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 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.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier.
Such claim limitation is “driving unit” in claim 1.
The corresponding structure in the disclosure for the “driving unit” is: a rotation mechanism (e.g. actuator, rotation shaft) and a linear/vertical movement mechanism (e.g., actuator, gear part, support bracket) and their equivalents thereof (See Spec. paras. [0057-0059]).
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
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 1-7 and 14-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102 (a) (1) as being anticipated by US 2015/0196674 A1 [hereinafter Newham].
Regarding Claim 1:
Newham teaches a sterilization apparatus (para. [0005]: a device for disinfection), comprising:
a housing (Fig.1-3);
a sterilization unit (Fig. 1-1) that irradiates at least one sterilization target area with sterilization light (paras. [0009, 0012, 0027]: a UVC emitter head unit 1 includes UV-C energy emitting LEDs (and white light emitters) and outputs UV-C energy into the treatment area); and
a driving unit that moves the sterilization unit into and out of the housing via an opening (Fig.1- 4) provided in the housing and rotates the sterilization unit about a rotation axis (paras. [0009. 0027, 0029, 0031, 0042] and Claim 8: the emitter head raise/lower tube 2 is connected to the UVC emitter head unit 1, a drive/actuation arrangement (“driving unit”), at least includes the emitter head raise/lower tube 2, is configured to (i) open the surface retractable enclosure doors 4 and raise/lower the UVC emitter head unit 1 via the opening into/out of the protective storage enclosure 3, and (ii) rotate the UVC emitter head unit 1 about its central rotation axis during operation).
Claim 1 recites a “driving unit” for performing the functions of (i) moving the sterilization unit into and out of the housing via an opening and (ii) rotating the sterilization unit about a rotation axis; accordingly, the “driving unit” limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f). The corresponding structure in the specification includes a first operating part and a second operating part, where the first operating part includes a first actuator and a rotation shaft to enable rotation, and the second operating part includes a second actuator, a gear part, and a support bracket to enable linear movement through the opening (Spec. paras. [0057-0059]). Newham discloses that the UV-C emitting head (structure 1) is raised above and retracted into a protective enclosure (structure 3) via a support tube (structure 2) through a top opening/door of the enclosure, and further discloses continuous rotation of the UV-C emitting head about its axis during use, with operator-selected reciprocal vertical action of the support tube. Thus, Newham includes a drive/movement arrangement that performs the identical claimed functions of rotating the sterilization unit about an axis and moving the unit into/out of the housing through the opening. Although Newham does not specifically describe the drive components using the same labels as Applicant’s disclosed “first actuator/rotation shaft” and “second actuator/gear/support bracket,” a person of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized the interchangeability of known rotation-and-translation drive arrangements that achieve continuous rotation and controlled reciprocal vertical movement of a head relative to a housing, and thus would have understood Newham’s movement arrangement as an equivalent structure for performing the claimed functions under MPEP § 2183. Therefore, Newham teaches the “driving unit” limitation as properly construed under 35 U.S.C. 112(f).
Regarding Claim 2:
Newham teaches the sterilization apparatus of claim 1. Newham further teaches wherein the sterilization unit is moved in a vertical direction through the opening, which is formed on a top surface of the housing (paras. [0027, 0043]: the UVC emitter head unit 1 moves reciprocally and vertically through the top surface retractable enclosure door 4, which is formed on the top surface of the protective storage enclosure 3).
Regarding Claim 3:
Newham teaches the sterilization apparatus of claim 1. Newham further teaches wherein the sterilization unit includes at least one light source to generate the sterilization light and a mounting bracket in which the at least one light source is mounted (paras. [0022 and 0037]: the UVC emitter head unit includes at least one UV-C LED light source to generate sterilization light and a mounting structure in which the light source is mounted, so that each reflective nacel can incorporate a high-intensity UV-C LED mounted within the nacel).
Regarding Claim 4:
Newham teaches the sterilization apparatus of claim 3. Newham further teaches wherein the sterilization unit further includes at least one reflector to reflect the sterilization light generated from the at least one light source to the at least one sterilization target area (Fig. 5 and paras. [0009, 0040-0041]: the UVC emitter head unit includes reflective nacels (e.g., reflective nacel 14) associated with the UV-C LED light source(s) (e.g., UV-C LED 15). The nacels are expressly described as reflective and are arranged on the emitter surface to direct/return UV-C output outward toward the treatment area, i.e., to contribute to delivery of sterilization light to the target area).
Regarding Claim 5:
Newham teaches the sterilization apparatus of claim 4. Newham further teaches wherein the at least one reflector includes a plurality of reflective surfaces formed at different locations with respect to the at least one light source (Fig. 5 and paras. [0009, 0036-0037]: teaches a plurality of reflective nacels (reflective nacel 14) arranged in pods (e.g., a “6 nacel pod”) and across the emitter surface, which provides reflective surfaces at different locations on the emitter head. Each nacel also incorporates a UV-C LED (15) mounted within it, so the reflective nacel surfaces are formed/positioned with respect to the light source(s)).
Regarding Claim 6:
Newham teaches the sterilization apparatus of claim 1. Newham further teaches wherein the driving unit includes a first operating part that is coupled to the sterilization unit and allows the sterilization unit to rotate about the rotation axis and a second operating part that allows the sterilization unit to move through the opening of the housing (paras. [0009. 0027, 0029, 0031, 0042]: teaches the drive/actuation arrangement includes a rotation-enabling mechanism (“first operating part”) that rotates the UVC emitter head unit 1 about its rotation axis, and a linear movement mechanism (“second operating part”), e.g., the rise/lower tube 2 and associated activation that provides the reciprocal vertical motion of the support tube, so that the head retracts into the protective enclosure (i.e., through the top opening/doors)).
Regarding Claim 7:
Newham teaches the sterilization apparatus of claim 6. Newham further teaches wherein the second operating part allows the sterilization unit to move in a direction parallel to the rotation axis (Newham expressly describes vertical raise/lower motion of UVC emitter head unit 1on support tube 2 (i.e., reciprocal vertical action). Since the rotation axis for the rotating UVC emitter unit 1 is the central axis of the emitter head, the vertical motion of the support tube is parallel to that rotation axis).
Regarding Claim 14:
Newham teaches the sterilization apparatus of claim 1. Newham further teaches wherein the sterilization light has a wavelength in a UV-C range (Newham explicitly teaches the disinfection device uses UV-C LEDs / UV-C emission).
Regarding Claim 15:
Newham teaches the sterilization apparatus of claim 1. Newham further teaches wherein the sterilization light has a wavelength of about 222 nm to about 280 nm (para. [0008]: the disclosed system emits UV-C, and Newham expressly discusses UV-C disinfection effectiveness across a 200–280 nm emission spectrum and notes typical UV-C systems around 253 nm, which lies within the claimed about 222–280 nm range; the disclosed UV-C LED emission therefore includes wavelengths within the claimed range).
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.
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 8-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Newham in view of US 2009/0089820 A1 [hereinafter Toshiba].
Regarding Claim 8:
Newham teaches the sterilization apparatus of claim 6. However, Newham does not specifically note that wherein the second operating part includes a support bracket that supports the first operating part, and wherein, as the support bracket moves, the sterilization unit coupled to the first operating part moves through the opening of the housing.
Toshiba teaches:
a second operating part includes a support bracket (paras. [0040, 0052]: teaches a chassis mount 24 (“support bracket”), acts as “ascent/descent retaining member which supports the medium drive unit and is supported by the main frame for ascent and descent between a raised position corresponding to the drive position and a lowered position corresponding to the retracted position”, as such, the chassis mount is part of a vertical movement mechanism (“second operating part”)).
Thus, Newham in light of Toshiba teaches Claim 8, because Toshiba provides an explicit support bracket/carriage structure for the vertical translation taught by Newham: the sterilization unit (including the portion corresponding to the first operating part) is mounted to and supported by the moving support bracket, and as that support bracket moves vertically, the sterilization unit correspondingly moves through Newham’s housing opening.
Newham teaches vertically moving a sterilization unit through a housing opening. Toshiba teaches a support bracket/carriage (chassis mount 24) configured for ascent/descent while supporting a device unit. Therefore, it would have been obvious for an ordinary skilled person in the art, before the effective time of filing, to incorporate Toshiba’s support bracket/ carriage into Newham’s deployment mechanism to provide a stable, repeatable vertical translation structure for the moving unit (i.e., the unit is carried by the bracket, and moves as the bracket moves), which is a predictable mechanical implementation of the same deploy/retract function taught by Newham.
Regarding Claim 9:
Newham in view of Toshiba teaches the sterilization apparatus of claim 8. Toshiba further teaches wherein the support bracket includes at least one guide rib movably inserted in at least one guide rail, which is formed in the housing (Figs, 5 , 16 and 18; paras. [0054, 0078]: the chassis mount 24 (“support bracket”) has a guide boss 27 (“guide rib”), as in Fig. 16, the guide boss 27 moves in the guide groove 18 (“guide rail), as in Fig. 18, and the guide grooves 18 formed to the main frame 11 (“housing”), as in Fig. 5).
Regarding Claim 10:
Newham in view of Toshiba teaches the sterilization apparatus of claim 9. Toshiba further teaches:
a pressurizing member elastically deformed by the at least one guide rib (Fig. 18 and para. [0080]: the press projection 30 (“pressurizing member”) is elastically deformed by contact with the guide structure associated with the guide boss/groove interface (specifically, a protruding portion 17c adjacent the boss-in-groove arrangement), thereby producing elastic force that presses the guide boss 27 against an inner surface of the guide groove 18),
wherein a first end portion of the pressurizing member is coupled to the housing (Figs. 24-26 and para. [0085]: the root/base end of press projection 30 at the wall-junction (“first end portion”) formed on the inner surface of the front wall 11d of the main frame 11 (housing). Note although para. [0085] corresponds to an embodiment in which the press projection is formed integrally on the main frame, it is still describing the same anti-rattle guide interface (press projection 30 cooperating with the guide boss/groove and associated guide features) and merely relocates the press projection from the moving member to the housing-side member. This placement variation does not change the function or cooperation of the parts relevant o the claimed pressurizing-member end portions), and
a second end portion of the pressurizing member is elastically deformed by the at least one guide rib to exert pressure on one side of the at least one guide rib to allow the at least one guide rib to contact an inner surface of the at least one guide rail (Fig. 18 and para. [0080]: the distal end including abutting portion 31 (“second end portion”), abuts a projection 17c on the guide surface 17b and is flexed a predetermined amount, producing elastic force, with that elastic force, the press projection elastically presses the second guide rib 17 (the guide rib having guide surface 17b / projection 17c) and clamps it between the press projection 30 and the guide boss 27 (“guide rib”) so that to presses the guide boss 27 against an inner surface of the guide groove 18).
Claim 11 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Newham in view of Toshiba, and further in view of US 2003/0081534 A1 [hereinafter Sony].
Regarding Claim 11:
Newham in view of Toshiba teaches the sterilization apparatus of claim 9. However, the combined references do not specially note an elastic part formed to extend from the at least one guide rib, wherein an end portion of the elastic part is elastically deformed by the at least one guide rail.
Sony teaches an elastic part (plate spring 72) and an end portion of the elastic part is elastically deformed (Figs. 22A-22C and para. [0137]: “by only adjusting the movement of the guide sub-shaft 46 in the vertical direction ... the end 72a of the plate spring 72 is resiliently deformed within a large range of angle...”).
As such, Toshiba in light of Sony teaches the limitations of claim 11. Toshiba teaches the rail/groove guide interface for the moveable bracket-support unit (i.e., the guide rail defining a guiding surface for the moving guide member). Sony teaches a plastic spring having a fixed end and a resiliently deformable free end that extends from the guided member. Thus, when Sony’s plate spring is incorporated into Toshiba’s moving guide member region, the plate spring constitutes the claimed “elastic part formed to extend from the at least one guide rib,” and the free end of the plate spring is elastically deformed by the guide rail/groove wall during guided movement, thereby satisfying claim 11.
Both Toshiba and Sony are related to optical disk/disk drive apparatus having guided moving components, where controlling play/vibration/rattling of the guided member is a design concern. Therefore, it would have been obvious for an ordinary person in the art, before the effective time of filing, to incorporate Sony’s plate-spring biasing structure (plate spring with resiliently deformable end portion / spring acting portions) into Toshiba’s guide boss/groove moving interface to provide an additional elastic preload at the guide interface, thereby improving stability and reducing looseness/rattle during repeated guided movement, which is an objective consistent with both references.
Claims 12-13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Newham in view of US 2017/0290933 A1 [hereinafter Collins].
Regarding Claim 12:
Newham teaches the sterilization apparatus of claim 1. However, Newham does not specially note the sterilization apparatus further comprising a cover part provided on a side of the sterilization unit. Collins teaches a cover part provided on a side of the sterilization unit (Claim 1: a reflector cup disposed around the UV source... an optically transmissive cover disposed over the reflector cup).
Newham teaches a sterilization unit that is withdrawn into the housing through a top opening, such that a cover part on the sterilization unit is desirable to block the opening and prevent foreign substances from entering when stored. Collins teaches an optically transmissive cover disposed over a UV source/reflector assembly, and further teaches that a major surface of the cover is roughened (i.e., an optical surface structure). Therefore, it would have been obvious for an ordinary skilled person in the art, before the effective time of filing, to provide Newham’s sterilization unit with an optically transmissive cover as taught by Collins (with a roughened/patterned surface) so that, when the unit is retracted, the cover protects the unit/opening while still allowing sterilization light to pass and providing surface light-scattering/appearance effects consistent with the cover’s function.
Regarding Claim 13:
Newham in view of Collins teaches the sterilization apparatus of claim 12. Collins further teaches:
wherein the cover part is formed of a light-transmitting material (Collins explicitly teaches an “optically transmissive cover”), and
wherein an optical pattern that reflects or scatters light incident from the outside is formed on at least one surface of the cover part (para. [0016]: “the top side of cover 34 (the side facing away from UVLED 1), the bottom side of cover 34 (the side facing UVLED 1), or both are roughened, textured, or patterned, for example to act as a diffuser to the radiation exiting cover 34,” such the roughened/textured/patterned surface provides an optical surface structure that scatters incident light, including light incident from outside).
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.
Claim 1-4, and 14-15 are provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over Claims 1, 2, 3, 6, 18, and 19 of copending Application No. 18/410,976 to Choi et al. (Choi `976) (reference application) in view of Newham. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other as demonstrated in the claim chart below.
This is a provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejection because the patentably indistinct claims have not in fact been patented.
Claim Chart
#18/410,967 (Present Application)
# 18/410,976 (Choi `976)
1.A sterilization apparatus comprising:
a housing; a sterilization unit that irradiates at least one sterilization target area with sterilization light; and a driving unit that moves the sterilization unit into and out of the housing via an opening provided in the housing and rotates the sterilization unit about a rotation axis.
2.The sterilization apparatus of claim 1, wherein the sterilization unit is moved in a vertical direction through the opening, which is formed on a top surface of the housing.
3.The sterilization apparatus of claim 1, wherein the sterilization unit includes at least one light source to generate the sterilization light and a mounting bracket in which the at least one light source is mounted.
4.The sterilization apparatus of claim 3, wherein the sterilization unit further includes at least one reflector to reflect the sterilization light generated from the at least one light source to the at least one sterilization target area.
14. The sterilization apparatus of claim 1, wherein the sterilization light has a wavelength in a UV-C range.
15. The sterilization apparatus of claim 1, wherein the sterilization light has a wavelength of about 222 nm to about 280 nm.
1.A sterilization device comprising: a housing; a sterilization unit that irradiates sterilization light for sterilization of at least one sterilization target area; and a driving unit that moves at least a portion of the sterilization unit between exterior and interior of the housing via an opening provided in the housing.
2.The sterilization device of claim 1, wherein the sterilization unit is moved in a vertical direction through the opening, which is formed on a top surface of the housing.
3.The sterilization device of claim 1, wherein the sterilization unit includes at least one light source to generate the sterilization light and a mounting part in which the at least one light source is mounted.
6.The sterilization device of claim 3, wherein the sterilization unit further includes at least one reflector to reflect the sterilization light generated from the at least one light source to the at least one sterilization target area.
18. The sterilization device of claim 1, wherein the sterilization light has a wavelength in a UV-C range.
19. The sterilization device of claim 1, wherein the sterilization light has a wavelength of about 222 nm to about 280 nm.
Claim 1 of Choi `976 lacks the driving unit rotates the sterilization unit about a rotation axis. Newham `008 discloses a driving/actuation mechanism can cause both the rotation and vertical movement of the sterilization unit. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the driving unit recited in claim 1 of Choi `976 to additionally rotate the sterilization unit as taught by Newham because rotation predictably sweeps the emitted sterilization light through multiple angular directions, thereby improving coverage and uniformity of irradiation and reducing shadowed regions that can occur with a fixed-orientation emitter.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JING WANG whose telephone number is (571)272-2504. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 7:30-17:00.
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, Robert Kim can be reached at 571-272-2293. 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.
/JING WANG/Examiner, Art Unit 2881
/ROBERT H KIM/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2881