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 .
Claim Interpretation
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 § 102
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 1-8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Lloyd (U.S. Publication No. 2017/0246329).
Concerning claim 1, Lloyd discloses an ultraviolet light irradiation system comprising:
An ultraviolet light source unit (20/98) that produces ultraviolet light (paragraphs 97-102);
An N irradiation unit (94) that irradiates a desired region with the ultraviolet light, where N is a natural number (paragraphs 97-102);
A sensor unit (30/40) that detects whether or not an object that should avoid exposure is present in the desired region (paragraph 60); and
A blocking unit that stops (numeral 50 and/or shutters), in a case where the object that should avoid exposure is present in the desired region, irradiation of the ultraviolet light from the irradiation unit to the desired region (paragraphs 80, 84, 101 and 151-183).
Regarding claim 8, Lloyd also discloses an ultraviolet light irradiation method for an N irradiation unit (94) to irradiate a desired region with ultraviolet light produced by an ultraviolet light source unit (20/98), where N is a natural number (paragraphs 97-102), the ultraviolet light irradiation method comprising:
Detecting whether or not an object that should avoid exposure is present in the desired region (paragraph 60); and
Stopping, in a case where the object that should avoid exposure is present in the desired region, irradiation of the ultraviolet light from the irradiation unit to the desired region (paragraphs 80, 84, 101 and 151-183).
With respect to claim 2, Lloyd continues to disclose that the blocking unit is an optical shutter that is disposed in an optical transmission line from the ultraviolet light source unit to the irradiation unit, is operable to close the optical transmission line in a case where the object that should avoid exposure is present in the desired region, and is operable to open the optical transmission line in a case where the object that should avoid exposure is not present in the desired region (paragraphs 80, 84 and 101).
Concerning claim 3, Lloyd further discloses that the blocking unit is a light source control unit (50) that causes the ultraviolet light source unit to stop outputting the ultraviolet light in a case where the object that should avoid exposure is present in the desired region, and causes the ultraviolet light source unit to output the ultraviolet light in a case where the object that should avoid exposure is not present in the desired region (paragraphs 60 and 64).
Regarding claim 4, the reference discloses that information from the sensor unit (30/40) is notified to the light source control unit (50) via a path different from an optical transmission line from the ultraviolet light source unit to the irradiation unit (paragraphs 156, 159 and 160).
With respect to claim 5, Lloyd continues to disclose that information from the sensor unit (30/40) is notified to the light source control unit (50) at a wavelength different from a wavelength of the ultraviolet light via an optical transmission line from the ultraviolet light source unit (20/98) to the irradiation unit (paragraphs 156, 159 and 160).
Concerning claim 6, Lloyd further discloses that, in a case where N ≥ 2 is satisfied, identification information is given to each of the sensor units (30/40 in Figures 1-4), the ultraviolet light source unit (20/98) includes one or more light sources (98) for supplying the ultraviolet light to each of the irradiation units (94), and the light source control unit (50) controls, based on the identification information, to output or stop outputting the ultraviolet light supplied by the light source (paragraphs 64 and 172-176).
Regarding claim 7, Lloyd also discloses that on the ultraviolet light source unit side, a sensor information light source unit that supplies carrier light having a wavelength different from the wavelength of the ultraviolet light to the sensor unit side, and on the sensor unit side, a light modulation unit that modulates the carrier light to generate information from the sensor unit and transmits the information to the light source control unit (paragraphs 127, 128, 135 and 151-160).
Double Patenting
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a nonstatutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13.
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer.
Claims 1-8 are provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-6 of copending Application No. 18/562,769 (reference application).
Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because all of the limitations of claims 1-8 are met by claims 1-6 of the reference application. More specifically, both the instant invention and the reference application claim an ultraviolet light irradiation system comprising that includes an ultraviolet light source unit that produces ultraviolet light, an N irradiation unit (wherein N is a natural number) that irradiates a desired region with the ultraviolet light, and a sensor unit that detects whether or not an object that should avoid exposure is present in the desired region. Each further claim a blocking unit that stops, in a case where the object that should avoid exposure is present in the desired region, irradiation of the ultraviolet light from the irradiation unit to the desired region. As such, the obviousness type double patenting rejection exists.
This is a provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejection because the patentably indistinct claims have not in fact been patented.
Claims 1-8 are provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-8 of copending Application No. 18/018,035 (reference application).
Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because all of the limitations of claims 1-8 are met by claims 1-8 of the reference application. More specifically, both the instant invention and the reference application claim an ultraviolet light irradiation system comprising that includes an ultraviolet light source unit that produces ultraviolet light, an N irradiation unit (wherein N is a natural number including 1) that irradiates a desired region with the ultraviolet light, and a sensor unit that detects whether or not an object that should avoid exposure is present in the desired region. Each further claim a blocking unit that stops, in a case where the object that should avoid exposure is present in the desired region, irradiation of the ultraviolet light from the irradiation unit to the desired region. As such, the obviousness type double patenting rejection exists.
This is a provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejection because the patentably indistinct claims have not in fact been patented.
Claims 1-8 are provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-7 of copending Application No. 18/018,038 (reference application).
Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because all of the limitations of claims 1-8 are met by claims 1-7 of the reference application. More specifically, both the instant invention and the reference application claim an ultraviolet light irradiation system comprising that includes an ultraviolet light source unit that produces ultraviolet light, an N irradiation unit (wherein N is a natural number including 1) that irradiates a desired region with the ultraviolet light, and a sensor unit that detects whether or not an object that should avoid exposure is present in the desired region. Each further claim a blocking unit that stops, in a case where the object that should avoid exposure is present in the desired region, irradiation of the ultraviolet light from the irradiation unit to the desired region. As such, the obviousness type double patenting rejection exists.
This is a provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejection because the patentably indistinct claims have not in fact been patented.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to KEVIN C JOYNER whose telephone number is (571)272-2709. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 8:00AM-4:30PM.
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.
/KEVIN JOYNER/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1799