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 .
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election without traverse of Claims 1-7 in the reply filed on 8/4/2026 is acknowledged.
Claims 8-9 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected invention, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Election was made without traverse in the reply filed on 8/4/2026.
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Claim Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
Claim 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.
Claim(s) 1-3 and 5-7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kanai (JP 2008071680 A) (references herein made with respect to English Machine Translation) in view of Chai (CN 211705372 U) (references herein made with respect to English Machine Translation).
Regarding claim 1, Kanai teaches a treatment device using active oxygen (Fig. 5, device 1), the treatment device comprising:
an ultraviolet transmission member (Fig. 5, transmissive partition wall 26, page 8, para 1); and
a first chamber (Fig. 5, 16) and a second chamber (Fig. 5, chamber 2) adjacent to each other separated by the ultraviolet transmission member (Fig. 5, chambers separated by transmission member 23) , wherein
the first chamber is capable of accommodating a treatment target (Fig. 5, chamber accommodates treatment target 18),
the second chamber comprises an ultraviolet light source (Fig. 1, UV lamp 3),
the ultraviolet light source is capable of irradiating a surface of the treatment target, which is accommodated in the first chamber, with ultraviolet light (page 5, para 5), and
Kinai teaches wherein the ultraviolet light can generate ozone within the first chamber to sterilize the treatment target via the decomposition of oxygen molecules (page 5, para 5) and wherein the treatment target may be placed on a scissored support machine (Fig. 5, 19). However, Kinai does not teach wherein a distance between the ultraviolet transmission member and the surface of the treatment target can be adjusted to 10 mm or less.
One having ordinary skill in the art would be concerned with ensuring effective sterilization for treatment targets, despite their size, motivating one to turn towards Chai. Chai teaches an ultraviolet sterilization chamber comprising an ultraviolet lamp (Fig. 2, 8) and a lifting device (Fig. 2, plate 2 and cylinder 3) configured to hold a medical appliance, wherein the lifting device is configured to adjust the height of the lifting plate (page 4, para 1-4) to ensure the device is effectively exposed to ultraviolet light regardless of its size (page 3, para 1-4).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the support machine as taught by Kinai to include the lifting device as taught by Chai because Chai teaches the lifting device to help ensure a target treatment object device effectively exposed to ultraviolet light regardless of its size (page 3, para 1-4). See MPEP 2143(I)(G).
Accordingly, Modified Kinai teaches wherein a distance between the ultraviolet transmission member and the surface of the treatment target can be adjusted (Chai, Fig. 2, height of lifting device 2 and 3 can be vertically adjusted, page 4, para 1-4). While Modified Kinai does not explicitly teach wherein the distance may be 10 mm or less, one having ordinary skill in the art would recognize the distance as a result-effective variable (i.e. a variable which achieves a recognized result) that is dependent on the size of the treatment target. Because of this, the determination of the optimum or workable ranges of said variable (i.e. the optimal height to ensure effective sterilization of a target object) can be characterized as routine experimentation. See MPEP 2144.05 (II)(A). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to adjust the distance between the ultraviolet transmission member and the surface of the treatment target to be 10 mm or less.
Modified Kinai does not teach wherein the first chamber comprises an ozone generator. One having ordinary skill would seek to supplement the amount of ozone within the first chamber in the event that the ultraviolet light does not produce an optimal amount for sterilization, motivating one to turn towards Chai.
Chai further teaches an ultraviolet lamp (Fig. 2, 8) configured to emit UV light and generate ozone to disinfect a medical device (page 4, para 1-4) within a chamber (Fig. 1, cavity 1), wherein the chamber can further comprise an ozone generating device to supplement the ozone concentration within the cavity and ensure an adequate concentration of ozone is present to sterilize the medical device (page 12, para 12; page 5, para 1).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the first chamber as taught by Modified Kinai with the ozone generating device as taught by Chai because Chai teaches the ozone generating device to supplement an ozone concentration within a treatment chamber (page 12, para 12; page 5, para 1). See MPEP 2143(I)(G).
Regarding claim 2, Modified Kinai teaches the treatment device using active oxygen according to claim 1, wherein the distance between the ultraviolet transmission member and the surface of the treatment target accommodated in the first chamber is configured to be variable adjusted (Chai, Fig. 2, height of lifting device 2 and 3 can be vertically adjusted, page 4, para 1-4).
Regarding claim 3, Modified Kinai teaches the treatment device using active oxygen according to claim 1, wherein the first chamber is surrounded by a wall provided with the ultraviolet transmission member (Kinai, Fig. 5, first chamber 16 is surrounded by a wall provided with ultraviolet transmission member 26) and a wall separating the outside of the treatment device from the inside of the first chamber (Kinai, Fig. 5, wall 17).
Regarding claim 5, Modified Kinai teaches the treatment device using active oxygen according to claim 1, wherein the ultraviolet light emitted by the ultraviolet light source has a peak wavelength of 220 to 310 nm (Kinai, page 2, para 1).
Regarding claim 6, Modified Kinai teaches the treatment device using active oxygen according to claim 1 including an ultraviolet light (Kinai, page 5, para 5), but does not teach wherein the ultraviolet light on the surface of the treatment target has an illuminance of 2.5 μW/cm2 or more.
However, one having ordinary skill in the art would recognize the irradiance of the ultraviolet light delivered to the treatment target as a result-effective variable (i.e. a variable which achieves a recognized result) that is dependent on the wavelength and power of the light. Because of this, the determination of the optimum or workable ranges of said variable can be characterized as routine experimentation. See MPEP 2144.05 (II)(A). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to configure the ultraviolet light as taught by Modified Kinai to deliver an illuminance of 2.5 μW/cm2 or more to the treatment target.
Regarding claim 7, Modified Kinai teaches the treatment device using active oxygen according to claim 1 including an ozone generating device (Chai, page 12, para 12; page 5, para 1), but does not teach wherein an amount of ozone generated in the ozone generator per unit time without irradiation of the ultraviolet light is 5 μg/min or more.
However, one having ordinary skill in the art would recognize the rate of ozone generator by the ozone generator in the absence of the ultraviolet light as a result-effective variable (i.e. a variable which achieves a recognized result) that is dependent on how much ozone needs to be supplemented to the treatment chamber (Chai, page 12, para 12; page 5, para 1).. Because of this, the determination of the optimum or workable ranges of said variable can be characterized as routine experimentation. See MPEP 2144.05 (II)(A). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to configure the ultraviolet light as taught by Modified Kinai to generate ozone at a rate of 5 μg/min or more to supplement an effective amount of ozone to the treatment chamber.
Claim(s) 4 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kanai (JP 2008071680 A) (references herein made with respect to English Machine Translation) in view of Chai (CN 211705372 U) (references herein made with respect to English Machine Translation), as applied to claim 1 above, further in view of Serizawa (JP 2016030008 A) (references herein made with respect to English Machine Translation).
Regarding claim 4, Modified Kinai teaches the treatment device using active oxygen according to claim 3, but does not teach wherein the wall separating the outside of the treatment device from the inside of the first chamber is provided with means for controlling circulation of a gas between the outside of the treatment device and the inside of the first chamber.
One having ordinary skill in the art would be concerned with regulating the concentration of ozone within the treatment chamber, motivating one to turn towards Serizawa. Serizawa teaches a disinfection system comprising a processing chamber and ultraviolet device, where the ultraviolet device is configured to generate ozone within the chamber (page 2, para 2-5). Serizawa further teaches an exhaust means (Fig. 1, 42) connected to the inside of the processing chamber and an external environment of the chamber to regulate the amount of ozone within the chamber (page 2, para 6-7).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the first chamber as taught by Modified Kinai with the exhaust means as taught by Serizawa because Serizawa teaches the exhaust means to regulate the amount of ozone contained within a treatment chamber (page 2, para 6-7). See MPEP 2143(I)(A).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Nebyate Seged whose telephone number is (703)756-4611. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8-5:00 pm (EST).
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, Maris Kessel can be reached at (571) 270-7698. 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.
/N.S.S./Examiner, Art Unit 1758
/SEAN E CONLEY/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1799
Prosecution Insights