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 .
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 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.
Claims 1-3, 7-8, and 16-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Gross (US 20190382597 A1).
Regarding claim 1, Gross teaches a method of protection treatment in a target space where inactivation of bacteria and/or viruses is performed (abstract), the target space being a space where a light source emitting ultraviolet light having light output in a specific wavelength band belonging to within a range from 190 nm to 235 nm has already been disposed or is planned to be disposed (ultraviolet light radiation onto an interior object, abstract, and wavelength from 200 nm to about 230 nm, paragraph [0031]), the method comprising the steps off: attaching a base material whose main component is a chlorine-based resin, to an interior surface of the target space or a surface of an object disposed in the target space; and forming a protective layer on a surface of the base material (interior object comprising a polymer substrate, paragraph [0008], and substrate may be polyvinylchloride, paragraph [0022]), the protective layer containing a material that exhibits resistance to the ultraviolet, wherein the protective layer is made of a fluorine-based resin as its main component and the protect layer contains an ultraviolet light absorbent in the fluorine-based resin (inorganic film to prevent degradation which can be fluorinated tin oxide, paragraph [0024]).
Regarding claim 2, Gross teaches a method of protection treatment for a target space where inactivation of bacteria and/or viruses is performed (abstract), the target space being a space where a light source emitting ultraviolet having light output in a specific wavelength band belonging to within a range from 190 nm to 235 nm has already been disposed or in planned to be disposed (ultraviolet light radiation onto an interior object, abstract, and wavelength from 200 nm to about 230 nm, paragraph [0031]), the method, comprising the steps of: preparing a specified material including a base material whose main component is a chlorine-based resin (interior object comprising a polymer substrate, paragraph [0008], and substrate may be polyvinylchloride, paragraph [0022]) and a protective layer including a material that exhibits resistance to the ultraviolet light (inorganic film protects the polymer substrate from ultraviolet radiation, abstract), the protective layer being formed on a surface of the base material; and attaching the specified material to an interior surface of the target space (Figure 1 film “16” applied to polymer substrate “14”), wherein the protective layer is made of a fluorine-based resin as its main component and the protective layer contains an ultraviolet light absorbent in the fluorine-based resin (inorganic film to prevent degradation which can be fluorinated tin oxide, paragraph [0024]).
Regarding claim 3, Gross teaches a method of protection treatment for a target space where inactivation of bacteria and/or viruses is performed (abstract), the target space being a space where a light source emitting ultraviolet light having light output in a specific wavelength band belonging to within a range from 190 nm to 235 nm has already been disposed or is planned to be disposed (ultraviolet light radiation onto an interior object, abstract, and wavelength from 200 nm to about 230 nm, paragraph [0031]), the method comprising the step of applying a protective layer containing a material that exhibits resistance to the ultraviolet light to a surface (inorganic film protects the polymer substrate from ultraviolet radiation, abstract, and Figure 1 film “16” applied to polymer substrate “14”) of a base material whose main component is a chlorine-based resin attached to an interior surface of the target space or a surface of an object disposed in the target space (interior object comprising a polymer substrate, paragraph [0008], and substrate may be polyvinylchloride, paragraph [0022]), wherein the protective layer is made of a fluorine-based resin as its main component and the protective layer contains an ultraviolet light absorbent in the fluorine-based resin (inorganic film to prevent degradation which can be fluorinated tin oxide, paragraph [0024]).
Regarding claim 7, Gross teaches the protective layer has a transmittance of 50% or more to visible light in a wavelength band from 400 nm to 600 nm (film transmits 60% or more of radiation in the visible spectrum of 400 nm to 800 nm, paragraph [0027]).
Regarding claim 8, Gross teaches wherein the interior surface includes an inner wall surface includes an inner wall surface, a floor surface, and a ceiling surface of the target space (interior object can include a wall or floor, paragraph [0021]).
Regarding claim 16, Gross teaches the protective layer has a transmittance of 50% or more to visible light in a wavelength band from 400 nm to 600 nm (film transmits 60% or more of radiation in the visible spectrum of 400 nm to 800 nm, paragraph [0027]).
Regarding claim 17, Gross teaches the protective layer has a transmittance of 50% or more to visible light in a wavelength band from 400 nm to 600 nm (film transmits 60% or more of radiation in the visible spectrum of 400 nm to 800 nm, paragraph [0027]).
Regarding claim 18, Gross teaches wherein the interior surface includes an inner wall surface includes an inner wall surface, a floor surface, and a ceiling surface of the target space (interior object can include a wall or floor, paragraph [0021]).
Regarding claim 19, Gross teaches wherein the interior surface includes an inner wall surface includes an inner wall surface, a floor surface, and a ceiling surface of the target space (interior object can include a wall or floor, paragraph [0021]).
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 4 and 14-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Gross.
Regarding claim 4, Gross teaches wherein the light source is used to inactivate bacteria and/or viruses in the target space by irradiating the base material with the ultraviolet light at an illuminance of 1 mW/cm2 or less (UV radiation provides disinfection with the radiant intensity from 0.5 to about 20 milliwatts/cm2, paragraph [0032]). It has been established that in cases 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 apply an illuminance of 1 mW/cm2 to achieve the desired disinfection (See MPEP 2144.05 I).
Regarding claim 14, Gross teaches wherein the light source is used to inactivate bacteria and/or viruses in the target space by irradiating the base material with the ultraviolet light at an illuminance of 1 mW/cm2 or less (UV radiation provides disinfection with the radiant intensity from 0.5 to about 20 milliwatts/cm2, paragraph [0032]). It has been established that in cases 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 apply an illuminance of 1 mW/cm2 to achieve the desired disinfection (See MPEP 2144.05 I).
Regarding claim 15, Gross teaches wherein the light source is used to inactivate bacteria and/or viruses in the target space by irradiating the base material with the ultraviolet light at an illuminance of 1 mW/cm2 or less (UV radiation provides disinfection with the radiant intensity from 0.5 to about 20 milliwatts/cm2, paragraph [0032]). It has been established that in cases 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 apply an illuminance of 1 mW/cm2 to achieve the desired disinfection (See MPEP 2144.05 I).
Conclusion
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