mirrors, paragraph [0138], and reflecting mirrors can diffuse the ultraviolet radiation throughout the interior, paragraph [0139], Shatalov).
Regarding claim 4, the combination of Shatalov and Blanchard teaches wherein the UVC light source is an LED (ultraviolet radiation source includes a set of ultraviolet light emitting diodes, paragraph [0111], Shatalov).
Regarding claim 5, the combination of Shatalov and Blanchard teaches wherein the UVC light is in the range is in the range of 200 to 280 nm (peak wavelength can include 275 nm, paragraph [0092], Shatalov).
Regarding claim 6, while the combination of Shatalov and Blanchard does not explicitly teach wherein the UVC light is in the range of 265 to 270 nm, the combination teaches wherein the UVC light is in the range of 260 nm to 285 nm (paragraph [0153], Shatalov). In the case of overlapping ranges, a case of prima facie obviousness exists. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to adjust the UVC wavelength to a range of 265-270 nm to achieve the desired sterilization effect (See MPEP 2144.05 I).
Regarding claim 7, the combination of Shatalov and Blanchard teaches wherein the steps of activating and moving are performed automatically by a processor in the laboratory instrument (computer can automatically adjust and control the ultraviolet radiation, paragraph [0085], Shatalov).
Regarding claim 8, the combination of Shatalov and Blanchard teaches wherein the steps of activating and moving are performed manually by a user of the laboratory instrument (operation can be controlled by a user, paragraph [0071], Shatalov).
Regarding claim 9, Shatalov teaches an apparatus for prophylactically disinfecting a laboratory instrument having a housing (ultraviolet light to disinfect a compartment) and wherein the laboratory instrument has a down time when the laboratory instrument is not being used (disinfection of stored items such as medical and chemical equipment using ultraviolet radiation during storage, paragraphs [0002]-[0003]), comprising a processor for controlling the operation of the laboratory instrument (computer system including a processing component, paragraph [0072]), a plurality of UVC light sources within the housing and activatable by the processor(ultraviolet radiation source in storage device including a plurality of emitters, paragraph [0089], and peak wavelength can include 275 nm, paragraph [0092]), at least one fan or blower activatable by the processor moving pathogens in the housing relative to light from the UVC light sources (computer system can operate the environmental control component to circulate air in the chamber, paragraph [0129], and one or more air convention components such as a fan, paragraph [0126]), and wherein the processor is configured to activate the light sources and at least one fan and/or blower during the down time to prophylactically disinfect the laboratory instrument during the downtime (detecting the presence of one item stored on the shelf and controlling the ultraviolet radiation sources to generate ultraviolet radiation, paragraph [0021], and computer system can operate the environmental control component to circulate air in the chamber, paragraph [0129]), but does not teach wherein the laboratory instrument having a housing relates specifically to laboratory imaging instruments, However, Blanchard teaches a laboratory imaging instrument (abstract).
Shatalov is considered analogous to the current invention because both are in the field of ultraviolet light disinfecting housings. Blanchard is considered analogous to the current invention because both are in the field of cell culture imagers. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to combine the integrated UV disinfection apparatus taught by Shatalov with the cell culture imager taught by Blanchard because Blanchard teaches the need to minimize cell culture contamination by performing the manipulation of cell cultures under aseptic conditions (environment that has been disinfect and the air been filtered, paragraph [0063]) and disinfecting equipment prior to use using irradiation (paragraph [00062]).
Regarding claim 10, the combination of Shatalov and Blanchard teaches wherein the UVC light source is an LED (ultraviolet radiation source includes a set of ultraviolet light emitting diodes, paragraph [0111], Shatalov).
Regarding claim 11, the combination of Shatalov and Blanchard teaches wherein the UVC light is in the range is in the range of 200 to 280 nm (peak wavelength can include 275 nm, paragraph [0092], Shatalov).
Regarding claim 12, while the combination of Shatalov and Blanchard does not explicitly teach wherein the UVC light is in the range of 265 to 270 nm, the combination teaches wherein the UVC light is in the range of 260 nm to 285 nm (paragraph [0153], Shatalov). In the case of overlapping ranges, a case of prima facie obviousness exists. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to adjust the UVC wavelength to a range of 265-270 nm to achieve the desired sterilization effect (See MPEP 2144.05 I).
Regarding claim 13, the combination of Shatalov and Blanchard teaches wherein the processor activates the light sources and the at least one fan and/or blower automatically during the down time of the laboratory instrument (computer can automatically adjust and control the ultraviolet radiation, paragraph [0085], and computer system to adjust one or more operative parameters of the environmental control component based on current conditions, paragraph [0128], Shatalov).
Regarding claim 14, the combination of Shatalov and Blanchard teaches wherein the processor activates the light sources and at least one fan and/or blower in response to a manual intervention by the user during the down time of the laboratory instrument (external interface component enables a human user to interact with the computer system, paragraph [0072], and operation can be controlled by a user, paragraph [0071], and environmental control module settings can be selected by user, paragraph [0126], Shatalov).
Regarding claim 9, Shatalov teaches an apparatus for prophylactically disinfecting a laboratory instrument having a housing (ultraviolet light to disinfect a compartment) and wherein the laboratory instrument has a down time when the laboratory instrument is not being used (disinfection of stored items such as medical and chemical equipment using ultraviolet radiation during storage, paragraphs [0002]-[0003]), comprising a processor for controlling the operation of the laboratory instrument (computer system including a processing component, paragraph [0072]), a plurality of UVC light sources within the housing and activatable by the processor(ultraviolet radiation source in storage device including a plurality of emitters, paragraph [0089], and peak wavelength can include 275 nm, paragraph [0092]), at least one of a movable mirror and a movable reflective surface activatable by the processor for moving light from the UVC light sources relative to the pathogens in the housing (reflector configured to be rotated to redirect the ultraviolet radiation and control system rotates the reflector, paragraph [0149]), and wherein the processor is configured to activate the light sources and at least one fan and/or blower during the down time to prophylactically disinfect the laboratory instrument during the downtime (detecting the presence of one item stored on the shelf and controlling the ultraviolet radiation sources to generate ultraviolet radiation, paragraph [0021], and control system includes controlling direction of radiation, paragraph [0010]) but does not teach wherein the laboratory instrument having a housing relates specifically to laboratory imaging instruments, However, Blanchard teaches a laboratory imaging instrument (abstract).
Shatalov is considered analogous to the current invention because both are in the field of ultraviolet light disinfecting housings. Blanchard is considered analogous to the current invention because both are in the field of cell culture imagers. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to combine the integrated UV disinfection apparatus taught by Shatalov with the cell culture imager taught by Blanchard because Blanchard teaches the need to minimize cell culture contamination by performing the manipulation of cell cultures under aseptic conditions (environment that has been disinfect and the air been filtered, paragraph [0063]) and disinfecting equipment prior to use using irradiation (paragraph [00062]).
Regarding claim 16, the combination of Shatalov and Blanchard teaches wherein the UVC light source is an LED (ultraviolet radiation source includes a set of ultraviolet light emitting diodes, paragraph [0111], Shatalov).
Regarding claim 17, the combination of Shatalov and Blanchard teaches wherein the UVC light is in the range is in the range of 200 to 280 nm (peak wavelength can include 275 nm, paragraph [0092], Shatalov).
Regarding claim 18, while the combination of Shatalov and Blanchard does not explicitly teach wherein the UVC light is in the range of 265 to 270 nm, the combination teaches wherein the UVC light is in the range of 260 nm to 285 nm (paragraph [0153], Shatalov). In the case of overlapping ranges, a case of prima facie obviousness exists. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to adjust the UVC wavelength to a range of 265-270 nm to achieve the desired sterilization effect (See MPEP 2144.05 I).
Regarding claim 19, the combination of Shatalov and Blanchard teaches wherein the processor activates light sources and the at least one movable mirror and/or reflective surface automatically during the down time of the laboratory instrument (computer system automatically adjust and control one or more aspects of the ultraviolet radiation generated by the ultraviolet radiation source, paragraph [0085], Shatalov).
Regarding claim 20, the combination of Shatalov and Blanchard teaches wherein the processor activates light sources and the at least one movable mirror and/or reflective surface in response to a manual intervention by a user during the down time of the laboratory instrument (operation can be controlled by a user, paragraph [0071], Shatalov).
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). 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 KAYLA ROSE SARANTAKOS whose telephone number is (703)756-5524. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri 7:00-4:00.
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.
/K.R.S./Examiner, Art Unit 1799
/DONALD R SPAMER/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1799