DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
1. 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 § 112
2. 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.
3. Claims 2-3 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.
Regarding claim 2, the phase “wherein exposing comprises” in line 1 is indefinite as it is unclear which exposing step it is referring to in claim 1. Claim 1 recites two different steps of exposing.
Claim 3 is dependent from claim 2 and therefore is rejected for the reasons set froth above by virtue of claim dependency.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
4. 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.
5. Claim(s) 1, 5, and 7-8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sharma (GB 2421220 A) in view of He (WO 2016165203 A1 – English Translation) and Hadlock et al. (US 2014/0245866 A1) (Hereafter “Hadlock”).
Regarding claims 1 and , Sharma discloses (see figures 6-8) a method of touchlessly disinfecting an object (computer keyboard 14) within ninety seconds (see page 9, line 15-22 – keyboard is disinfected in 10 seconds by exposure to 254 nm UV light) comprising: accepting insertion of the object (keyboard 14) having an exposed surface area (exterior surfaces of keyboard) though an opening in a housing (formed by cover 12 and base 13) onto a carriage (tray) contained within an internal volume of the housing; transporting the object (keyboard 14) at least until the object is fully within the internal volume (space inside of housing – see page 15, lines 1-6); exposing the object (keyboard 14) to light of a wavelength in the range of 200 – 280 (Sharma disclose 254nm – see page 9, lines 16-17); and exposing the object through the opening within a total cycle time of 90 seconds (see page 9, line 15-22 – keyboard is disinfected in 10 seconds by exposure to 254 nm UV light).
Sharma does not appear to disclose a resilient closure covering the opening as claimed or exposing the object to light in an amount sufficient to subject exposed surface area to greater than 3 mJ/cm2 of light of the wavelength.
He discloses a rapid disinfection process of sterilizing objects placed into an apparatus utilizing UV light at a wavelength of 253.7nm wherein the dosage of the UV light at the wavelength of 253.7nm determines the overall killing effect. Furthermore, He explicitly discloses that radiation doses of 40 mJ/cm2 can achieve a killing effect of 99.9% against bacteria with a UV wavelength of 253.7nm and that lower doses produce lower rates of disinfection (see English translation – “In general, the ultraviolet dose (measured at a wavelength of 253.7 nm, the same below) of killing 90% of the bacteria is 5 mJ/cm2; the ultraviolet dose of killing 99% of the bacteria is 15 mJ/cm2 ; For most microorganisms, a radiation dose of 40 mJ/cm2 can achieve a killing effect of 99.9%.”).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the process of Sharma and expose the surface area of the keyboard to the UV light with a wavelength of 253.7nm to a dosage greater than 3 mJ/cm2 and furthermore, greater than 30 mJ/cm2, in order to achieve a higher killing effect on the order of 99.9% as disclosed by He.
Hadlock discloses (figure 1A, 1B) a device (100) for sanitizing writing implements, wherein the device includes an enclosure (109) with an opening (111) where writing implements are inserted to be disinfected. Inside the enclosure (109) are UV lamps (160) and the opening (111) of the enclosure (109) includes a shield (113) that is a flap or brush for blocking the UV light from exiting the device (see para [0035]-[0036]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the method of Sharma and include resilient closure members such as a flap or brush on the opening of the housing as taught by Hadlock in order to help prevent UV light rays from escaping the interior if the housing.
Regarding claim 7, Sharma discloses automatically sensing the object (keyboard 14) upon insertion; and activating an emitter (UV light 18) responsive to the sensing (see page 15, lines 1-10; page 5, lines 10-19).
Regarding claim 8, Sharma discloses (see page 15, lines 1-22) sensing when the object (keyboard 14) is fully within the volume (via sensor 27); and adjusting the transporting based on the sensing (the system includes indicator lights that are illuminated with the word “DISINFECTING” and once complete the indicator lights changes to “READY TO USE”, thereby the transporting is adjusted based upon the indicator lights in that a user would not remove the keyboard during the time the “DISFECTING” light is lit.
6. Claim(s) 1-7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hadlock et al. (US 2014/0245866 A1) (Hereafter “Hadlock”) in view of Wind (US 2009/0148358 A1).
Regarding claims 1 and 5, Hadlock discloses (figures 1A, 1B; para [0074]) a method of touchlessly disinfecting an object (writing implement 150) comprising: accepting insertion of the object (writing implement 150) having an exposed surface area (exterior surfaces of implement) though a resilient closure (113 (see para [0036] – shield 113 is a resilient member) in a housing (109) onto a carriage (141) contained within an internal volume of the housing (109); transporting the object (150) at least until the object is fully within the internal volume (space inside of housing – see figure 1B); exposing the object (150) to UV light of a wavelength in the range of 100-400nm (Hadlock discloses multiple UV light s 160a-160b located within the chamber – see para [0040]). Hadlock further discloses that the length of time, intensity and wavelength of UV light can all be controlled by the controller (145) (see para [0038]).
However, Hadlock does not explicitly disclose that disinfection occurs within 90 seconds or exposing the object to light in an amount sufficient to subject exposed surface area to greater than 3 mJ/cm2 or greater than 30 mJ/cm2 of light of the wavelength.
Wind discloses a writing instrument sterilizer that utilizes UV light to disinfect writing implements (see abstract). The UV light is emitted at a wavelength of 254nm for a preferable time period of 80-110 seconds, and an intensity of 10,000 microwatts/cm2 (this intensity is equal to 80 mJ/cm2 for a sterilization time of 80 seconds) (see para [0038]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to modify the process of Hadlock and expose the writing instrument to light of a wavelength of 254nm (within the range of 200 – 280nm) in an amount sufficient to subject exposed surface area to greater than 3 mJ/cm2 (80mJ/cm2) of light of the wavelength; and exposing the object through the resilient closure within a total cycle time of 90 seconds (80 seconds) as taught by Wind in order to quickly and effectively sterilize a writing instrument and eradiate pathogens harmful to the human body.
Regarding claims 2 and 3, Hadlock discloses the at the object (implement 150) moves vertically down through the chamber in carriage (141) during exposure to the UV light emitted from lamps (160a-160d) (see para [0038], [0074]) and when multiple writing implements (150) are present in the chamber they may be first sterilized in one position at a top of the chamber and then as implements are dispensed they move down the chamber where they are continually sterilized at a second position (see figure 1B; para [0038]).
Regarding claim 4, Hadlock discloses that the underside of the resilient closure (113) is irradiated with the UV light (see para [0039] and [0074] – passage thru the resilient closure 113 triggers activation of the UV light).
Regarding claim 6, Hadlock discloses wherein the object (writing implement 150) is excepted through a top of a housing (109) at opening (111) and the transporting moves the object vertically (see figure 1B; para [0035]).
Regarding claim 7, Hadlock discloses automatically sensing the object (implement 150) upon insertion; and activating an emitter (160) responsive to the sensing (see para [0039] – controller activates UV light upon sensing the implement 150 is inside the chamber).
Conclusion
7. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to SEAN E CONLEY whose telephone number is (571)272-8414. The examiner can normally be reached on M-F, 8:30am-4pm.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Mike Marcheschi can be reached on 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 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 http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free).
/SEAN E CONLEY/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1799