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 .
Drawings
The drawings are objected to under 37 CFR 1.83(a). The drawings must show every feature of the invention specified in the claims. Therefore, the shutter of claims 8 and 13, and the pair of electrical conductors electrically coupled to the sterilizing light element of claims 13-15 must be shown or the feature(s) canceled from the claim(s). No new matter should be entered.
The drawings are objected to as failing to comply with 37 CFR 1.84(p)(4) because reference characters "15" and "20" have both been used to designate the applicator and the cartridge interchangeably (see ¶s 32-33 of Applicant’s specification). Appropriate correction is required.
Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
Claim Objections
Claim 16 is objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 16 recites “administering a portion of aqueous fluid from the aqueous fluid dispenser cartridge to subject”. This should be corrected to -- to a subject--.
Appropriate correction is suggested.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
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 1-22 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.
Where applicant acts as his or her own lexicographer to specifically define a term of a claim contrary to its ordinary meaning, the written description must clearly redefine the claim term and set forth the uncommon definition so as to put one reasonably skilled in the art on notice that the applicant intended to so redefine that claim term. Process Control Corp. v. HydReclaim Corp., 190 F.3d 1350, 1357, 52 USPQ2d 1029, 1033 (Fed. Cir. 1999). The term “exogenic” in claims 1-3, 7, 9, and 16 appears to be used by the claim to mean “photosensitizing,” while the accepted meaning is “relating to the surface of the earth” or as being “of a disease”. The term is indefinite because the specification does not clearly redefine the term. Applicant only provides examples of such substances in the form of riboflavin B2, vitamin k2, and derivatives thereof (¶s 36-37), which is insufficient to define the term. In an effort to promote compact prosecution, the term “exogenic light absorber” is interpreted as riboflavin B2, vitamin k2, derivatives thereof, and any other substances capable of providing sensitization to UVA light.
Claim 7 recites “a chamber providing a fluid reservoir configured to retain an aqueous fluid comprising: an exogenic sterilizing light absorber; a dispensing head comprising a nozzle; and a polymeric nozzle cover movably coupled to the dispensing head” which appears to imply that the aqueous fluid comprises the following elements or that the chamber independently comprises an exogenic sterilizing light absorber, neither of which are consistent with Applicant’s specification.
In an effort to promote compact prosecution, the limitations of claim seven are interpreted as the aqueous fluid comprising the exogenic sterilizing light absorber, and the chamber and reservoir comprising the dispensing head, nozzle, and polymeric nozzle cover, as consistent with Applicant’s specification and other claims.
Claim 13 recites the limitation "the pair of electrical contacts" in line 4. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 16 recites the limitation "the nozzle" in line 2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
The dependent claims are rejected via their respective dependencies on independent claims 1, 7, and 16.
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.
Claim(s) 1-3, 5-6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Stowe (US 2020/0360180 A1).
Regarding claim 1, Stowe discloses a fluid dispenser cartridge (Figs. 1-3 and 22-23; Abstract; cartridge 20), comprising:
a chamber (housing 30) providing a reservoir (chamber 40) configured to retain a fluid (¶ 52);
a dispensing head comprising a nozzle (head 35 and nozzle 37); and
a polymeric nozzle cover (cap 50) movably coupled to the dispensing head (¶ 53),
wherein at least a region of the fluid dispenser cartridge is partially transparent (¶s 78 and 83 describe portions of the device including the cap are at least partially transparent).
Further, the limitations of the reservoir “configured to retain an aqueous fluid comprising an exogenic sterilizing light absorber” are considered functional language. While features of an apparatus may be recited either structurally or functionally, claims directed to an apparatus must be distinguished from the prior art in terms of structure rather than function, because apparatus claims cover what a device is, not what a device does. See MPEP 2112.02. Thus, if a prior art structure is capable of performing the intended use as recited the claim, then it meets the claim. In the instant case, the device and reservoir of Stowe has all the structure of the device as claimed. As such, it is capable of performing the functions as claimed (i.e. it is configured hold aqueous fluids, including those comprising an exogenic sterilizing light absorber; also see ¶ 52).
Regarding claim 2, the limitations of “the exogenic sterilizing light absorber absorbs UVA light having a wavelength of 340-440 nm” are considered functional language. While features of an apparatus may be recited either structurally or functionally, claims directed to an apparatus must be distinguished from the prior art in terms of structure rather than function, because apparatus claims cover what a device is, not what a device does. See MPEP 2112.02. Thus, if a prior art structure is capable of performing the intended use as recited the claim, then it meets the claim. In the instant case, the device and reservoir of Stowe has all the structure of the device as claimed. As such, it is capable of performing the functions as claimed (i.e. it is configured hold aqueous fluids, including those comprising an exogenic sterilizing light absorber which specifically absorbs UVA light having a wavelength of 340-440 nm; also see ¶ 52).
Regarding claim 3, the limitations of “the exogenic sterilizing light absorber is riboflavin or a K2 vitamin menaquinone” are considered functional language. While features of an apparatus may be recited either structurally or functionally, claims directed to an apparatus must be distinguished from the prior art in terms of structure rather than function, because apparatus claims cover what a device is, not what a device does. See MPEP 2112.02. Thus, if a prior art structure is capable of performing the intended use as recited the claim, then it meets the claim. In the instant case, the device and reservoir of Stowe has all the structure of the device as claimed. As such, it is capable of performing the functions as claimed (i.e. it is configured hold aqueous fluids, including those comprising an exogenic sterilizing light absorber which is riboflavin or a K2 vitamin menaquinone; also see ¶ 52).
Regarding claim 5, the limitations of “the aqueous fluid is an ophthalmic solution ” are considered functional language. While features of an apparatus may be recited either structurally or functionally, claims directed to an apparatus must be distinguished from the prior art in terms of structure rather than function, because apparatus claims cover what a device is, not what a device does. See MPEP 2112.02. Thus, if a prior art structure is capable of performing the intended use as recited the claim, then it meets the claim. In the instant case, the device and reservoir of Stowe has all the structure of the device as claimed. As such, it is capable of performing the functions as claimed (i.e. it is configured hold aqueous fluids, including ophthalmic solutions; also see ¶ 3).
Regarding claim 6, the limitations of “the aqueous fluid is preservative-free” are considered functional language. While features of an apparatus may be recited either structurally or functionally, claims directed to an apparatus must be distinguished from the prior art in terms of structure rather than function, because apparatus claims cover what a device is, not what a device does. See MPEP 2112.02. Thus, if a prior art structure is capable of performing the intended use as recited the claim, then it meets the claim. In the instant case, the device and reservoir of Stowe has all the structure of the device as claimed. As such, it is capable of performing the functions as claimed (i.e. it is configured hold aqueous fluids that are preservative-free; also see ¶ 85).
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.
Claim 4 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Stowe, as applied to claim one above, and further in view of Sowemimo-Coker et al. (US 2019/0275152 A1), hereinafter Coker.
Regarding claim 4, Stowe further discloses the polymeric nozzle cover comprises a thermoplastic elastomer that is at least partially transparent to sterilizing light having a wavelength of 265 nm to 285 nm (¶s 83 and 117).
Stowe does not explicitly teach being transparent to sterilizing light having a wavelength of 340-440 nm.
However, in addressing the same problem as applicant, the problem being the sterilization of medical fluids with UV light of different wavelengths, Coker teaches a sterilization method using photosensitizers, such as riboflavin, with UVA light to provide sterilization (¶ 51), which is absorbed through plastic transmissible by wavelengths between 320 and 400 nm (¶ 38, said range overlapping, and thus anticipating, the claimed range of 340-440 nm, particularly as Coker is also directed to the use of UVA light).
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 device of Stowe to use UVA light and photosensitizers, and to comprise a plastic material transparent to light having a wavelength of 340-440 nm, as taught by Coker. Doing so would thus comprise the polymeric nozzle cover comprising a thermoplastic elastomer that is at least partially transparent to sterilizing light having a wavelength of 340-440 nm. Doing so would be advantageous in increasing the types of plastics that may be suitable (¶ 38 of Coker), and would also be an advantageous in allowing the use of lower energy, less dangerous UV light wavelengths.
Claims 7-12, and 16-22 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Stowe, in view of Coker.
Regarding claim 7, Stowe teaches a fluid dispensing system (device 10; Abstract), comprising:
a fluid dispenser cartridge (Figs. 1-3 and 22-23; Abstract; cartridge 20), comprising:
a chamber (housing 30) providing a reservoir (chamber 40) configured to retain a fluid (¶ 52);
a dispensing head comprising a nozzle (head 35 and nozzle 37); and
a polymeric nozzle cover (cap 50) removably coupled to the dispensing head (¶ 53),
wherein at least a region of the fluid dispenser cartridge is partially transparent (¶s 78 and 83 describe portions of the device including the cap are at least partially transparent);
an applicator (applicator 15 in Figs. 22-23) configured to releasably retain the fluid dispenser cartridge (¶ 50 describes that cartridge 20 is removably positioned within the applicator 15), the applicator comprising:
a first opening configured to receive the cartridge (best seen in Fig. 1 which shows applicator 15 being opened to receive cartridge 20); and
a second opening positioned adjacent nozzle of the fluid cartridge when the fluid cartridge is disposed within the first opening (opening 326, covered by dust covered 325 and is adjacent to nozzle 37; ¶ 69); and
a sterilizing light assembly (sterilizer 300) position to illuminate the partially transparent of the region of the fluid dispenser cartridge with UV light (¶s 69 and 83).
Stowe does not explicitly teach the use of UVA light.
However, Coker teaches a sterilization method using photosensitizers, such as riboflavin, with UVA light to provide sterilization (¶s 38 and 51).
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 device of Stowe to use UVA light and photosensitizers, as taught by Coker. Doing so would be advantageous in increasing the types of plastics that may be suitable for construction (¶ 38 of Coker), and would also be an advantageous in allowing the use of lower energy, less dangerous UV light wavelengths.
Further, the limitations of the reservoir “configured to retain an aqueous fluid comprising an exogenic sterilizing light absorber” are considered functional language. While features of an apparatus may be recited either structurally or functionally, claims directed to an apparatus must be distinguished from the prior art in terms of structure rather than function, because apparatus claims cover what a device is, not what a device does. See MPEP 2112.02. Thus, if a prior art structure is capable of performing the intended use as recited the claim, then it meets the claim. In the instant case, the device and reservoir of Stowe and Coker has all the structure of the device as claimed. As such, it is capable of performing the functions as claimed (i.e. it is configured hold aqueous fluids, including those comprising an exogenic sterilizing light absorber; see ¶ 52 of Stowe; further, using UVA light as taught by Coker would comprising a sterilizing light absorber, such as riboflavin).
Regarding claim 8, Stowe further teaches a shutter coupled to the applicator (dust cover 325) and configured to articulate between a closed position and an open position (¶ 69 describes how a button is used to actuate the dust cover), wherein the shutter is configured to actuate the polymeric nozzle cover to expose the nozzle when the shutter is articulated from the closed position to the open position (¶ 82 describes how the cap nozzle 50 is mechanically linked to the same activation button that operates the dust cover 325), wherein the shutter comprises an inward-facing surface, wherein the inward-facing surface faces the nozzle when the shutter is in the closed position (the surface of cover 325 facing the cap nozzle 50), and wherein the sterilizing light assembly coupled to the inward-facing surface of the shutter (¶ 93 describes how the sterilizing light assembly is coupled to the dust cover 325 such that it is activated only once the dust cover 325 is closed).
Regarding claim 9, Coker further teaches the exogenic sterilizing light absorber is riboflavin and absorbs UVA light (¶s 4, 38, and 51 describes how the sterilizing light absorber, riboflavin, absorbs UVA light in the wavelength of 320 and 400 nm, which overlaps and anticipates the claimed range of 340-440nm).
As previously stated, 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 device of Stowe to use UVA light and photosensitizers, as taught by Coker. Doing so with thus comprise an exogenic sterilizing light absorber absorbing light having a wavelength of 340-440 nm. Doing so would be advantageous in increasing the types of plastics that may be suitable for construction (¶ 38 of Coker), and would also be an advantageous in allowing the use of lower energy, less dangerous UV light wavelengths.
Regarding claim 10, Stowe further discloses the polymeric nozzle cover comprises a thermoplastic elastomer that is at least partially transparent to sterilizing light having a wavelength of 265 nm to 285 nm (¶ 117).
Coker teaches a sterilization method using photosensitizers, such as riboflavin, with UVA light to provide sterilization (¶ 51), which is absorbed through plastic transmissible by wavelengths between 320 and 400 nm (¶ 38, said range overlapping, and thus anticipating, the claimed range of 340-440 nm, particularly as Coker is also directed to the use of UVA light).
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 device of Stowe to use UVA light and photosensitizers, and to comprise a plastic material transparent to light having a wavelength of 340-440 nm, as taught by Coker. Doing so would thus comprise the polymeric nozzle cover comprising a thermoplastic elastomer that is at least partially transparent to sterilizing light having a wavelength of 340-440 nm. Doing so would be advantageous in increasing the types of plastics that may be suitable (¶ 38 of Coker), and would also be an advantageous in allowing the use of lower energy, less dangerous UV light wavelengths.
Regarding claim 11, the limitations of “the aqueous fluid is an ophthalmic solution ” are considered functional language. While features of an apparatus may be recited either structurally or functionally, claims directed to an apparatus must be distinguished from the prior art in terms of structure rather than function, because apparatus claims cover what a device is, not what a device does. See MPEP 2112.02. Thus, if a prior art structure is capable of performing the intended use as recited the claim, then it meets the claim. In the instant case, the device and reservoir of Stowe has all the structure of the device as claimed. As such, it is capable of performing the functions as claimed (i.e. it is configured hold aqueous fluids, including ophthalmic solutions; also see ¶ 3).
Regarding claim 12, the limitations of “the aqueous fluid is preservative-free” are considered functional language. While features of an apparatus may be recited either structurally or functionally, claims directed to an apparatus must be distinguished from the prior art in terms of structure rather than function, because apparatus claims cover what a device is, not what a device does. See MPEP 2112.02. Thus, if a prior art structure is capable of performing the intended use as recited the claim, then it meets the claim. In the instant case, the device and reservoir of Stowe has all the structure of the device as claimed. As such, it is capable of performing the functions as claimed (i.e. it is configured hold aqueous fluids that are preservative-free; also see ¶ 85).
Regarding claim 16, Stowe teaches a method of administering a sterilized aqueous fluid (¶ 118; ¶s 65-68 also describe hydrophilic coatings thus indicating use with water-containing solutions), comprising
exposing a nozzle of an aqueous fluid dispenser cartridge (¶ 69 describes how the button 320 is used to open the dust cover to expose the nozzle 37), wherein the aqueous fluid dispenser cartridge comprises a chamber a chamber (housing 30) providing a reservoir (chamber 40) configured to retain an aqueous fluid (¶ 52); a dispensing head comprising a nozzle (head 35 and nozzle 37); and a polymeric nozzle cover (cap 50) movably coupled to the dispensing head (¶ 53),
wherein at least a region of the fluid dispenser cartridge is partially transparent (¶s 78 and 83 describe portions of the device including the cap are at least partially transparent);
illuminating the partially transparent region of the fluid dispenser cartridge with UV light (¶s 69 and 83); and
administering a portion of the aqueous fluid from the aqueous fluid dispenser cartridge to a subject (¶s 118-119).
Stowe does not explicitly teach the use of UVA light.
However, Coker teaches a sterilization method using photosensitizers, such as riboflavin, with UVA light to provide sterilization (¶s 38 and 51).
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 device of Stowe to use UVA light and photosensitizers, as taught by Coker. Doing so would thus comprise illuminating the partially transparent region of the fluid dispenser cartridge with UVA light. Doing so would be advantageous in increasing the types of plastics that may be suitable for construction (¶ 38 of Coker), and would also be an advantageous in allowing the use of lower energy, less dangerous UV light wavelengths.
Further, regarding the method step claimed, to the extent that the prior art apparatus meets the structural limitations of the apparatus as claimed, it will obviously perform the method steps as claimed. Furthermore, under the principles of inherency, if a prior art device, in its normal and usual operation, would necessarily perform the method claimed, then the method claimed will be considered to be anticipated by the prior art device. When the prior art device is the same as a device described in the specification for carrying out the claimed method, it can be assumed the device will inherently perform the claimed process. In re King, 801 F.2d 1324, 231 USPQ 136 (Fed. Cir. 1986). As such, the combination of Stowe and Coker teaches all the claimed structure, and further teaches the method as claimed.
Regarding claim 17, Stowe further teaches the transparent region of the fluid into cartridge is the polymeric nozzle cover (¶s 83 and 117 describes how cap 50 is made of transparent material).
Regarding claim 18, Stowe further teaches the subject is a human subject (¶ 6 discusses features of the human eyelid; ¶ 80 discusses characteristics varying from person-to-person).
Regarding claim 19, Coker teaches the UVA light being in the range of 320-400 nm (¶ 38, said range overlapping, and thus anticipating, the claimed range of 340-440 nm, particularly as Coker is also directed to the use of UVA light). As previously stated, 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 device of Stowe to use UVA light and photosensitizers, as taught by Coker. Doing so with thus comprise an exogenic sterilizing light absorber absorbing light having a wavelength of 340-440 nm. Doing so would be advantageous in increasing the types of plastics that may be suitable for construction (¶ 38 of Coker), and would also be an advantageous in allowing the use of lower energy, less dangerous UV light wavelengths.
Regarding claim 20, Stowe further teaches applying UV light for brief-predetermined periods of time (¶s 85 and 118, interpreted as a pulse of light). As previously stated, 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 device of Stowe to use UVA light and photosensitizers, as taught by Coker. Doing so would thus comprise the UVA light being administered as a pulsed light. Doing so would be advantageous in increasing the types of plastics that may be suitable for construction (¶ 38 of Coker), and would also be an advantageous in allowing the use of lower energy, less dangerous UV light wavelengths.
Regarding claim 21, Stowe further teaches the aqueous fluid is an ophthalmic solution (¶ 3) and the ophthalmic solution is administered to the eye of the subject (¶s 3-10 and 117-118 indicate the eye).
Regarding claim 22, Stowe further teaches illuminating the partially transparent region of the fluid dispensing cartridge with UV light is done after administering a portion of the aqueous fluid (¶ 83 describes how UV light would be turned on just after an application to the eye). As previously stated, 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 device of Stowe to use UVA light and photosensitizers, as taught by Coker. Doing so would thus comprise illuminating the partially transparent region of the fluid dispenser cartridge with specifically UVA light. Doing so would be advantageous in increasing the types of plastics that may be suitable for construction (¶ 38 of Coker), and would also be an advantageous in allowing the use of lower energy, less dangerous UV light wavelengths.
Claims 13-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Stowe and Coker, as applied to claim 7 above, and further in view of Tang (US 2020/0390917 A1).
Regarding claim 13, Stowe teaches the sterilizing light assembly comprises; a sterilizing light element (sterilizer 300).
The combination of Stowe and Coker does not explicitly teach a pair of electrical conductors electrically coupled to the sterilizing light element, wherein the pair of conductors are configured to contact with a pair of electrical contacts when the shutter assembly is in the closed position.
However, in addressing the same problem as applicant, the problem being sensors for sterilizing chambers, Tang teaches a UV sterilization device (Figs. 2-3; Abstract) comprising an electrical conductor and a corresponding electrical contact (hall sensor 71 and magnet 34; ¶s 2, 34-35, and 37).
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 device of Stowe and Coker to comprise the sensors of Tang. Doing so with thus comprise an electrical conductor electrically coupled to the sterilizing light, and a corresponding electrical contact. Doing so would be advantageous in automatically turning off the UV light from illuminating and potentially damaging a human user (¶ 37 of Tang).
The combination of Stowe, Coker, and Tang do not explicitly teach a pair of electrical conductors and a pair of electrical contacts.
However, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have duplicated the sensors of Tang since it has been held that mere duplication of the essential working parts of a device involves only routine skill in the art. Furthermore, the court held that mere duplication of parts has no patentable significance unless a new and unexpected result is produced. In re Harza, 274 F.2d 669, 124 USPQ 378 (CCPA 1960). See MPEP 2144.04(VI)(B) which relates to Duplication of Parts. In the instant case, using pairs of sensors would merely provide further redundancy and would function the same way as the first pair.
Further, the limitations of the pair of electrical conductors being “configured to contact with the pair of electrical contacts when the shutter assembly is in the closed position” are considered functional language. While features of an apparatus may be recited either structurally or functionally, claims directed to an apparatus must be distinguished from the prior art in terms of structure rather than function, because apparatus claims cover what a device is, not what a device does. See MPEP 2112.02. Thus, if a prior art structure is capable of performing the intended use as recited the claim, then it meets the claim. In the instant case, the device and reservoir of Stowe, Coker, and Tang has all the structure of the device as claimed. As such, it is capable of performing the functions as claimed (i.e. the pair of electrical conductors would be configured to contact the pair of electrical contacts on the shutter is closed, and would perform the same purpose of a safety for when the shutter is open during UV light use).
Regarding claim 14, Stowe further teaches a power supply coupled to the applicator and configured to provide electrical power to the sterilizing light assembly (power source 285; ¶s 68-69).
Tang also teaches wherein the sensor arrangement is used to complete a circuit, and breaking the sensor contact breaks the circuit and turns off the sterilization (¶s 34-38 ).
As previously stated, 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 device of Stowe and Coker to comprise the sensors of Tang. Doing so would thus comprise the power supply configured to provide electrical power to the sterilizing light assembly by way of the pair of electrical conductors and electrical contacts. Doing so would be advantageous in automatically turning off the UV light from illuminating and potentially damaging a human user (¶ 37 of Tang).
Regarding claim 15, Stowe further teaches a controller configured to cause the power supply to provide electrical power to the sterilizing light assembly for one or more periods of time (¶s 68-69 and 118 describe controller 290 being operatively coupled to the UV light source and the UV light source being shined for one or more periods of time).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ALESSANDRO R DEL PRIORE whose telephone number is (571)272-9902. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday, 8:00 - 5:30.
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, REBECCA E EISENBERG can be reached at (571) 270-5879. 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.
/ALESSANDRO R DEL PRIORE/Examiner, Art Unit 3781
/GUY K TOWNSEND/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3781