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 .
Response to Arguments
The claim interpretation of record is withdrawn in light of applicant’s amendment
The 102(a)(1) rejection of record is withdrawn in light of applicant’s amendment.
Applicant’s arguments with respect to the 103 rejections of record have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
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.
Claims 1-15 are 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 1 recites “wherein the cover part seals the opening of the housing upon the sterilization unit being withdrawn into the housing, and wherein the cover part is configured to seal the opening of the housing by operation of the actuator.” However, the specification does not adequately describe the claimed sealing feature. The specification states, “the sterilization apparatus 1000 may further include a cover part 1400, which is provided in the sterilization unit 1200 to prevent foreign substances from entering from the outside by covering the opening 1110 of the housing 1100 when the sterilization unit 1200 is withdrawn into the housing 1100…The second actuator 1321 may generate power for enabling the sterilization unit 1200 to move through the opening 1110 of the housing 1100” (see paras. [0060 and 0076]). Thus, the specification only describes the cover part covers opening to prevent foreign substance from entering, but merely covering an opening is not the same as sealing the opening. Likewise, the specification describes the actuator moves the sterilization unit through opening, and does not describe that the actuator operates cover part or cause cover part to seal the opening. Accordingly, the specification does not reasonably convey possession of the claimed feature that the cover part seals the opening by operation of the actuator.
Claim 13 is 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 13 recites the limitation “The sterilization apparatus of claim 12.” There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim since claim 12 is canceled by the applicant. For the purposes of compact prosecution, claim 13 will be interpreted as dependent on claim 1.
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.
Claims 1-7 and 14-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 2015/0196674 A1 [hereinafter Newham] in view of US 6416144B1 [hereinafter Houston].
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
an actuator 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, 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).
However, Newham does not specifically teach a cover part disposed on the sterilization unit, wherein the cover part seals the opening of the housing upon the sterilization unit being withdrawn into the housing, and wherein the cover part is configured to seal the opening of the housing by operation of the actuator.
Houston teaches:
a cover part (2:62-63 and 3:5-6: “Items to be sterilized or disinfected (i.e., decontaminated) are loaded into the chamber 12 through an opening 16 …The door 22 includes a pressure plate 40 which is sized to cover the opening 16”),
wherein the cover part seals the opening of the housing (Claim 1: “a door having an interior face sized to seal the opening and an outer face; an active seal between the door and the housing surrounding the opening to the chamber which seal is selectively pressurized to seal against the door and push the door outward, away from the housing”), and
wherein the cover part is configured to seal the opening of the housing by operation of the actuator (6: 29-32: “a drive system 190 moves the door 22 between open and closed positions. The drive system includes a motor 192, which drives a cable 194 between two pulleys 196, 198”).
As such, modifying Newham with Houston would provide an apparatus with a removable door/cover disposed on the sterilization unit of Newham, the door/cover can be opened and closed by operating a drive systema to seal the opening of the housing upon the sterilization unit being withdrawn into the housing, as claim 1 recited.
Therefore, it would have been obvious for an ordinary skilled person in the art, before the effective time of filing, to provide the opening of the housing in Newham with Houston’s motorized sliding sealing door so that, after the sterilization unit is withdrawn into the housing, the opening can be automatedly covered and sealed to protect the chamber and prevent foreign substances from entering, as an automated, space-saving closure for the sterilization housing opening while maintaining the protected chamber environment.
Regarding Claim 2:
Newham in view of Houston 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 in view of Houston 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 in view of Houston 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 in view of Houston 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 in view of Houston teaches the sterilization apparatus of claim 1. Newham further teaches wherein the actuator 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 in view of Houston 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 in view of Houston 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 in view of Houston 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).
Claims 8-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Newham in view of Houston, and further in view of US 2009/0089820 A1 [hereinafter Toshiba].
Regarding Claim 8:
Newham in view of Houston teaches the sterilization apparatus of claim 6. However, the combined references do 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, for the modified apparatus, 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, as claimed.
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 Houston and 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 Houston and 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 Houston and Toshiba, and further in view of US 2003/0081534 A1 [hereinafter Sony].
Regarding Claim 11:
Newham in view of Houston and 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, in the modified apparatus, Toshiba provides 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 provides 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 13 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Newham in view of Houston, and further in view of US 2017/0290933 A1 [hereinafter Collins].
Regarding Claim 13:
Newham in view of Houston, further in view of Collins teaches the sterilization apparatus of claim 1. 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).
Therefore, it would have been obvious for an ordinary person in the art, before the effective time of filing, to for the cover part of the Newham-Houston apparatus from Collins’ optically transmissive patterned cover since using a known optically transmissive patterned cover would allow UV light to pass through the cover while improving light diffusion/scattering over the target area.
Double Patenting
All non-statutory double patenting rejections of record are maintained.
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 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
Prosecution Insights