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 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.
Claims 1, 2, 4, 5, and 7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sood et al. (US 2022/0008575) and further in view of Childress (US 2021/0393823) alone and additionally and alternatively in view of Woods (US 2021/0348090).
With regards to claim 1, Sood et al. teaches a method of inactivating harmful microorganisms and/or viruses (pathogens) in an enclosed occupied space (bar, bus, train, conference room or any other suitable indoor space); the method includes a first step of performing a wiping operation that wipes down a surface in the enclosed space (customary table wipe down) after use by one group of people and before another group uses the space (para [0058]). Since the description says pathogens may be present after wiping it is taken that the wiping is done with at least some type of sterilizing solution (para [0058]). Sood et al. further teaches a second step of irradiation droplets that scatter from a wiping area of the surface during the wiping operation in the first step with ultraviolet light (applies UV light to the same surface area that was wiped; para [0058]-[0059]). The UV light can be in the includes wavelength of 200-220 nm and the overlapping ranges of 200-280 and 200-250 nm as UV light having a wavelength that inactivates harmful microorganisms and/or viruses (para [0058]).
Sood et al. does not specify that the enclosed space is an area where a patient is transported and/or treated or that the wiping is done after transporting or treating (that the specific use that the sterilization is done after is transporting or treating a patient). Sood et al. does teach that the method is widely applicable to any place including places for transporting people (para [0058]). A person having ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to have applied the method to any place that is contaminated after use by people including areas for transporting or treating a patient. Carrying out the method in a place where a patient is transported and/or treated would result in the wiping occurring after transporting or treating the patient (after the use of the space and between users).
Sood et al. also does not specify that the second step and the first step occur simultaneously. Childress et al. teaches a method for disinfecting the interior of a vehicle cabin that transports people (para [0016]). Childress teaches using UV light at wavelengths that are not harmful to human occupants such as 222 nm (para [0016]). Childress also teaches that persistent operation of the UV light over long periods of time including when people are in the space is beneficial for preventing pathogen spread (para [0017]). Additionally, elsewhere Childress teaches applying cleaning chemicals with along with UV light by employees at the same time (para [0003]). A person having ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to have applied the UV light persistently including before, during, and after the wiping in order to help minimize pathogen spread as it is safe and efficient to do so while people are present when selecting an appropriate wavelength (such as 222 nm).
The combination results in the first and second step occurring simultaneously.
In the instance the applicant argues that the wiping of Sood et al. does not involve a sterilizing solution, Woods et al. teaches a wipe that includes a solution that kills various bacteria (abstract; see whole document). A person having ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to have used a wipe with a sterilizing solution in order to help prevent infection and reduce harmful bacteria.
With regards to claim 2, given the teaching above of persistent irradiating the taught method would result in the claimed third step (irradiation would occur in the empty ambulance vehicle after a prior patient and before the use by a new patient and the subsequent first and second step after the new patient use).
Additionally and alternatively, a person having ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to have irradiated with UV light in a third step in an unmanned state prior to the first and second step in order to reduce the pathogens from the transport and treating prior to a cleaner being exposed to the environment.
With regards to claim 4, the sterilization solution above is taken to be volatile (it evaporates).
With regards to claim 5, the combination results in the second step irradiating the droplets with UV light by irradiating a space between the wiping area and a worker performing the wiping operation (the overhead light shines in the space below which would include the space between the worker and whatever they are wiping).
With regards to claim 7, Sood et al. does not specify that the enclosed space is an ambulance. Sood et al. does teach that the method is widely applicable to any place including places for transporting people (para [0058]). A person having ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to have applied the method to any place that is contaminated after use by people including inside an ambulance.
Claim 3 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sood et al. (US 2022/0008575) and further in view of Childress (US 2021/0393823) alone and additionally and alternatively in view of Woods (US 2021/0348090) as applied to claim 2 above and further in view of Levine (US 4,915,435).
With regards to claim 3, the combination above motivates the method being applied to a mobile treatment or patient transport along with persistent UV light exposure. The combination does not teach that the mobile treatment or transport has storage drawers. Levine teaches a mobile patient treatment facility (abstract and fig 2) and teaches that there are storage drawers (16). A person having ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to have added storage drawers in order to store things for use in patient treating and transporting as needed.
A person having ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to have opened the drawers and expose them to the irradiations and wiping treatments motivated by an expectation of successfully sterilizing the entire environment that may be contaminated by the prior use (patient).
It would have been obvious to have the inside of the drawer needing decontamination to be included in the third step above in order to limit pathogen exposure.
The combination results in wherein the enclosed space is a space where a shelf storing equipment used for a treatment for the patient is arranged (the instant spec gives a drawer as an example of shelf; para [0020]),the inactivation method further comprises a fourth step of exposing an interior of the shelf after transporting and/or treating the patient (opening drawer to expose it to the irradiation), and the third step irradiates an area including the exposed interior of the shelf with the ultraviolet light (would be left open for the pretreatment to limit the pathogen exposure of the cleaner).
Claim 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sood et al. (US 2022/0008575) and further in view of Childress (US 2021/0393823) alone and additionally and alternatively in view of Woods (US 2021/0348090) as applied to claim 1 above and further in view of Shannon et al. (US 2012/0100037).
With regards to claim 6, the combination does not teach that the wiping is selective on surfaces or areas where the UV light is insufficient alone. Shannon et al. teaches applying sterilization generally in a room but then targeting difficult to clean surfaces with a scrubbing treatment (para [0022]). The scrubbing treatment increases the sterilization of troublesome bacteria (para [0022]). A person having ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to have targeted difficult to clean surfaces with the wiping (a scrubbing) in order to improve the sterilization of troublesome bacteria on those surfaces over the general room treatment.
The combination results in wiping selectively on an area of the surface in the enclosed space (difficult to clean surfaces and areas) where inactivation of the microorganisms by irradiation is determined to be insufficient (determining something is difficult to clean includes a determination that the lesser treatment alone is not sufficient to achieve the desired result).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to DONALD R SPAMER whose telephone number is (571)272-3197. The examiner can normally be reached Monday to Friday from 9-5.
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.
/DONALD R SPAMER/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1799