Prosecution Insights
Last updated: April 19, 2026
Application No. 18/285,502

DISINFECTING DEVICE HAVING IMPROVED EFFICIENCY AND SAFETY

Non-Final OA §101§103§112
Filed
Oct 04, 2023
Examiner
SPAMER, DONALD R
Art Unit
1799
Tech Center
1700 — Chemical & Materials Engineering
Assignee
Signigfy Holding B V
OA Round
1 (Non-Final)
60%
Grant Probability
Moderate
1-2
OA Rounds
2y 11m
To Grant
91%
With Interview

Examiner Intelligence

Grants 60% of resolved cases
60%
Career Allow Rate
327 granted / 548 resolved
-5.3% vs TC avg
Strong +31% interview lift
Without
With
+31.2%
Interview Lift
resolved cases with interview
Typical timeline
2y 11m
Avg Prosecution
37 currently pending
Career history
585
Total Applications
across all art units

Statute-Specific Performance

§101
1.1%
-38.9% vs TC avg
§103
48.8%
+8.8% vs TC avg
§102
14.1%
-25.9% vs TC avg
§112
29.3%
-10.7% vs TC avg
Black line = Tech Center average estimate • Based on career data from 548 resolved cases

Office Action

§101 §103 §112
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 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 14 recites “a mounting means for mounting”. This is taken to invoke 112(f). The specification does not describe the structure of the mounting means. Thus, it is taken broadly for the purposes of applying prior art. 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. Claim 15 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because it is a use claim and thus not a proper method claim as no active steps are recited (MPEP 2173.05(q)). 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. 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. Claim 14 is 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. Claim 14 is taken to invoke 112(f) with the language “a mounting means for mounting”. The specification does not describe a structure for the mounting means and thus the written description is lacking. Claims 14 and 15 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 applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention. Claim 14 is taken to invoke 112(f) with the language “a mounting means for mounting”. The specification does not describe a structure for the mounting means and thus it is unclear what structures are required by the claim. Claim 15 is a use claim as discussed above as there are no actively recited method steps. Given the lack of recited steps, it is not clear what actions are needed to carry out the claimed method and thus the claims are indefinite. Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103 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. Claim(s) 1-15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hwang et al. (KR102152810)(English machine translation) further in view of Illzumi (JP H07 289616) (English machine translation) and Raring et al. (US 2021/0215319). With regards to claim 1, Hwang et al. teaches a disinfecting device (101; fig 5-9) comprising: at least one light source (110) arranged for, in operation, to emit a first light having a first UV wavelength range (shown by arrows; para [0040]); at least one optical element (120) arranged to collimate at least a part of said first light emitted from said light source towards at least one louver (140); said at least one louver comprising a plurality of light absorbing structures (louvre 140 can be made of two sliding parts 142 as in fig 27) having a first surface (top/left) and a second surface (bottom/right) being opposite to said first surface, said light absorbing structure further having a proximal end being arranged adjacent to said at least one light source (end nearest light source 110), and a distal end being arranged opposite to said proximal end (end out the outlet opening 130), said light absorbing structure further having a longitudinal extension L between said proximal end and said distal end (length of the body), and a transversal extension being substantially perpendicular to said longitudinal extension (width of the body), said light absorbing structure being arranged for absorbing a first portion of said first light (para [0059]; fig 5-9 and 27). Hwang et al. does not teach wherein said plurality of light absorbing structures comprises at least one light converting element arranged for converting a second portion of said first light into a second light having a second wavelength range comprising longer wavelengths than said first UV wavelength range, and wherein a third portion of said first light is exiting said disinfection device, wherein said light converting element comprises a light converting material being arranged in a matrix being light transmissive to said first light. Illzumi teaches plurality of light absorbing structures (louvers 6) comprises at least one light converting element (phosphor coating) arranged for converting a second portion of said first light into a second light having a second wavelength range comprising longer wavelengths than said first UV wavelength range (converts a portion of UV light from source 5 into visible light; at least para [0012]). This allows adjustment of the amount of the ration of UV light to visible light emitted from the fixture so that it can be used both as a sterilizing lamp and a regular indoor lighting lamp as desired (para [0012]). A person having ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to have added light converting elements as taught by Illzumi in order to allow for the light fixture to also emit visible light as desired for dual purpose sterilizing and general indoor lighting. The combination does not teach that the light converting element comprises a light converting material arranged in a matrix that is transmissive to the first light. Instead, as above, Illuzumi teaches a phosphor coating without a matrix. Raring et al. teaches a UV illuminating device that can also emit visible light (abstract and para [0347]; see whole document). Raring also teaches the use of a phosphor light converting material and teaches that the phosphor material can be a single crystal, a powder bound by a binder, or a phosphor suspended in glass or other matrix (para [0026], [0267]). A person having ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to have substituted one way of providing a phosphor light converter (suspended in a transparent matrix) for another (powder bound in place) motivated by an expectation of successfully providing the desired light conversion. The combination thus results in wherein said plurality of light absorbing structures comprises at least one light converting element arranged for converting a second portion of said first light into a second light having a second wavelength range comprising longer wavelengths than said first UV wavelength range, and wherein a third portion of said first light is exiting said disinfection device, wherein said light converting element comprises a light converting material being arranged in a matrix being light transmissive to said first light. With regards to claim 2, Hwang et al. teaches that the plurality of light absorbing structures has an aspect ratio of at least 2 (the length is significantly larger than the width by more than 2 times; fig 5-9 and 27). Further, Hwang et al. teaches adjusting the length in order to achieve the desired light spread (para [0116]). Thus, a person having ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to have optimized the length and thus the aspect ratio in order to achieve the desired light beam spread. With regards to claims 3 and 4, the combination results in wherein said at least one light converting element is arranged on a portion of said first surface and/or said second surface of said light absorbing structure (the phosphor is added to the louver). Further, a person having ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to have optimized how much /where on the louver the phosphor is applied in order to achieve the desired amount of light conversion and ratio of UV to visible light in the light emitted. With regards to claim 5, a person having ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to have optimized how much /where on the louver the phosphor is applied in order to achieve the desired amount of light conversion and ratio of UV to visible light in the light emitted. With regards to claim 6, covering the louver in the phosphor converter would result in some being at the distal end as claimed. Further, a person having ordinary skill in the art would have found it sobvious to have optimized how much /where on the louver the phosphor is applied in order to achieve the desired amount of light conversion and ratio of UV to visible light in the light emitted. With regards to claim 7, Hwang et al. teaches 5 or more light absorbing structures (fig 5-9 and 27). With regards to claim 8, Hwang et al. teaches that the plurality of light absorbing structures is in the form of N substantially parallel plates (fig 5-9 and 27). With regards to claim 9, the light converting element is arranged on K light absorbing structures where K is from 1 to N-1 when the plurality of light absorbing structures is defined to be one less that the total number in Hwang et al. and an element is on all the structures. Further, a person having ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to have optimized how much /where on the louvers the phosphor is applied in order to achieve the desired amount of light conversion and ratio of UV to visible light in the light emitted. With regards to claim 10, the combination does not teach that the light absorbing structure has a wedge-shaped element with the light converting element as claimed. Raring teaches mounting a light converting element to a surface using a wedge-shaped element (para [0348] and fig 25E). A person having ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to have added a wedge shaped element to either the first and/or second surface of the louver (light absorbing structure) to mount the light converting element in order to control the angle of light reflections and incidence as desired. With regards to claims 11 and 12, the combination of Hwang with Illzumi above teaches a sterilizing UV light source (UVC) which overlaps with the first claimed wavelength, but converts light to visible and not within 280-380nm as claimed. Raring as discussed above teaches converting light to generate multiple different light energy bands as desired. In table 1 on page 32, Raring teaches various different wavelength bands having different utility. For instance, a UV-C band for surface disinfection and a UVA band for air purification or tanning. A person having ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to have selected the converter as desired in order to allow for flexibility between the ratio of light in different bands to help achieve the desired multiple functional outcomes from the light fixture. With regards to claim 13, the combination with Illzumi teaches that sterilizing UV light is converted into visible light. These ranges overlap the claimed ranges of 100 to 280 nm light being converted to 400 to 380nm light. Thus, the claim is obvious. With regards to claim 14, Hwang teaches a mounting means (fixing bracket 300) mounting the luminaire including the disinfecting device to a mounting surface (such as a ceiling or wall)(para [0046]-[0048; fig 4). With regards to claim 15, the combination teaches a method of using the disinfection device of claim 1 or the luminaire of claim 14 (see above). Conclusion Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to DONALD R SPAMER whose telephone number is (571)272-3197. The examiner can normally be reached Monday to Friday from 9-5. 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. /DONALD R SPAMER/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1799
Read full office action

Prosecution Timeline

Oct 04, 2023
Application Filed
Jan 23, 2026
Non-Final Rejection — §101, §103, §112 (current)

Precedent Cases

Applications granted by this same examiner with similar technology

Patent 12582731
METHOD TO DECONTAMINATE SOLID SURFACE
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 24, 2026
Patent 12576177
DEVICE AND METHOD FOR EVAPORATING VOLATILE SUBSTANCES, ESPECIALLY PERFUMES AND/OR INSECTICIDES, AND HEATING BODY
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 17, 2026
Patent 12575509
MOVABLE APPARATUS WITH AUTOMATIC/AUTONOMOUS OPERATION SLIDABLE ALONG PRE-ESTABLISHED PATHS AMONG ROWS OF VINEYARDS, FOR THE ANTI-BACTERIAL AND FUNGICIDE TREATMENT OF THE SAME VINEYARDS
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 17, 2026
Patent 12576179
VIRUS REMOVAL DEVICE
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 17, 2026
Patent 12557840
Portable Scent Dispensing Ashtray
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
60%
Grant Probability
91%
With Interview (+31.2%)
2y 11m
Median Time to Grant
Low
PTA Risk
Based on 548 resolved cases by this examiner. Grant probability derived from career allow rate.

Sign in with your work email

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

Personal email addresses (Gmail, Yahoo, etc.) are not accepted.

Free tier: 3 strategy analyses per month