Prosecution Insights
Last updated: April 17, 2026
Application No. 18/268,252

ULTRAVIOLET AIRFLOW TREATMENT SYSTEM

Non-Final OA §101§103§112
Filed
Jun 19, 2023
Examiner
WOODWARD, VALERIE LYNN
Art Unit
3785
Tech Center
3700 — Mechanical Engineering & Manufacturing
Assignee
unknown
OA Round
1 (Non-Final)
71%
Grant Probability
Favorable
1-2
OA Rounds
3y 6m
To Grant
98%
With Interview

Examiner Intelligence

Grants 71% — above average
71%
Career Allow Rate
632 granted / 887 resolved
+1.3% vs TC avg
Strong +27% interview lift
Without
With
+27.0%
Interview Lift
resolved cases with interview
Typical timeline
3y 6m
Avg Prosecution
34 currently pending
Career history
921
Total Applications
across all art units

Statute-Specific Performance

§101
4.3%
-35.7% vs TC avg
§103
40.9%
+0.9% vs TC avg
§102
24.0%
-16.0% vs TC avg
§112
23.7%
-16.3% vs TC avg
Black line = Tech Center average estimate • Based on career data from 887 resolved cases

Office Action

§101 §103 §112
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 This office action is responsive to the amendment filed on July 30, 2024. As directed by the amendment: claims 1-4 and 7-13 have been amended, claim 6 has been canceled, and no new claims have been added. Thus, claims 1-5 and 7-13 are presently pending in the application. Claim Objections Claim 11 is objected to because of the following informalities: In claim 11, line 4, “from external device should read --from an external device-- for clarity. Appropriate correction is required. 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 7 and 9-11 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 pre-AIA the applicant regards as the invention. Claim 7 is rejected because use of the term “if” renders the claim indefinite as it is not clear whether the casing is required to have plastic biocompatible material or if it is optional. For purposes of examination, Examiner assumes the material is not required and suggests amending the claim to read --…wherein at least one part of the system is designed to be surgically implanted within a user body Claim 9 recites “optionally this external device may be a smartphone” which is indefinite as it is not clear whether the smartphone is required. Examiner suggests deleting the optional limitation or positively reciting the smartphone as the external device. Claim 10 recites “optionally this external device may be a smartphone” which is indefinite as it is not clear whether the smartphone is required. Examiner suggests deleting the optional limitation or positively reciting the smartphone as the external device. Claim 11 recites “optionally the fibre optic mat comprises a fibre optic weave” which is indefinite as it is not clear whether the fibre optic weave is required. Examiner suggests deleting the optional limitation or positively reciting the fibre optic weave as the fibre optic mat. Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101 35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows: Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title. Section 33(a) of the America Invents Act reads as follows: Notwithstanding any other provision of law, no patent may issue on a claim directed to or encompassing a human organism. Claims 1-5 and 7-13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 and section 33(a) of the America Invents Act as being directed to or encompassing a human organism. See also Animals - Patentability, 1077 Off. Gaz. Pat. Office 24 (April 21, 1987) (indicating that human organisms are excluded from the scope of patentable subject matter under 35 U.S.C. 101). Claim 1 positively recites “a person” in lines 8 and 10. It is suggested that the language be amended to read –by means of the optical fibre directed toward air configured to be inhaled or exhaled by a person, treating the air with a radiated energy of the electromagnetic spectrum reducing the amount of pathogens configured to be inhaled or exhaled by the person…-- Claim 1 positively recites “upper airways” of a person in line 15. It is suggested that the language be amended to read --…the light source (4) so that it is configured to be radiated into upper airways airflow--. Claim 11 positively recites “upper airways” of a person in lines 3-4. It is suggested that the language be amended to read --…optical diffuser that is configured to direct the electromagnetic energy into upper airways airflow--. Claim 12 positively recites “upper airways” of a person in lines 3-4. It is suggested that the language be amended to read --…optical diffuser that is configured to direct the electromagnetic energy into upper airways airflow--. Claims 2-5, 7-10, and 13 are rejected based solely on their dependency to claim 1. 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 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. Claims 1-4, 7, and 13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mckenzie et al. (WO 2011/083381), in view of Greenspan et al. (US 2022/0001068). As to claim 1, McKenzie discloses a personal airflow treatment system (Fig. 5, Fig. 6), consisting of: at least one portable apparatus 40 containing at least one light source 42 emitting electromagnetic radiation in UVC wavelength range, coupled to at least one optical fibre 60 extending therefrom, wherein electromagnetic radiation is by means of the optical fibre directed toward air being inhaled or exhaled by a person, treating the air with a radiated energy of the electromagnetic spectrum reducing the amount of pathogens being inhaled or exhaled by the person (paragraph [0032]), an electronic control module 70 (control/switch and various conductors in base unit 70, paragraph [0032]), a power supply 48 (paragraph [0032]), a casing 69 (housing 69/74 of base unit 70, paragraph [0032]), a conduit 72 that directs the electromagnetic energy from the light source 42 so that it is radiated into upper airways airflow (neck 72 acts as a protective tube for the optical fibers 60, paragraphs [0032]-[0033]). Mckenzie lacks detailed description as to the electromagnetic radiation being in the far-UVC wavelength range of 200-230 nm. However, Greenspan teaches a personal airflow treatment system (personal protective device/face cover 100, Fig. 1) having a light source 112A,B emitting electromagnetic radiation within the far-UVC wavelength range of 200-230 nm (far-UVC (207-222 nm) light is within the claimed range, see paragraph [0040]). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art as of the effective filing date of the invention to modify the system of McKenzie so that the UV light source is one that emits electromagnetic radiation in the far-UVC wavelength range of 207-222 nm, as taught by Greenspan, in order to provide a sutiable source of electromagnetic radiation that can effectively kill pathogens without damaging the person’s tissue (see Greenspan, paragraph [0019]). As to claim 2, modified McKenzie discloses the airflow treatment system as defined in Claim 1, wherein the apparatus is powered by a non-rechargeable battery 48 inside the casing 69 (see Fig. 1, paragraph [0024],[0032], the battery is not described as being rechargeable). As to claim 4, modified McKenzie discloses the airflow treatment system as defined in Claim 1, wherein the apparatus is powered by an external power supply (see McKenzie, paragraph [0024]). As to claim 7, modified McKenzie discloses the airflow treatment system as defined in Claim 1, wherein any part of the system is designed to be surgically implanted within a user body (the upper airway respiratory assembly 16 of the artificial airway 10 is implanted in the upper airway of the body through the mouth or nose or tracheotomy passage and the optical fibers 60 are inserted into the tube 16 within the airway, see Fig. 5, Fig. 6 of McKenzie, paragraphs [0020],[0033], using plastic biocompatible material for the apparatus casing if it is a part of the system being surgically implanted (McKenzie’s casing 69 is not part of the implanted portion of the system, thus, it is not required to be made of biocompatible material to meet the claim language). As to claim 13, modified McKenzie discloses the airflow treatment system as defined in Claim 4, wherein the apparatus is powered by a wireless power transfer (paragraph [0024] of McKenzie). Claims 1, 3, 5, and 11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zocher (US 2007/0251526), in view of Greenspan et al. (US 2022/0001068). As to claim 1, Zocher discloses a personal airflow treatment system (Fig. 1A-1C, paragraphs [0024]-[0027]), consisting of: at least one portable apparatus (breathing mask, light treatment subsystem, and air treatment chamber) containing at least one light source (UV source) emitting electromagnetic radiation in the UV wavelength range coupled to at least one optical fibre (Fiber Optic line) extending therefrom, wherein electromagnetic radiation is by means of the optical fibre directed toward air being inhaled or exhaled by a person, treating the air with a radiated energy of the electromagnetic spectrum reducing the amount of pathogens being inhaled or exhaled by the person (paragraphs [0024]-[0027]), an electronic control module (light treatment subsystem, Fig. 1A-1C), a power supply (portable power/battery pack, Fig. 1C, paragraph [0026]), a casing (the housing of the light treatment subsystem, see Fig. 1A; alternatively, the casing could be considered the backpack shown in Fig. 1C), a conduit (breathing tube, see Fig. 1C) that directs the electromagnetic energy from the light source so that it is radiated into upper airways airflow, paragraph [0029]). Zocher lacks detailed description as to the electromagnetic radiation being in the far-UVC wavelength range of 200-230 nm. However, Greenspan teaches a personal airflow treatment system (personal protective device/face cover 100, Fig. 1) having a light source 112A,B emitting electromagnetic radiation within the far-UVC wavelength range of 200-230 nm (far-UVC (207-222 nm) light is within the claimed range, see paragraph [0040]). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art as of the effective filing date of the invention to modify the system of Zocher so that the UV light source is one that emits electromagnetic radiation in the far-UVC wavelength range of 207-222 nm, as taught by Greenspan, in order to provide a suitable source of electromagnetic radiation that can effectively kill pathogens without damaging the person’s tissue (see Greenspan, paragraph [0019]). As to claim 3, modified Zocher discloses the airflow treatment system as defined in Claim 1, wherein the apparatus is powered by a rechargeable power source 48 inside the casing (see Fig. 1A of Zocher, paragraph [0026]). As to claim 5, modified Zocher discloses the airflow treatment system as defined in Claim 1, wherein the fibre optic includes an area of reduced transmissivity (frosted or coated glass, Fig. 4 of Zocher) and an exposed surface (exposed end face, Fig. 4) from which the electromagnetic radiation is emitted (Fig. 4 of Zocher, paragraph [0032]). As to claim 11, modified Zocher discloses the airflow treatment system as defined in Claim 1, wherein the apparatus includes a fibre optic mat (Fig. 1B of Zocher, paragraph [0028]) that directs the electromagnetic energy into upper airways airflow, optionally the fibre optic mat comprises a fibre optic weave (Figs. 2A-2B of Zocher, paragraph [0029]). Claim 3 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mckenzie et al. (WO 2011/083381), in view of Greenspan et al. (US 2022/0001068), as applied to claim 1, and further in view of Rogers et al. (US 2014/0128943). As to claim 3, modified McKenzie discloses the airflow treatment system as defined in Claim 1, wherein the apparatus is powered by a power source 48 inside the casing 69 (paragraph [0032]), but does not disclose that the power supply is rechargeable. However, Rogers teaches an implantable light delivery device (Fig. 12) powered by a battery inside the device casing 92 that is rechargeable (paragraph [0064]). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art as of the effective filing date of the invention to modify the system of McKenzie so that the power source/battery is rechargeable, as taught by Rogers, in order to avoid having to replace the battery when it runs out of power. Claims 1, 7, and 8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Abbott et al. (US 2014/0264072), in view of Anderson et al. (US 2020/0121943), and further in view of Greenspan et al. (US 2022/0001068). As to claim 1, Abbott discloses a personal airflow treatment system (Fig. 2, Figs. 5-7), consisting of: at least one portable apparatus 14 containing at least one light source 38, 46 emitting electromagnetic radiation in in UV wavelength range, directed toward air being inhaled or exhaled by a person, treating the air with a radiated energy of the electromagnetic spectrum reducing the amount of pathogens being inhaled or exhaled by the person (paragraph [0034],[0038]), an electronic control module (flow activated switch, paragraph [0038]), a power supply (batteries 40, 44, paragraph [0038]), a casing (outer frame 53, paragraph [0037],[0038]), a conduit (UV containment shield 42) that directs the electromagnetic energy from the light source 38, 46 so that it is radiated into upper airways airflow (Fig. 7, paragraph [0038]). Abbot does not expressly disclose that the light source is coupled to at least one optical fibre extending therefrom wherein electromagnetic radiation is by means of the optical fibre directed toward the air being inhaled or exhaled by a person. However, Anderson teaches an implantable UV light therapy device 100 (Figs. 1A-1C) having a light source 109 coupled to an optical fiber 113 directing the UV light to a target site in the body (paragraph [0077]). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art as of the effective filing date of the invention to modify the system of Abbott to include an optical fiber coupled to at least one of the light sources and extending therefrom, as taught by Anderson, in order to allow the UV light to extend to multiple treatment sites beyond the device implantation site. Abbott further lacks detailed description as to the electromagnetic radiation being in the far-UVC wavelength range of 200-230 nm. However, Greenspan teaches a personal airflow treatment system (personal protective device/face cover 100, Fig. 1) having a light source 112A,B emitting electromagnetic radiation within the far-UVC wavelength range of 200-230 nm (far-UVC (207-222 nm) light is within the claimed range, see paragraph [0040]). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art as of the effective filing date of the invention to modify the system of Abbott so that the UV light source is one that emits electromagnetic radiation in the far-UVC wavelength range of 207-222 nm, as taught by Greenspan, in order to provide a suitable source of electromagnetic radiation that can effectively kill pathogens without damaging the person’s tissue (see Greenspan, paragraph [0019]). As to claim 7, modified Abbott discloses the airflow treatment system as defined in Claim 1, wherein any part of the system is designed to be surgically implanted within a user body, using plastic biocompatible material for the apparatus casing if it is a part of the system being surgically implanted (see Fig. 2 of Abbott, paragraph [0034]), using plastic biocompatible material for the apparatus casing 53 (polycarbonate, non-bioreactive, paragraph [0037] of Abbott). As to claim 8, modified Abbott discloses the airflow treatment system as defined in Claim 1, wherein the complete system is designed to be surgically implanted within a user body (see Fig. 2 of Abbott, paragraph [0034]), using plastic biocompatible material for the apparatus casing 53 (polycarbonate, non-bioreactive, paragraph [0037] of Abbott). Claims 9 and 10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zocher (US 2007/0251526), in view of Greenspan et al. (US 2022/0001068), as applied to claim 1, and further in view of Mullen et al. (US 2021/0299318). As to claim 9, modified Zocher discloses the airflow treatment system as defined in Claim 1, but does not disclose that the electronic control module comprises an antenna for wireless connection to an external device for transmitting and receiving information, optionally this external device may be a smartphone. However, Mullen teaches an airflow treatment system (device 100 including UV-C light sources 102, Fig. 1, paragraph [0047]) including an antenna for communicating information to an external device wirelessly (a communications antenna may be provided to communicate directly to a device of the user (e.g., mobile phone) to notify the consumer of the need for UV light source change; a consumer may control any aspect of the UV-C inactivation device wirelessly, paragraph [0025], see page 4, right column, lines 13-21; see also paragraph [0049] describing wireless communication structures such as telecommunications/cellular communication structures). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art as of the effective filing date of the invention to modify the system of Zocher to include a communications antenna communicating with a user’s smartphone, as taught by Mullen, in order to provide information to the user about the need to replace a degraded light source and to allow the user to control the device via their phone. As to claim 10, modified Zocher discloses the airflow treatment system as defined in Claim 1, but does not disclose that the electronic control module (light treatment subsystem) comprises an integrated computer managing the system functionality based on information received from external device, optionally this external device may be a smartphone. However, Mullen teaches an airflow treatment system (device 100 including UV-C light sources 102, Fig. 1, paragraph [0047]) including an electronic control module (printed circuit board 101) comprising an integrated computer (PCB 101 includes processor 106, control circuitry 106,107, and communication structures/ports 104, 105, see Fig. 1, paragraphs [0048]-[0049]) managing the system functionality based on information received from external device such as a mobile phone (a communications antenna may be provided to communicate directly to a device of the user (e.g., mobile phone); a consumer may control any aspect of the UV-C inactivation device wirelessly, paragraph [0025], see page 4, right column, lines 13-21; see also paragraph [0049] describing wireless communication structures such as telecommunications/cellular communication structures). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art as of the effective filing date of the invention to modify the system of Zocher so that the electronic control module includes an integrated computer managing the system based on information received by an external device/smartphone, as taught by Mullen, in order to allow the user to control the device via their phone in a convenient manner. Claim 12 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mckenzie et al. (WO 2011/083381), in view of Greenspan et al. (US 2022/0001068), as applied to claim 1, and further in view of Matsui et al. (EP 3366314 A1). As to claim 12, modified McKenzie discloses the airflow treatment system as defined in Claim 1, but does not disclose that the apparatus includes an optical diffuser that directs the electromagnetic energy into upper airways airflow. However, Matsui teaches an air treatment system (ultraviolet sterilizing apparatus 1b (Fig.2, paragraph [0037]) which includes an optical diffuser 10 (diffusion lens 10, Fig. 2) to direct electromagnetic energy to an airflow (pressurizing space 2b, see Fig. 2, paragraph [0038],[0040]). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art as of the effective filing date of the invention to modify the system of McKenzie to include an optical diffuser, as taught by Matsui, in order to diffuse the UV-C light entering the airflow path, thereby expanding the area being irradiated (see Matsui, paragraph [0036]). Conclusion The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Elitorai (US 2019/0168023) discloses a UVC light transmitting tube, instrument, or catheter. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to VALERIE L WOODWARD whose telephone number is (571)270-1479. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday - Friday 8:30 am - 4:30 pm. 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, KENDRA CARTER can be reached on 571-272-9034. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300. Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000. /VALERIE L WOODWARD/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3785
Read full office action

Prosecution Timeline

Jun 19, 2023
Application Filed
Jul 30, 2024
Response after Non-Final Action
Jan 09, 2026
Non-Final Rejection — §101, §103, §112 (current)

Precedent Cases

Applications granted by this same examiner with similar technology

Patent 12599740
ORAL APPLIANCE FOR USE WITH CPAP HEADGEAR
2y 5m to grant Granted Apr 14, 2026
Patent 12582787
MASK OUTER FRAME UNIT, MASK UNIT, BAND-INCLUDING MASK UNIT AND MASK OUTER FRAME
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 24, 2026
Patent 12576221
Nozzle Arrangement
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 17, 2026
Patent 12576234
Systems and Methods for Generating Nitric Oxide
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 17, 2026
Patent 12558509
HEADGEAR WITH TENSION LIMIT DETECTION FEATURE
2y 5m to grant Granted Feb 24, 2026
Study what changed to get past this examiner. Based on 5 most recent grants.

AI Strategy Recommendation

Get an AI-powered prosecution strategy using examiner precedents, rejection analysis, and claim mapping.
Powered by AI — typically takes 5-10 seconds

Prosecution Projections

1-2
Expected OA Rounds
71%
Grant Probability
98%
With Interview (+27.0%)
3y 6m
Median Time to Grant
Low
PTA Risk
Based on 887 resolved cases by this examiner. Grant probability derived from career allow rate.

Sign in for Full Analysis

Enter your email to receive a magic link. No password needed.

Free tier: 3 strategy analyses per month