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 .
Election/Restrictions
Claims 8, 10, 17, and 19 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected species, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Election was made without traverse in the reply filed on 11/3/25.
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.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claims 1-4, 7, 9, 11-16, 18, 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention. Independent claims 1 and 12 have been amended to recite, “means for rotating in complete revolutions said UVC LED light source.” To support the newly added “in complete revolutions” limitation, applicant points to the drawings of record. However, none of the drawings show any indication of the rotating the UVC LED light source by any particular angle, let alone do they show any sign of rotating through multiple complete revolutions. As such, the limitation at issue is determined to be new matter, and the claims including said limitation (i.e., claims 1-20) are rejected for lacking original disclosure support.
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.
Claims 1-4, 7, 9, 11-16, 18, 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 2021/0404210 A1 [Riley] in view of CN111265706 B [Li] (translation attached)
Regarding Claim 1:
Riley teaches a rotating successive firing emitting translucent ultraviolet C self-sterilizing germicidal light tube for a door handle or door lever access device for hand sanitation (abstract, para 40), comprising:
a tube handle (see Fig. 6 (300) below) attached to a door latch assembly (para 49, and as shown in Fig. 1 below), said handle having a frosted surface (para 44);
a rotating UVC LED light source contained within said tube handle (Fig. 6 (302) is an UV LED providing UVC light per para 25. The LEDs rotate when the handle is turned per para 40);
electrical energy for energizing said UVC LED light source (as provided by (314));
electrical energy for rotating said UVC LED light source contained within said tube handle (Fig. 6 (314), para 50).
However, Riley fails to teach means for rotating in complete revolution said UVC LED light source contained within said tube handle, which is interpreted under 35 USC 112(f) to correspond to a motor, or that the handle is made of quartz.
Li is directed to another UV sanitizing device (abstract), and is analogous art since it is also directed to the problem of UV sanitization. Li teaches that the UV LEDs are to be placed on a circuit board which is rotated by a motor (claim 1) and placed inside of a quartz housing (specifically reciting, “FIG. 9 description of the sterilizing device 200 of the shell is composed of front 101, top surface 102, side 103, bottom 104. In addition to the bottom surface and the side surface, the front surface 101, the upper surface 102 can be made of high transmission ultraviolet material, such as quartz glass.”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective time of filing to add the means for rotating taught by Li to the UV circuit boards of Riley. One would have been motivated to do so since this would allow the UV to be redirected at a preferred angle.
Further, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective time of filing to use the quartz glass of Li as the glass of Riley, since quartz glass is effective at transmitting UV light.
PNG
media_image1.png
602
631
media_image1.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image2.png
679
593
media_image2.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image3.png
177
351
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Regarding Claim 2:
The modified invention of claim 1 teaches the rotating successive firing emitting translucent ultraviolet C self-sterilizing germicidal light tube for a door handle or door lever access device for hand sanitation according to claim 1, wherein said means for rotating said UVC LED light source contained within the tube handle is an electric motor. Li claim 1, Fig. 9.
Regarding Claim 3:
The modified invention of claim 1 teaches the rotating successive firing emitting translucent ultraviolet C self-sterilizing germicidal light tube for a door handle or door lever access device for hand sanitation according to claim 1, wherein said UVC LED light source contained within said tube handle comprises at least one UVC LED mounted on a circuit board. Riley Fig. 6 (306))
Regarding Claim 4:
The modified invention of claim 1 teaches the rotating successive firing emitting translucent ultraviolet C self-sterilizing germicidal light tube for a door handle or door lever access device for hand sanitation according to claim 1, wherein said rotating UVC LED light source contained within said tube handle is successively firing. Riley paras 45-46.
Regarding Claim 7:
The modified invention of claim 1 teaches the rotating successive firing emitting translucent ultraviolet C self-sterilizing germicidal light tube for a door handle or door lever access device for hand sanitation according to claim 1, wherein said rotating UVC LED light source contained within the tube handle is attached to a rotating circuit board. Riley Fig. 6 (306) rotates with the handle. Further, Li Fig. 9 demonstrates the entire circuit board rotating.
Regarding Claim 9:
The modified invention of claim 1 teaches the rotating successive firing emitting translucent ultraviolet C self-sterilizing germicidal light tube for a door handle or door lever access device for hand sanitation according to claim 1, wherein said electrical energy for energizing said UVC LED light source is provided by a battery. Riley Fig. 6 (314).
Regarding Claim 11:
The modified invention of claim 1 teaches the rotating successive firing emitting translucent ultraviolet C self-sterilizing germicidal light tube for a door handle or door lever access device for hand sanitation according to claim 1, wherein said electrical energy for rotating said UVC LED light source contained within said tube handle is provided by a battery. Riley Fig. 6 (314).
Regarding Claim 12:
Riley teaches a rotating successive firing emitting translucent ultraviolet C self-sterilizing germicidal light tube for a door handle or door lever access device for hand sanitation (abstract, para 40), comprising:
a tube handle attached to a door latch assembly (Fig. 6 (300)), said handle having a translucent surface (para 44);
a rotating UVC LED light source contained within said tube handle (Fig. 6 (302) is an UV LED providing UVC light per para 25. The LEDs rotate when the handle is turned per para 40);
electrical energy for energizing said UVC LED light source (as provided by (314));
electrical energy for rotating said UVC LED light source contained within said tube handle (Fig. 6 (314), para 50).
However, Riley fails to teach means for rotating in complete revolution said UVC LED light source contained within said tube handle, which is interpreted under 35 USC 112(f) to correspond to a motor.
Li is directed to another UV sanitizing device (abstract), and is analogous art since it is also directed to the problem of UV sanitization. Li teaches that the UV LEDs are to be placed on a circuit board which is rotated by a motor (claim 1) and placed inside of a quartz housing (specifically reciting, “FIG. 9 description of the sterilizing device 200 of the shell is composed of front 101, top surface 102, side 103, bottom 104. In addition to the bottom surface and the side surface, the front surface 101, the upper surface 102 can be made of high transmission ultraviolet material, such as quartz glass.”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective time of filing to add the means for rotating taught by Li to the UV circuit boards of Riley. One would have been motivated to do so since this would allow the UV to be redirected at a preferred angle.
Regarding Claim 13:
The modified invention of claim 12 teaches the rotating successive firing emitting translucent ultraviolet C self-sterilizing germicidal light tube for a door handle or door lever access device for hand sanitation according to claim 12, wherein said means for rotating said UVC LED light source contained within the tube handle is an electric motor. Li claim 1, Fig. 9.
Regarding Claim 14:
The modified invention of claim 12 teaches the rotating successive firing emitting translucent ultraviolet C self-sterilizing germicidal light tube for a door handle or door lever access device for hand sanitation according to claim 12, wherein said UVC LED light source contained within said tube handle comprises at least one UVC LED mounted on a circuit board. Riley Fig. 6 (306))
Regarding Claim 15:
The modified invention of claim 12 teaches the rotating successive firing emitting translucent ultraviolet C self-sterilizing germicidal light tube for a door handle or door lever access device for hand sanitation according to claim 12, wherein said rotating UVC LED light source contained within said tube handle is successively firing. Riley paras 45-46.
Regarding Claim 16:
The modified invention of claim 12 teaches the rotating successive firing emitting translucent ultraviolet C self-sterilizing germicidal light tube for a door handle or door lever access device for hand sanitation according to claim 1, wherein said rotating UVC LED light source contained within the tube handle is attached to a rotating circuit board. Riley Fig. 6 (306) rotates with the handle. Further, Li Fig. 9 demonstrates the entire circuit board rotating.
Regarding Claim 18:
The modified invention of claim 12 teaches the rotating successive firing emitting translucent ultraviolet C self-sterilizing germicidal light tube for a door handle or door lever access device for hand sanitation according to claim 12, wherein said electrical energy for energizing said UVC LED light source is provided by a battery. Riley Fig. 6 (314).
Regarding Claim 20:
The modified invention of claim 12 teaches the rotating successive firing emitting translucent ultraviolet C self-sterilizing germicidal light tube for a door handle or door lever access device for hand sanitation according to claim 12, wherein said electrical energy for rotating said UVC LED light source contained within said tube handle is provided by a battery. Riley Fig. 6 (314).
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 1/29/26 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues that the US 2021/0404210A1 to Riley “is not citable as “prior art” due to Applicant’s effective filing date.” This is legally incorrect. Riley is unambiguously prior art under 35 USC 102(a)(2).
Applicant argues that Li does not describe full revolutions, and as such the proposed modification would not meet the claims. This is not persuasive. One cannot show nonobviousness by attacking references individually where the rejections are based on combinations of references. See In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 208 USPQ 871 (CCPA 1981); In re Merck & Co., 800 F.2d 1091, 231 USPQ 375 (Fed. Cir. 1986). In the case at hand, Li teaches a that the irradiation angle controller is “a rotating shaft and a driving motor.” This is the same structure as is disclosed in the instant specification as corresponding to “means for rotating…” Further, applying this identical structure to the prior art of Riley would yield the claimed invention, since one of ordinary skill in the art would understand that the cantilevered nature of a handle encourages complete rotation of the motor and its associated lights in the same logical fashion that the lamp attached to a ceiling in Li encouraged partial rotations, i.e., irradiating the entire accessible area around the lamp.
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 WYATT A STOFFA whose telephone number is (571)270-1782. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 0700-1600 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, ROBERT KIM can be reached at 571 272 2293. 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.
WYATT STOFFA
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 2881
/WYATT A STOFFA/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2881