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 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.
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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claims are rejected as follows:
Claims 1, 3, 10–12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being obvious over Jeon et al., US 2020/0298162 A1 (“Jeon”) in view of Khalis et al., US 2021/0190346 A1 (“Khalis”).
Regarding claim 1:
Jeon discloses that a docking station (Jeon’s main air purifier 1, Jeon Fig. 2, [0027]) for a domestic appliance (Jeon’s moving handheld air cleaner 2, Jeon Fig. 2, [0027]),
the domestic appliance (2 of Jeon) comprising an air outlet (Jeon’s suction surface 33, Jeon Fig. 3, [0095], note here Jeon’s suction surface 33 is capable of serving as air outlet, for example, when the main air purifier sucks dust off the suction surface 33) with at least one nozzle (each opening of suction surface 33 is mapped to the claimed “nozzle”, Jeon Fig. 3),
the docking station (1 of Jeon, Jeon Fig. 2, [0027]) comprising:
a docking bay (Jeon’s mounting portion 15, Jeon Fig. 2, [0035]) for receiving and holding at least a part of the domestic appliance (2 of Jeon) comprising the at least one nozzle (36 of Jeon),
a docking sensor (Jeon’s seating sensor 60, Jeon [0099]) for providing a docking signal when at least the part of the domestic appliance is held in the docking bay (Jeon discloses its seating sensor 60 detects a mounting and dismounting of the handheld air purifier 2, Jeon [0099]),
at least one light source for emitting light in a far UVC portion of the electromagnetic spectrum (Jeon discloses an ultraviolet sterilizing light 38, Jeon Fig. 2, [0095]),
the at least one light source (38 of Jeon) being arranged in such a way as to illuminate the at least one nozzle by emitting the light while the domestic appliance is being held in the docking bay (Jeon discloses its light 38 disinfecting the suction surface 33, Jeon Fig. 3, [0095]), and
a docking station controller (Jeon’s controller 51, Jeon Fig. 7, [0098]), operatively coupled to the docking sensor and the at least one light source (as shown in Fig. 7, Jeon [0100]) and operative to receive the docking signal and to execute (Jeon Fig. 7, [0100]), in response thereto, a decontamination program, the decontamination program comprising using the at least one light source to illuminate the at least one nozzle for the decontamination thereof (Jeon discloses its controller comprising memory and has user interface, and Jeon discloses its controller receives input/data from the derive and control an operation assembly 55 to send commands, and its operation assembly its connected to the light 62, Jeon also discloses when the handheld purifier 2 is mounted, the ultraviolet sterilizing section or light is capable of disinfecting a vicinity of the suction surface 33 and mounting portion 15, Jeon [0095]).
Jeon does not disclose that wherein an intensity of the emitted light 38 illuminating the at least one nozzle is varied over time.
In the analogous art of controllable ultra-voilet light disinfection systems, Khalis discloses that its LED intensity is controlled by pulse width and repetition rate, and that any method of controlling LED intensity is within the scope of the present invention, Khalis [0021]. Khalis also discloses that controlling the light intensities could achieve the desired disinfection, Khalis [0022]. It would therefore have been obvious for one ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to modify Jeon’s ultraviolet sterilization light 38 to have a varying intensity to target different viruses as disclosed by Khalis to achieve the desired disinfection.
Regarding claim 3:
Modified Jeon discloses that the docking station as claimed in claim 1, further comprising a communication unit (Jeon’s communication module 54, Jeon Fig. 7, [0098]), operatively coupled to the docking station controller (51 of Jeon, connection is shown in Fig. 7, [0100]), for enabling communication between the docking station controller (51 of Jeon) and an appliance controller (41 of Jeon) of the domestic appliance (Jeon Fig. 7, [0101]).
Regarding claim 10:
Modified Jeon does not explicitly disclose that the docking station as claimed in claim 1, wherein: the docking station controller is operative to execute the decontamination program by using pulses of the emitted light illuminating the at least one nozzle. Khalis discloses a controller 7 controls the light intensities to achieve the desired disinfection by pulse width and repetition rate, Khalis Fig. 2, [0021]–[0022]. It would have been obvious to integrate Khalis’s controller portion in Jeon’s docking station controller for Khalis’s LED pulse system to work properly. With such modification, modified Jeon’s docking station controller would be operative to execute the decontamination program by using pulses of the emitted light illuminating the at least one nozzle.
Regarding claim 11:
Modified Jeon does not explicitly disclose that the docking station as claimed in claim 10, wherein: the docking station controller is operative to execute the decontamination program by using pulses of the emitted light that are constant in frequency, duration, and/or intensity over time.
However, Khalis discloses a lookup table 15 that records in details how much exposure time would be required to kill different viruses, Khalis Fig. 4, [0021]. For example, Khalis discloses killing E-Coli virus requires an exposure time of 1.9 seconds and killing salmonella requires 3.8 seconds, Khalis Fig. 4, [0021]. It would therefore have been obvious for one ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing for modified Jeon’s docking station controller to be operative to execute the decontamination program by using pulses of the emitted light that are constant in duration, over time to decontaminate E-coli Virus, in which case, the duration would be 1.9 seconds.
Regarding claim 12:
Modified Jeon discloses that the docking station as claimed in claim 10, wherein: the docking station controller is operative to execute the decontamination program by using pulses of the emitted light that are vary in frequency, duration, and/or intensity over time because Khalis discloses its UV light intensity is based on a UV power look up table 15, and then converted to LED pulse width and repetition rate based on a desired disinfection of different types of targe pathogens, Khalis Fig. 4, [0021].
Claim 2 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being obvious over Jeon in view of Khalis and Krigmont et al., US 2022/0088260 A1 (“Krigmont”).
Regarding claim 2:
Jeon does not disclose that the docking station as claimed in claim 1, wherein the at least one light source is configured for emitting light with a wavelength of about 222 nm.
In the analogous art of air purifier sterilization light, Krigmont discloses that for highest germicidal efficiency, the UVC light source should emit at around 222 to 270 nm wavelength, Krigmont [0055]. It would therefore have been obvious for one ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing for Jeon’s UV light to emit at a wavelength of about 222 nm for highest germicidal efficiency.
Claims 4–5, 7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being obvious over Jeon in view of Lee et al., EP 2468167 A2 (“Lee”)1.
Regarding claim 4:
Jeon discloses that an apparatus (Jeon’s apparatus as shown in Fig. 1) comprising:
a domestic appliance (Jeon’s handheld air purifier 2, Jeon Fig. 1, [0100]), the domestic appliance (2 of Jeon) comprising an air outlet (Jeon’s suction surface 33, Jeon Fig. 3, note that Jeon’s suction surface 33 could be an air outlet when the main air puffier 1 sucks foreign matter from suction surface 33, Jeon [0037]) with at least one nozzle (each opening of suction surface 33 read on the claimed nozzle, Jeon Fig. 3);
and a docking station (Jeon’s main air purifier 1, Jeon Fig. 1, [0027]) comprising:
a docking bay (Jeon’s mounting portion 15, Jeon Fig. 2, [0035]) configured to receive and hold at least a part of the domestic appliance (1 of Jeon) comprising the at least one nozzle (opening of Jeon’s suction surface 33, Jeon Figs. 1–3);
a docking sensor (Jeon’s seating sensor 60, Jeon [0099]) configured to provide a docking signal when at least the part of the domestic appliance is held in the docking bay (Jeon discloses its sensor sense whether the handheld air purifier 2 is mounted on the main air purifier 1, Id.);
at least one light source configured to emit light in a far UVC portion of the electromagnetic spectrum (Jeon discloses light 38, which could include ultraviolet light, Jeon Fig. 2, [0095]), the at least one light source being arranged in such a way as to illuminate the at least one nozzle by emitting the light while the domestic appliance is being held in the docking bay (Jeon discloses its ultraviolet light emits UV radiation when the handheld air purifier 2 is mounted and air purifier 2 covers the light, Jeon Fig. 2, [0095]); and
a docking station controller (Jeon’s controller 51, Jeon Fig. 7, [0098]), operatively coupled (see Fig. 7, Jeon Fig. 7, [0097]) to the docking sensor (60 of Jeon, which is part of Jeon’s sensing assembly 59, Jeon [0099]) and the at least one light source (38 of Jeon) and operative to receive the docking signal and to execute (operative connection shown in Jeon Fig. 7) , in response thereto, a decontamination program, the decontamination program comprising using the at least one light source to illuminate the at least one nozzle for the decontamination thereof (when seating sensor 60 senses that the handheld air purifier 2 is mounted properly, the seating sensor turns on UV light 38 to sterilizing the suction 33, which reads on the decontamination program, Jeon Fig. 7, [0099] and [0095]).
Modified Jeon does not disclose a light guide arranged to guide light to the at least one nozzle. Modified Jeon also does not disclose at least one light source being arranged in such a way as to illuminate the at least one nozzle by emitting the light towards the light guide of the domestic appliance.
In the analogous art of vacuum cleaner comprising UV sterilization systems, Lee discloses an ultraviolet guiding part 260 configured to guide UV rays generated to the cleaner 100, Lee Fig. 6, [0050]. Lee discloses such of irradiation guide could prevent UV light from being emitted out of its nest 212, Id. Since Jeon discloses that UV light maybe harmful to user’s eye, Jeon, [0095], it would therefore have been obvious for one ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to include a similar UV guide 261 as disclosed by Lee to prevent UV light from emitting outside of the target irradiation area to protect user’s eye. With such modification, Jeon would have a light guide arranged to guide light to the at least one nozzle. And Jeon’s light source would be arranged in such a way as to illuminate the at least one nozzle by emitting the light towards a light guide similar to that shown in Lee, where Lee’s ultraviolet generator 240 is arranged in such a way to illuminate the cleaner’s nozzle part 130 towards the light guide 261, and the light guide 261 is part of Lee’s domestic appliance as shown in Fig. 1, Lee Figs. 1 and 6, [0039] and [0040].
Regarding claim 5:
Modified Jeon discloses that the apparatus as claimed in claim 4, wherein the docking station (1 of Jeon) and the domestic appliance (2 of Jeon) each comprise a communication unit (for enabling communication between the docking station controller and an appliance controller of the domestic appliance (Jeon discloses communication module 54 and 44 respectively for its main air purifier 1 and handheld air purifier 2, communicates controller 51 and 41 respectively, Jeon Fig. 7, [0102]–[0103]).
Regarding claim 7:
Modified Jeon discloses that the apparatus as claimed in claim 4, wherein the domestic appliance (2 of Jeon) comprises a filter for filtering incoming air (Jeon discloses filter 34, Jeon Fig. 3, [0043]), the light guide being arranged in such a way as to illuminate the filter (Jeon disclose its filter 34 maybe fixed to an interior of the suction surface 33, Jeon Fig. 3, [0043], Jeon’s filter 34 therefore covers Jeon’s suction surface 33 and Jeon discloses its UV light 38 is provided at a position to irradiate a vicinity of the suction surface 33, Jeon Fig. 3, [0095], Jeon’s filter 34 will be irradiated because it is located at the vicinity of the suction surface 33).
Claims 6, 8 and 13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being obvious over Jeon in view of Lee, and in further view of Johnson et al., US 2006/0216193 A1 (“Johnson”).
Regarding claim 6:
Modified Jeon does not disclose that the apparatus as claimed in claim 4, wherein the light guide, comprises at least of: an optical fiber, a transparent plastic, and/or a semi-transparent plastic.
In the analogous art of cleaning tools with UV flash unit, Johnson discloses optical fibers can be used to guide the UV light to exit from a thin tip and inserted into crevices and small spaces to denature, sanitize and/or disinfect areas that are difficult to clean in other ways, Johnson [00260. It would therefore have been obvious for one ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to modify Lee’s irradiation holes 264 on its irradiation plate to be made of optical fibers thin tips as disclosed by Johnson such that areas in Jeon’s nozzle could have a thorough cleaning, including those areas that are hard to clean in other ways, for example, the filter located inside Jeon’s suction surface 33, Jeon Fig. 3, [0043].
Regarding claim 8:
Modified Jeon does not disclose that the apparatus as claimed in claim 7, wherein the light guide is arranged to guide the emitted light from the at least one light source to the filter.
However, as discussed in claim 6, it would therefore have been obvious for one ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to modify Lee’s irradiation holes 264 on its irradiation plate to be made of optical fibers thin tips as disclosed by Johnson such that areas in Jeon’s nozzle could have a thorough cleaning, including those areas that are hard to clean in other ways, for example, the filter located inside Jeon’s suction surface 33, Jeon Fig. 3, [0043]. The proposed modification in claim 6, therefore allows the light guide made of Johnson’s optical fiber thin tips to guide the emitted light from the at least one light source to the filter.
Regarding claim 13:
Modified Jeon does not disclose that the apparatus as claimed in claim 8, wherein the light guide comprises at least one of an optical fiber, a transparent plastic, and/or a semi-transparent plastic.
In the analogous art of cleaning tools with UV flash unit, Johnson discloses optical fibers can be used to guide the UV light to exit from a thin tip and inserted into crevices and small spaces to denature, sanitize and/or disinfect areas that are difficult to clean in other ways, Johnson [00260. It would therefore have been obvious for one ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to modify Lee’s irradiation holes 264 on its irradiation plate to be made of optical fibers thin tips as disclosed by Johnson such that areas in Jeon’s nozzle could have a thorough cleaning, including those areas that are hard to clean in other ways, for example, the filter located inside Jeon’s suction surface 33, Jeon Fig. 3, [0043].
Claim 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being obvious over Jeon in view of Khalis as applied to claim 1 above, and in further view of Richter et al., US 2021/0343486 A1 (“Richter”).
Regarding claim 9:
Modified Jeon does not disclose that the docking station as claimed in claim 1, wherein: the docking station controller is operative to execute the decontamination program by varying the intensity of the emitted light illuminating the at least one nozzle gradually and continuously over time.
However, Khalis discloses its controller can respond by increasing or decreasing the rate of air interchange by adjusting the UV intensity and fan speed, Khalis [0017]. Khalis also discloses that any method of controlling LED intensity is within the scope of the present invention, Khalis [0021].
Additionally, in the analogous art of disinfection using LED light, Richter discloses its LED 120 could be used as a UV flash to sterile the touch surface, and the intensity of illumination of LEDs 120 maybe proportional to the nearness of the user, Richter [0043]. Richter also discloses that its LED 120 light could change intensity by dims (up or down), Richter [0043]. LED dims up or down indicate intensity is varied gradually and continuously. It would therefore have been obvious for one ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to further modify Jeon’s docking station controller to be operative to execute the decontamination program by varying the intensity of the emitted light illuminating the at least one nozzle gradually and continuously over time similar to that disclosed by Richter such that Jeon’s suction surface 33 and Jeon’s filter 34, which are located at different nearness from Jeon’s LED, could be illuminated thoroughly and thus get disinfection thoroughly by gradually and continuously varying modified Jeon’s LED light intensity to reach at different distance since Richter discloses intensity of illumination of LEDs 120 may be proportional to the nearness of the user, Richter [0043]. Here, the user is Jeon’s filter 34 and suction surface 33.
Double Patenting
A rejection based on double patenting of the “same invention” type finds its support in the language of 35 U.S.C. 101 which states that “whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process... may obtain a patent therefor...” (Emphasis added). Thus, the term “same invention,” in this context, means an invention drawn to identical subject matter. See Miller v. Eagle Mfg. Co., 151 U.S. 186 (1894); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Ockert, 245 F.2d 467, 114 USPQ 330 (CCPA 1957).
A statutory type (35 U.S.C. 101) double patenting rejection can be overcome by canceling or amending the claims that are directed to the same invention so they are no longer coextensive in scope. The filing of a terminal disclaimer cannot overcome a double patenting rejection based upon 35 U.S.C. 101.
Claim 1 is provisionally rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 as claiming the same invention as that of claim 1 of copending Application No. 18/028, 112. This is a provisional statutory double patenting rejection since the claims directed to the same invention have not in fact been patented.
Claims 4 and 6 are provisionally rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 as claiming the same invention as that of claims 4 and 6 of copending Application No. 18/028, 112. This is a provisional statutory double patenting rejection since the claims directed to the same invention have not in fact been patented.
Claims 4 and 6 are provisionally rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 as claiming the same invention as that of claim 13 of copending Application No. 18/028, 112. This is a provisional statutory double patenting rejection since the claims directed to the same invention have not in fact been patented.
Response to Arguments
Claim Objections
The examiner drops the current objection because the applicant’s amendment overcome the current objection.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112(b)
The examiner drops the current rejection because the applicant’s amendment overcome the current rejection.
Double Patenting
The examiner maintains the ODP rejection.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC §§ 102(a)(1) and 103
The applicant amends independent claim 1 and 4 and argues that Jeon does not teach that the intensity of the emitted light illuminating at least on e nozzle is varied over time, Applicant Rem. dated Mar. 31, 2026 (“Applicant Rem.”) ps. 6–10.
The examiner drops the current rejection 35 USC § 102(a)(1) because applicant’s amendment overcomes Jeon. However, such amendment does not overcome Jeon in view of Khalis, please see details in the rejection section above.
Applicant’s arguments for claims 2–3, 9–12 depend on allowability of claim 1, and since claim 1 is not allowable, applicant’s arguments are request for withdrawal of rejection s not granted.
Applicant amends claim 4 and argues that Jeon does not teach the claimed light guide, Applicant Rem. p. 12.
The examiner drops the current rejection 35 USC § 102(a)(1) because applicant’s amendment overcomes Jeon. However, such amendment does not overcome Jeon in view of Lee, please see details in the rejection section above.
Applicant’s arguments for claims 5–8 and 13 depend on allowability of claim 1, and since claim 1 is not allowable, applicant’s arguments are request for withdrawal of rejection s not granted.
New Claims
Please see rejection for new claims in the claim rejection section.
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 QIANPING HE whose telephone number is (571)272-8385. The examiner can normally be reached on 7:30-5:00 M-F.
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, Jennifer Dieterle can be reached on (571) 270-7872. 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 https://ppair-my.uspto.gov/pair/PrivatePair. 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.
/Qianping He/Examiner, Art Unit 1776
1 Lee is the 18-page FOR dated Jan. 31, 2024.
Prosecution Insights