CTNF 18/480,485 CTNF 82789 DETAILED ACTION Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status 07-03-aia AIA 15-10-aia The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA. 07-30-03-h AIA Claim Interpretation 07-30-05 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 § 102 07-07-aia AIA 07-07 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 – 07-12-aia AIA (a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention. 07-15-03-aia AIA Claim s 1-6, 14-18 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by De Francesco (U.S. Publication No. 2022/0062465) . Regarding claims 1 & 20, De Francesco discloses a doorknob (Abstract) comprising a sanitization apparatus (Figures 3 & 4), the sanitization apparatus comprising: A rotation drive portion (within boxes 302 & 404); An annular thin film (306) which has a predetermined perimeter (Figure 4) and covers an outer circumference (at 406 and outside portion closest to numeral 302 as shown in Figure 4) of the rotation drive portion (Figure 4); and A fixed base portion (302/310) to which the rotation drive portion is attached (paragraph 70); wherein The rotation drive portion has a disinfection portion which disinfects the thin film (paragraphs 65, 78 and 79); and The fixed base portion (302/310) has a drive shaft which causes the thin film to perform rotational movement along the outer circumference of the rotation drive portion to cause the thin film to sequentially pass through the disinfection portion (paragraph 70). Concerning claim 2, De Francesco also discloses that the apparatus is capable of operating such that, after the thin film (306) is attached to the outer circumference (at 406 and outside portion closest to numeral 302 as shown in Figure 4), the rotation drive portion (within boxes 302 and 404) is attached to the fixed base portion (302/310). With respect to claim 3, the reference continues to disclose that the rotation drive portion (within boxes 302 & 404) has an opening and closing structure (via caps 308) which opens and closes such that a perimeter of the rotation drive portion (within boxes 302 & 404) varies because the opening of the chambers within boxes 302 & 404 necessarily indefinitely opens the perimeter of the rotation drive portion (i.e., chamber area within boxes 302 & 404) creating a varied perimeter. Regarding claim 4, De Francesco further discloses that in a state in which the opening and closing structure (308) is closed, the perimeter of the thin film (306) is longer than a perimeter of a flange of the rotation drive portion (i.e., flanges of numeral 302 nearly contacting roller 306 as shown in Figure 3). Concerning claim 5, De Francesco also discloses that in a state in which the opening and closing structure (308) is opened, the perimeter of the thin film (306) if longer than a perimeter of an outer circumference of the rotation drive portion (within boxes 302 & 404) which is covered by the thin film (Figure 4). With respect to claim 6, the reference continues to disclose that in a state in which the opening and closing structure (308) is closed, the drive shaft causes the thin film to perform the rotational movement (paragraph 70), and the disinfection portion (318) disinfects the thin film (paragraphs 65, 78 and 79). Regarding claims 14-16, De Francesco further discloses a human sensor which senses use of the sanitization apparatus (paragraph 65, 72 and 73), wherein when the human sensor senses a person during rotational movement of the then film (306), the rotational movement of the thin film is stopped (paragraphs 73 & 100)), and when the human sensor does not sense a person for a predetermined period of time, disinfection drive of the thin film (306) is intermittently performed (paragraphs 72 & 100). Concerning claim 17, the reference also discloses that the drive shaft has a friction resistive body which causes the thin film to perform the rotational movement by frictional force against the thin film (paragraph 76). With respect to claim 18, De Francesco further discloses a thin film traveling restriction piece (i.e., roller 312) which restricts shift of the thin film in a direction orthogonal to a drive direction (paragraph 76) . Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103 07-20-aia AIA 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. 07-21-aia AIA Claim s 8 and 9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over De Francesco (U.S. Publication No. 2022/0062465) in view of Yamazaki et al. (U.S. Publication No. 2007/0086911) . Concerning claims 8 & 9, De Francesco is relied upon as set forth above. While De Francesco discloses that the disinfection portion comprises a heater to heat the thin film (paragraph 79), the reference does not appear to disclose a heating disinfection band to heat the thin film to 100°C or above. Yamazaki discloses a sanitization apparatus for disinfecting a thing film, in which the apparatus includes rotational drive portions to transfer the thin film through a housing (Abstract; paragraph 37; Figures 1-5). The reference continues to disclose that a disinfection portion comprises a heating disinfection band (paragraphs 64 and 76) to heat the thin film to 100°C or above in order to kill at least botulinum toxins that may be present on said thin film (paragraphs 17 & 18). Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to utilize a heating disinfection band to heat the thin film to 100°C or above in De Francesco in order to kill at least botulinum toxins that may be present on said thin film as exemplified by Yamazaki . 07-21-aia AIA Claim 11 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over De Francesco (U.S. Publication No. 2022/0062465) in view of Cozart, Jr. (U.S. Publication No. 2006/0016460) . De Francesco is relied upon as set forth above. De Francesco does not appear to disclose a wiping portion which removes dirt adhered to a surface of the thin film. Cozart discloses a sanitization apparatus that includes rotation drive portions (23/24/27) fixed with said apparatus to transport a thin film (21) therethrough (paragraphs 15 & 21; Figure 3). The reference continues to disclose a wiping portion (25) within the apparatus (Figure 3) which removes dirt adhered to a surface of the thin film in order to rid the thin film of any particulates or debris that may be stuck on said thin film (paragraphs 15, 19 and 25). As such, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide the apparatus of De Francesco with a wiping portion which removes dirt adhered to a surface of the thin film in order to rid the thin film of any particulates or debris that may be stuck on said thin film as exemplified by Cozart . 07-21-aia AIA Claim 12 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over De Francesco (U.S. Publication No. 2022/0062465) in view of Lavy (U.S. Publication No. 2009/0145992) . De Francesco is relied upon as set forth above. De Francesco does not appear to disclose that the fixed base portion has a position control portion which controls a position of the drive shaft to apply tension to the thin film. Lavy discloses a sanitization apparatus that includes drive shafts (5/6) housed within a housing (Figure 1) to transport a thin film across a doorknob (paragraphs 16 & 17). The reference continues to disclose a position control portion (10/11/12) which controls a position of the drive shaft to apply tension to the thin film in order to ensure that said thin film does become loose or dislodged while being transported through said apparatus (paragraph 18). As such, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide a position control portion which controls a position of the drive shaft of De Francesco to apply tension to the thin film in order to ensure that said thin film does become loose or dislodged while being transported through said apparatus as exemplified by Lavy. Therefore, claim 12 is not patentable over De Francesco in view of Lavy . 07-21-aia AIA Claim 19 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over De Francesco (U.S. Publication No. 2022/0062465) . De Francesco is relied upon a set forth above, De Francesco does not appear to disclose that a thickness of the thin film is 20 µm or less. Nonetheless, the Courts have held that "where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation." See In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456,105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955). The discovery of an optimum value of a known result effective variable, without producing any new or unexpected results, is within the ambit of a person of ordinary skill in the art. See In re Boesch, 205 USPQ 215 (CCPA 1980) (see MPEP § 2144.05, II.). As such, it would have been well within the purview of one of ordinary skill in the art to utilize a thin film of 20 µm or less in the apparatus of De Francesco in order to take advantage of a cost effective and appropriately sized material that also provides enough strength to perform the operation while successfully providing sanitary protections to a doorknob; as the thickness of the thin film is a result effective variable that would be optimized by one of ordinary skill through routine experimentation. Only the expected results would be attained. Thus, claim 19 is not patentable over Dr Francesco . Allowable Subject Matter 12-151-08 AIA 07-43 12-51-08 Claim s 7, 10 and 13 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims. Conclusion Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to KEVIN C JOYNER whose telephone number is (571)272-2709. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 8:00AM-4:30PM. 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, MICHAEL MARCHESCHI can be reached at (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 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. /KEVIN JOYNER/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1799 Application/Control Number: 18/480,485 Page 2 Art Unit: 1799 Application/Control Number: 18/480,485 Page 3 Art Unit: 1799 Application/Control Number: 18/480,485 Page 4 Art Unit: 1799 Application/Control Number: 18/480,485 Page 5 Art Unit: 1799 Application/Control Number: 18/480,485 Page 6 Art Unit: 1799 Application/Control Number: 18/480,485 Page 7 Art Unit: 1799 Application/Control Number: 18/480,485 Page 8 Art Unit: 1799 Application/Control Number: 18/480,485 Page 9 Art Unit: 1799 Application/Control Number: 18/480,485 Page 10 Art Unit: 1799