DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
1. 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
2. Claims 18-20 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected invention, there being no allowable generic or linking claim.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 04/23/2026.
Applicant’s election without traverse of Group I in the reply filed on 04/23/2026 is acknowledged.
Drawings
3. The drawings are objected to as failing to comply with 37 CFR 1.84(p)(5) because they include the following reference character(s) not mentioned in the description: Elements 504, 508-510, and 514 in Fig. 5A-B. Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d), or amendment to the specification to add the reference character(s) in the description in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(b) 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 Rejections - 35 USC § 112
4. 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.
5. Claim 9 is 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.
Claim 9 recites “the at least one angular control film”. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim and is likely Applicant was intending “the at least one angular control element”.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
6. 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.
7. Claims 1-9, 11-14, and 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Cherry (US 20200324003 A1), further in view of Hebrink et al. (WO 2020070589 A1, cited in prior office action).
Regarding claim 1, Cherry teaches a device (Fig. 7) comprising:
a housing (16, Fig. 7) that is substantially impermeable to ultraviolet radiation (desired wavelengths 13 selectively reflected, Fig. 7, where the reflected wavelengths are from 250-450 nm, Fig. 3 and [0018]) having a wavelength of from 280 nm to 400 nm (Fig. 3 and [0012]), and at least one window defined in the housing (opening/aperture that rays 13 exit the reflector housing 16 out of and onto target medium S, Fig. 7)),
b) a broadband UVC light source positioned within the housing (10, Fig. 7).
Cherry teaches a reflective surface via a dichroic coating (11, Fig. 7), but fails to teach c) a multilayer article positioned within the housing, the multilayer article comprising:
i) an absorbent layer that absorbs, scatters, or both, at least 50, 60, 70, 80, 90, or 95 percent of incident ultraviolet light having a wavelength between at least 230 nanometers and 400 nanometers, the absorbent layer comprising a major surface; and
ii) an ultraviolet mirror adjacent to the major surface of the absorbent layer, wherein the ultraviolet mirror is comprised of at least a plurality of alternating first and second optical layers collectively reflecting at an incident light angle of at least one of 0°, 15°, 30°, 45°, 60°, or 75°, at least 50, 60, 70, 80, 90, or 95 percent of incident ultraviolet light in a wavelength range from 195 nanometers or 200 nm, to 230 nanometers, 235 nm, or 240 nm, and collectively transmitting at an incident light angle of at least one of 0°, 15°, 30°, 45°, 60°, or 75°, at least 50, 60, 70, 80, 90, or 95 percent of incident ultraviolet light in a wavelength range from greater than 230 nanometers, greater than 235 nm, or greater than 240 nm, to 400 nanometers,
wherein the broadband UVC light source is configured to direct light at the ultraviolet mirror of the multilayer article.
It is important to note that Cherry’s reflectors select a desired wavelength to be emitted onto the target (Fig. 3).
Hebrink teaches a flexible multilayer UVC shield designed to wrap around curved surfaces such as a rod ([0044], noting its flexibility), where this multilayer article is positioned within the housing (embodiment 1G requires the UV-C disinfection device to have a multilayer optical film of embodiment 3A (that includes 1A and 2A), Fig. 1 and p.29-31), the multilayer article comprising:
i) an absorbent layer (UV absorbent layer having red shifted UV absorbers, [0064] and [0068]) that absorbs, scatters, or both, at least 50, 60, 70, 80, 90, or 95 percent of incident ultraviolet light having a wavelength between at least 230 nanometers and 400 nanometers (“absorb at least 70% of the UV light in the wavelength region from 180 nm to 400 nm”, [0068]), the absorbent layer comprising a major surface (the absorbent layer is mentioned as beneficial as described in [0064], and is thus a “major” surface); and
ii) an ultraviolet mirror (optical layers, 12A-N, 13A-N, Fig. 1 and embodiment 1A being part of 1G reciting “reflective”) adjacent to the major surface of the absorbent layer (absorbent layer has to be adjacent to the optical layers for it to work (i.e., absorb UV light from the source)), wherein the ultraviolet mirror is comprised of at least a plurality of alternating first (12A-N, Fig. 1) and second optical layers (13A-N, Fig. 1) collectively reflecting at an incident light angle of at least one of 0°, 15°, 30°, 45°, 60°, or 75°, (45°, see embodiment 1A) at least 50, 60, 70, 80, 90, or 95 percent of incident ultraviolet light (90%, embodiment 1A) in a wavelength range from 195 nanometers or 200 nm, to 230 nanometers, 235 nm, or 240 nm (100-280 nm, embodiment 1A, where this range anticipates a wavelength of 195-240 nm with sufficient specificity because the germicidal functionality of the UV light is still present at these disclosed wavelengths, including 195 nm up to 240 nm), and collectively transmitting at an incident light angle of at least one of 0°, 15°, 30°, 45°, 60°, or 75°, (90%, embodiment 1A) at least 50, 60, 70, 80, 90, or 95 percent of incident ultraviolet light in a wavelength range from greater than 230 nanometers, greater than 235 nm, or greater than 240 nm, to 400 nanometers (200-280 nm, embodiment 1A, where this range anticipates a wavelength of greater than 230 nm with sufficient specificity because the germicidal functionality of the UV light is still present at these disclosed wavelengths, including 230 nm),
wherein the broadband UVC light source is configured to direct light at the ultraviolet mirror of the multilayer article (the multilayer optical film comprising the mirror optical layers has to surround UV-C light source of the UV-C disinfection device in order for the film to be functionally reflective as mentioned in [0008]). Hebrink’s multilayer optical film provides the additional benefit of selecting the desired bandwidth to be reflected, and alternatively additional optical power ([0061]).
Cherry and Hebrink are both considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of UV-selective reflector structures.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the reflective dichroic coating of Cherry by incorporating the multilayer optical film structure as taught by Hebrink because in doing so would provide the benefit of selecting the desired bandwidth to be reflected ([0061]).
Regarding claim 2, modified Cherry teaches wherein the housing (reflector housing 16, Fig. 7) is configured to block direct passage of light (total reflector 18, Fig. 7) from the broadband UVC light source (10, Fig. 7) through the window (exit opening/aperture of reflector housing 16, Fig. 7), but is silent to the dimensions of the total reflector device in general, and is thus silent on the limitation of “with the exception of light that travels a distance of at least 3 centimeters (cm), 3.25 cm, 3.5 cm,3.75 cm, or at least 4 cm from the broadband UVC light source to the window” (because the distance light travels from the UVC light source to the window is positively correlated with the size/scale of the apparatus).
However, Hebrink mentions that the flexible multilayer optical film “can be wrapped around a rod not greater than 1 m (in some embodiments, not greater than 75 cm, 50 cm, 25 cm, 10 cm, 5 cm, or even not greater than 1 cm) in diameter without visibly cracking” ([0044]).
In view of the flexibility and variable sizing of the multilayer optical film, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have scaled the modified multilayer optical film (and thus, the entire modified apparatus as a whole) of the Cherry/Hebrink combination to a centimeter range-size that meets the limitation of “with the exception of light that travels a distance of at least 3 centimeters (cm), 3.25 cm, 3.5 cm,3.75 cm, or at least 4 cm from the broadband UVC light source to the window”, because “the only difference between the prior art and the claims was a recitation of relative dimensions of the claimed device and a device having the claimed relative dimensions would not perform differently than the prior art device” (MPEP 21044.04.IV.A).
Regarding claim 3, modified Cherry teaches wherein the housing (reflector housing 16, Fig. 7) is configured to block direct passage of light (total reflector 18, Fig. 7) from the broadband UVC light source (10, Fig. 7) through the window (exit opening/aperture of reflector housing 16, Fig. 7).
Regarding claim 4, modified Cherry teaches wherein a cross-section of at least a portion of the housing (reflector housing 16, Fig. 7) forms an elliptical shape ([0033]).
Regarding claim 5, modified Cherry teaches at least one angular control element disposed in the housing (reflector 18, Fig. 7).
Regarding claim 6, modified Cherry teaches wherein the at least one angular control element comprises a concave shape (reflector 18, Fig. 7).
Regarding claim 7, modified Cherry teaches wherein the broadband UVC light source (10, Fig. 7) is disposed between a first concave shape formed by the housing (11 of reflector housing 16 is concave, Fig. 7) and a second concave shape formed by the angular control element (reflector 18 is concave, Fig. 7), wherein the first concave shape is curved in an opposing direction than the second concave shape (the concavities of reflectors 11 and 18 open up in opposing directions, Fig. 7).
Regarding claim 8, modified Cherry teaches wherein the at least one angular control element comprises a retroreflector (reflector 18 reflects back emitted light from source 10 back to the source 10, Fig. 7).
Regarding claim 9, modified Cherry teaches wherein the at least one angular control element (reflector 18, Fig. 7) is disposed between the broadband UVC light source (10, Fig. 7) and the window (exit opening/aperture of reflector housing 16, Fig. 7).
Regarding claim 11, the Cherry/Hebrink combination teaches wherein the absorbent layer (Hebrink, UV absorbent layer as described in [0064] and [0068]) comprises a fluoropolymer (Hebrink, [0066]).
Regarding claim 12, the Cherry/Hebrink combination teaches wherein the absorbent layer further comprises one or more of an ultraviolet radiation absorber (Hebrink, [0064-0066]).
Regarding claim 13, the Cherry/Hebrink combination teaches the absorbent layer as a fluoropolymer ([0066]), thus failing to teach wherein the absorbent layer comprises a continuous metal coating or layer.
However, in an alternative embodiment, Hebrink also mentions the use of metal oxide particles (such as zinc or titanium oxide, [0070]) dispersed and thus incorporated into a UV-absorbing layer in order to “minimize UV radiation degradation” while being “transparent to visible light while either scattering or absorbing harmful UV radiation, thereby reducing damage to thermoplastics” ([0070]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the UV absorbent layer of the Cherry/Hebrink combination by incorporating dispersed metal oxide particles within the UV absorbent layer as taught in another embodiment of Hebrink, because in doing so would “minimize UV radiation degradation” while being “transparent to visible light while either scattering or absorbing harmful UV radiation, thereby reducing damage to thermoplastics” (Hebrink, [0070]).
Regarding claim 14, the Cherry/Hebrink combination teaches the ultraviolet mirror with first (12A-N, Fig. 1) and second optical layers (13A-N, Fig. 1) reflecting UV light at the parameters described in claim 1, wherein the ultraviolet mirror absorbs at an incident light angle of at least one of 0°, 15°, 30°, 45°, 60°, or 75°, at least 30 percent, at least 80 percent, at least 90 percent, at least 95 percent, or at least 98 percent of incident visible light having a wavelength between at least 400 nanometers and 700 nanometers (embodiment 3A, “wherein incident visible light (i.e., any light having a wavelength in a range from 400 to less than 750 nm) transmission through at least the plurality of alternating first and second optical layers is at least 30 (in some embodiments, at least 35, 40, 45, 50, 55, 60, 65, 70, 75, 80, 85, or even at least 90) percent in a wavelength range from at least at least 400 to 750 (in some embodiments, at least 400 to 700, or even at least 500 to 700) nm”).
Regarding claim 16, modified Cherry teaches a UV light source (10, Fig. 7), but fails to teach a visible light source configured to emit visible light when the UVC light source is emitting light.
Hebrink also teaches in an alternative embodiment (1K) a blue light shield that utilizes the same fluoropolymer and multilayer optical film structure (embodiment 1K) as the UV reflector embodiment 3A, where blue light from a blue light source also can be utilized to disinfect target media ([0010]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the UV light source of modified Cherry by incorporating a blue light source as taught in the blue light shield embodiment of Hebrink, because in doing so would predictably increase the sterilization efficiency (as described in Hebrink [0010]).
8. Claims 10 and 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Cherry (US 20200324003 A1), further in view of Hebrink et al. (WO 2020070589 A1), as applied to claim 1 above, further in view of Wang et al. (CN 111281990 A).
Modified Cherry teaches a window (exit opening/aperture of reflector housing 16, Fig. 7), but fails to teach wherein the housing further defines a second window.
Wang teaches a UV disinfection device (Fig. 1-2) utilizing reflectors (11-13, Fig. 1) to direct the emitted UV light from UV source (2, Fig. 1-2) to a target environment (p.3, 4th paragraph of English translation), having a light guide part/grid (14, Fig. 1-2) at the emission/exit port/opening of the apparatus in order to “improve the light intensity distribution uniformity” (p.7, 3rd paragraph of English translation).
Modified Cherry and Wang are both considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of reflector-based UV disinfection devices.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the exit opening/aperture of modified Cherry by incorporating a light guide grid as taught by Wang, because in doing so would “improve the light intensity distribution uniformity” (Wang, p.7, 3rd paragraph of English translation).
With this modification a plurality of apertures/windows are formed due to the light guide part, and thus the limitation of “wherein the housing further defines a second window” is met with the instant combination.
Regarding claim 17, modified Cherry teaches the UVC light source (10, Fig. 7), but fails to teach an activation switch that causes the UVC light source to emit light or to halt emitting light when a user engages the activation switch.
Wang teaches a UV disinfection device (Fig. 1-2) utilizing reflectors (11-13, Fig. 1) to direct the emitted UV light from UV source (2, Fig. 1-2) to a target environment (p.3, 4th paragraph of English translation), having a two-stage starting switch (7, Fig. 1) that the user presses in order to start a sterilizing cycle by UV light source illumination (p.8, 4th paragraph of English translation).
Modified Cherry and Wang are both considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of reflector-based UV disinfection devices.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the UV apparatus of modified Cherry by incorporating a two-stage starting switch that the user presses as taught by Wang, because in doing so would start a sterilizing cycle by UV light source illumination (Wang, p.8, 4th paragraph of English translation).
9. Claim 15 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Cherry (US 20200324003 A1), further in view of Hebrink et al. (WO 2020070589 A1), as applied to claim 1 above, further in view of Tanaka et al. (US 20200171184 A1).
Regarding claim 15, the Cherry/Hebrink teaches a reflector (ultraviolet mirror of Hebrink’s Fig. 1) on the reflector housing (Cherry, 16, Fig. 7), but fails to teach at least one of a heat transfer layer, a plurality of heat transfer fins, or a plurality of heat transfer pins, adjacent to a major surface of the absorbing layer opposite the ultraviolet mirror.
Tanaka teaches a UV lighting module (1, Fig. 2A-B) for the disinfection of a target fluid/environment ([0001]), where the UV light source (3, Fig. 2A-B) is surrounded by a parabolic reflector (8, Fig. 2B), where on the opposite/rear surface of the substrate and reflector (4 and 8, Fig. 2B) that the UV source is mounted on (3, Fig. 2A-B) is a heat sink comprising a plurality of metal heat transfer fins (11, Fig. 2B) so that “heat generated from the substrate can be discharged” ([0049]).
The Cherry/Hebrink combination and Tanaka are both considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of reflector-based UV disinfection of a target fluid/environment.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the UV apparatus of the Cherry/Hebrink combination by incorporating a plurality of metal heat transfer fins positioned on the opposite/rear surface of the reflector as taught by Tanaka, because in doing so would allow the heat generated from the substrate to be discharged (Tanaka, [0049]).
Double Patenting
10. 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.
11. Claim 1 is provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 17 of copending Application No. 18/246,241 in view of Cherry (US 20200324003 A1).
Regarding claim 1, copending Application No. 18/246,241 teaches a device (embodiment 1G, UV-C disinfection device, [0008]) comprising:
a housing (“a chamber”, claim 1) that is substantially impermeable to ultraviolet radiation having a wavelength of from 280 nm to 400 nm (“wherein at least 50, 60, 70, 80, 90, or 95 percent of ultraviolet light having a wavelength between at least 230 nanometers and 400 nanometers transmitted through the ultraviolet mirror is absorbed in the chamber”, claim 1, where if the light is not exiting the chamber through the chamber walls, the chamber is thus impermeable),
b) a broadband UVC light source positioned within the housing or within an optional enclosure adjacent to the housing (“a broadband UVC light source located within the chamber”, claim 1);
c) a multilayer article positioned within the housing (“absorbent layer” and “ultraviolet mirror” that are both “located in the chamber”, claim 1), the multilayer article comprising:
i) an absorbent layer (“absorbent layer, claim 1) that absorbs, scatters, or both, at least 50, 60, 70, 80, 90, or 95 percent of incident ultraviolet light having a wavelength between at least 230 nanometers and 400 nanometers (“wherein at least 50, 60, 70, 80, 90, or 95 percent of ultraviolet light having a wavelength between at least 230 nanometers and 400 nanometers transmitted through the ultraviolet mirror is absorbed in the chamber”, claim 1), the absorbent layer comprising a major surface (“an absorbent layer adjacent to the at least one wall of the chamber”, claim 1); and
ii) an ultraviolet mirror adjacent to the major surface of the absorbent layer (“an ultraviolet mirror located within the chamber between the broadband UVC light source and the absorbent layer”, claim 1), wherein the ultraviolet mirror is comprised of at least a plurality of alternating first and second optical layers collectively reflecting at an incident light angle of at least one of 0°, 15°, 30°, 45°, 60°, or 75°, at least 50, 60, 70, 80, 90, or 95 percent of incident ultraviolet light in a wavelength range from 195 nanometers or 200 nm, to 230 nanometers, 235 nm, or 240 nm (“wherein the ultraviolet mirror is comprised of at least a plurality of alternating first and second optical layers collectively reflecting at an incident light angle of at least one of 0°, 15°, 30°, 45°, 60°, or 75°, at least 50, 60, 70, 80, 90, or 95 percent of incident ultraviolet light in a wavelength range from 190 nanometers, 195 nm, or 200 nm, to 230 nanometers, 235 nm, or 240 nm”, claim 1), and collectively transmitting at an incident light angle of at least one of 0°, 15°, 30°, 45°, 60°, or 75°, (90%, embodiment 1A) at least 50, 60, 70, 80, 90, or 95 percent of incident ultraviolet light in a wavelength range from greater than 230 nanometers, greater than 235 nm, or greater than 240 nm, to 400 nanometers (“and collectively transmitting at an incident light angle of at least one of 0°, 15°, 30°, 45°, 60°, or 75°, at least 50, 60, 70, 80, 90, or 95 percent of incident ultraviolet light in a wavelength range from greater than 230 nanometers, greater than 235 nm, or greater than 240 nm, to 400 nanometers”, claim 1),
wherein the broadband UVC light source is configured to direct light at the ultraviolet mirror of the multilayer article (the broadband UVC light source is located within the chamber and encounters the UV mirror before the absorbent layer, see claim 1, and thus is fully capable of shining UV light onto the UV mirror of the multilayer article).
Copending Application 18/246,241 fails to teach at least one window defined in the housing.
Cherry teaches a UV lighting apparatus (Fig. 7) for the disinfection of a target medium ([0001]) having an exit window (opening/exit window, Fig. 7) in order to allow the generated UV rays to exit the device and towards the target medium to be disinfected (S, Fig. 7).
Copending Application 18/246,241 and Cherry are both considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of UV disinfection devices.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the UV light-based chamber device of copending Application 18/246,241 by incorporating an exit window as taught by Cherry because in doing so would allow the generated UV rays to exit the device and towards the target medium to be disinfected (Cherry, S, Fig. 7).
This is a provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejection.
Conclusion
12. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Aham Lee whose telephone number is (703)756-5622. The examiner can normally be reached Monday to Thursday, 10:00 AM - 8:00 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 R. 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.
/Aham Lee/Examiner, Art Unit 1758
/MARIS R KESSEL/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1758
Prosecution Insights