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 Objections
Claim 1 is objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 1 should recite “the external light source facing away from the chamber to light a surface beyond” or something equivalent for grammatical purposes.
The claims appear to have a copying error and include fragments from other claims on separate pages on the last page after claim 13.
Appropriate correction is required.
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.
Claims 1-3 and 7 rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 1 of U.S. Patent No. 11,690,929 in view of Mizandari (US 2021/0330853).
The reference patent teaches
A portable air sterilization device with integrated light comprising:
a housing; a chamber; the chamber within the housing; the chamber including a mask connection point and an atmospheric connection point; inhaled air and exhaled air passing in and out of the chamber via the mask connection point; atmospheric air passing in and out of the chamber via the atmospheric connection point; a chamber dividing wall that separates the chamber into a single-direction inhalation flow path and a single- direction exhalation flow path; a UVC reflective interior surface lining an inside of the chamber; one or more UVC light sources creating UVC light within the chamber; the UVC light bouncing around an inside of the chamber by reflecting off the UVC reflective interior surface, thereby sterilizing the inhaled air and the exhaled air; an external light source integrated into the housing; the housing partially surrounding the external light source; the external light source including one or more LED emitters; the external light source facing away the chamber to light a surface beyond the portable air sterilization device; whereby a combination of the one or more UVC light sources and the one or more LED emitters sterilizes air internally while further emitting light externally (see reference claim 1). The reference claim is silent with regards to a housing and an external light.
Mizandari teaches external light source LEDs on a portable air sterilization device housing for emitting light outwards away from the chamber of the housing (par. 74), and the modification of the reference claim to include a housing and an external LED housed therein and thereon for emitting light to a surface beyond the device to arrive at the claimed invention would have been nothing more than obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention. One would have been motivated to do so to create a more convenient and useful device that includes an illuminating light for use in the dark.
Instant claim 2-3 are made obvious by the modified reference claim, as the lights of Mizandari emit visible light which falls in or at least overlaps with the claimed wavelengths.
Instant claim 7 is read on by reference claim 1, except for the housing and outward facing light sources which are made obvious by Mizandari as set forth with respect to instant claim 1 above.
Prior Art
The prior art, alone or in combination, fails to teach or fairly suggest each and every limitation of independent claims 1, 7, and 13. The prior art considered to be the closest prior art is Barnes (US 7,658,891) in view of Mizandari (US 2021/0330853).
Barnes teaches a portable air sterilization device (title) including a housing (figs. 14a-c, chamber wall 380 defining this housing) including a chamber in the housing (chamber inside wall 380) with two connection points (left and right sides of the chamber) with air being inhaled and exhaled out of both connection points (see figs. 14a-b, Col. 32 line 59 – Col. 33 line 17 describe the reversible flow), and a chamber dividing wall (glass wall 374) that divides the chamber into inhalation and exhalation flow paths, respectively (chamber 371 has a radial space where air is only exhaled, chamber 375 only inhales per figs. 14a and 14b).
Mizandari teaches external light sources on a portable air sterilization device housing for emitting light outwards away from the chamber of the housing (par. 74).
Barnes and Mizandari are silent with regards to the limitation that the flow paths are single-direction, because there is a portion of chamber 371 that inhales as shown in fig. 14A, and furthermore the connection points are not suitable to be atmospheric connection ports and mask connection ports as claimed. The output on the left side of the reactor 380 is laden with ozone for treatment of air in a suit or other enclosed volume (par. 57-65) and therefore this connection point would not reasonably be capable of performing the claimed function of acting as a mask connection point or atmospheric connection point, because ozone is harmful for humans and other living organisms to breath. Therefore, the claims are allowable over the prior art.
Claim 13 is allowed for the reasons set forth above.
Claims 4-6 and 8-12 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 for the reasons set forth above.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to BRENDAN A HENSEL whose telephone number is (571)272-6615. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Thu 8:30 - 7pm;.
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.
/BRENDAN A HENSEL/ Examiner, Art Unit 1758
Prosecution Insights