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 .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
2. A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 09/16/2026 has been entered.
Response to Amendment
3. This is an office action in response to Applicant's arguments and remarks filed on 09/16/2026. Claims 55, 57, 59-61, 63-65, 67-70, 75-76, and 79-80 are pending in the application and are being examined herein.
Status of Objections and Rejections
4. All rejections from the previous office action are withdrawn in view of Applicant's amendment.
New grounds of rejection under 35 U.S.C. 103 are necessitated by the amendments.
Response to Arguments
5. In the arguments presented on p.2 of the amendment, the Applicant argues that Yerby (US 20130256560 A1, cited in prior office action), alone or in combination, fails to teach the amended claim 55 and 75 limitations of a radiation sensor in the chamber, the radiation sensor configured to measure radiation received from the UV radiation source, and the controller configured to end a UV cycle when a UV dosage is achieved.
Applicant’s arguments, with respect to the rejection(s) of claim(s) 55 and 75 under 35 U.S.C. 103 have been fully considered and are persuasive. Therefore, the rejection has been withdrawn. However, upon further consideration, a new ground(s) of rejection is made in view of Yerby, further in view of Dayton (US 20160324997 A1, cited in prior office action), further in view of Berry (US 5340551 A, cited in prior office action), further in view of Deal et al. (US 20140271348 A1), further in view of McKelvie (US 20210369895 A1).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
6. The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
7. Claims 55, 57, 59-61, 64-65, and 68-70 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yerby (US 20130256560 A1), further in view of Dayton (US 20160324997 A1), further in view of Berry (US 5340551 A), further in view of Deal et al. (US 20140271348 A1), further in view of McKelvie (US 20210369895 A1, cited in prior office action).
Regarding claim 55, Yerby teaches an ultraviolet (UV) treatment device (sanitizing device 20, Fig. 1-10) comprising:
a housing (22, Fig. 1) comprising
first and second pairs of walls defining a chamber therebetween (first pair of side walls 28 and second pair of walls being ceiling wall 32, and rear wall 30, Fig. 2 and 3B),
a chamber floor (floor 34, Fig. 2) extending from the lateral wall and to receive a handheld device (article to be sanitized can be placed within the chamber interior, which can include the floor wall, Fig. 2 and [0025-0027]),
a door (36, Fig. 1) moveable between a closed position (Fig. 1) blocking the lateral access opening (opening 26, Fig. 2) and an open position (Fig. 2) removed from the lateral access opening (door open defines opening 26, Fig. 2) to provide access to the chamber through the lateral access opening (article to be sanitized is placed within the chamber, which can include the floor 34, Fig. 2 and [0025-0027]);
at least one mounting bracket carried on an external surface of the housing (37, Fig. 1);
and a UV radiation source mounted to the housing and configured to direct UV radiation into the chamber (42, Fig. 2).
Yerby teaches the chamber having a chamber height along a vertical axis (see drawing below),
PNG
media_image1.png
354
436
media_image1.png
Greyscale
a chamber width along a transverse axis, and a chamber depth along a longitudinal axis (see drawing below of top-down view of chamber),
PNG
media_image2.png
355
391
media_image2.png
Greyscale
and the first and second pairs of walls (first pair of side walls 28 and second pair of walls being ceiling wall 32, and rear wall 30, Fig. 2 and 3B) defining a lateral wall (front wall 24, Fig. 1) having a lateral access opening to the chamber (opening 26, Fig. 2), but fails to teach the chamber depth being less than the chamber width and the chamber height, and the lateral access opening having an opening width greater than the chamber depth.
Yerby mentions that “the size of the housing 22 or the opening 26 can vary depending on the article to be disinfected” ([0025]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to have arrived at the claimed ranges of the chamber depth being less than the chamber width/height and the lateral access opening having an opening width greater than the chamber depth with a reasonable expectation of success through routine optimization, because Yerby suggests that alternative housing dimensions can be used to account for the dimensions of the article to be disinfected. Furthermore, this “device having the claimed relative dimensions would not perform differently than the prior art device” (MPEP 2144.04.IV.A).
Modified Yerby fails to teach an elongate ridge extending from the chamber floor configured to inhibit sliding of the handheld device along the chamber floor towards the lateral access opening when the handheld device is resting with a lower edge resting on the chamber floor, the retention feature being transparent to UV radiation.
Dayton teaches a UV sterilization chamber (Fig. 5-7) having a floor (20, Fig. 5) including a series of UV transparent pyramidal supports/ridges extending from the chamber floor (104, Fig. 5, where “the floor 20 itself can optionally be formed of the FEP polymeric material”, which was defined to be UV transparent, floor 20 including the supports 104, [0035]) that the object to be sterilized can be placed between (Fig. 5) in order to “to limit the surface area of the floor in contact with the object placed in the disinfecting chamber” ([0035]).
Modified Yerby and Dayton are both considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of UV disinfection chambers for articles to be sterilized.
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 floor wall of modified Yerby by incorporating a plurality of UV-transparent pyramidal supports extending from the floor as taught by Dayton in order to “limit the surface area of the floor in contact with the object placed in the disinfecting chamber” (Dayton, [0035]).
The Yerby/Dayton combination teaches a frustoconical shape ([0035]), thus failing to teach elongate ridges having a shape that comprises first and second ends, and a medial portion between the first and second ends, the first and second ends extending upwardly to a greater height than a height of the medial portion.
Berry teaches a sterilization cassette acting as a sterilization chamber for an autoclave (Fig. 5), having an elongate ridge (extending tabs 48, Fig. 2-2A) extending from the chamber floor (base 23, Fig. 1) having a shape that comprises first and second ends (ends of tabs 48, Fig. 2), and a medial portion between the first and second ends (a trough of a receiving channel 51, Fig. 2), the first and second ends extending upwardly to a greater height than a height of the medial portion (the channel 51 troughs are lower in elevation than the ends of tabs 48, Fig. 2).
The Yerby/Dayton combination and Berry are both considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of holding means for articles to be sterilized in a sterilization process/chamber.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to change the shape of a frustoconical support of the Yerby/Dayton combination as desired, including the tab shape as taught by Berry (according to not only decorative preferences but also the functional equivalence of a holding means for articles to be sterilized within the chamber) with a reasonable expectation of success, because the configuration of the elongate ridge “is a matter of choice which a person of ordinary skill in the art would have found obvious absent persuasive evidence that the particular configuration of the claimed container was significant” (MPEP 2144.04.B).
Modified Yerby fails to teach a radiation sensor in the chamber, the radiation sensor configured to measure radiation received from the UV radiation source, a controller coupled to the UV radiation source and the radiation sensor and configured to end a UV cycle when a UV dosage is achieved.
Deal teaches a UV disinfection chamber (Fig. 1-4) for objects (abstract) with a controller (microcontroller 23, Fig. 6) operatively connected to UV radiation sources (14, Fig. 1-4) and UV-C radiation sensors (16, Fig. 1-4) in order for the sensors to receive UV-C radiation and for the microcontroller to terminate power to all of the UV-C bulbs/emitters when the required reflected dosage of UV-C has been received by all of the sensors ([0027]).
Modified Yerby and Deal are both considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of UV disinfection chambers for placed objects.
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-C disinfection apparatus of modified Yerby by incorporating a controller in operative connection to both UV-C radiation sources and UV-C sensors as taught by Deal, because doing so would allow the sensors to receive UV-C radiation and the microcontroller to terminate power to all of the UV-C bulbs/emitters when the required reflected dosage of UV-C has been received by all of the sensors (Deal, [0027]) with a reasonable expectation of success.
Modified Yerby teaches a door control system (electrical contacts 68 in communication with the controller 62, Fig. 2, 9, and [0042]).
Modified Yerby is silent to the door control system configured to control positioning of the door, as this is a manual action done by the user ([0028], “selectively opened and closed”), wherein the door control system configured to cause the door to be in the open position when the UV radiation source is not activated.
However, it would have been obvious to have automated the door to selectively open/close via the controller already monitoring and subsequently controlling disinfection cycles, because “providing an automatic or mechanical means to replace a manual activity which accomplished the same result is not sufficient to distinguish over the prior art” (see MPEP 2144.04,III).
From this modification, the limitation of “wherein the door control system configured to cause the door to be in the open position when the UV radiation source is not activated” is taught by modified Yerby because “the sensor comprises a contact on the housing 22 and a magnet 69 in the door 36, the completed circuit activating the UV radiation source only when the door 36 is in the closed position to enclose the chamber 38 (Fig. 2 and [0042]).
Modified Yerby teaches wherein the door control system (controller 62 and contacts 68, Fig. 2 and 9) is configured to receive power from a power source (power supply 64, Fig. 9), but is still silent to the limitation of wherein the door control system is configured to cause the door to be biased to the open position when there is no power from the power source.
McKelvie teaches a UV sterilization cabinet (10, Fig. 1) having a door (16, Fig. 1), where there is a lock (15, Fig. 1) in a default unlocked position (i.e., “biased to the open position”), only being locked when a disinfection cycle is occurring ([0049]), because “this permits the cabinet door 16 to open should there be a power failure” ([0049]).
Modified Yerby and McKelvie are both considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of UV disinfection chambers for articles to be sterilized utilizing chamber door-based criteria to initiate disinfection cycles.
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 automated opening/closing door control system of modified Yerby by incorporating a lock having a default unlocked position with respect to the door in order to “permit the cabinet door to open should there be a power failure” (McKelvie, [0049]).
Regarding claim 57, modified Yerby teaches wherein the chamber has a rectangular horizontal cross-section (Fig. 2); and wherein each of the first pair of lateral walls (side walls 28, Fig. 1) has a width (this is the “depth” parameter in claim 55 rejection above) less than a width of each of the second pair of lateral walls (this is the “width” parameter in claim 55 rejection above, where the “depth” is less than the “width” value for the same modification purpose as stated in claim 55 rejection above).
Regarding claim 59, modified Yerby teaches wherein the housing defines a recess for receiving the door when in the open position (hollow space within housing 22 defined by track 44 that door 36 retracts into when open as shown in Fig. 3A).
Regarding claim 60, modified Yerby teaches wherein the door comprises a segmented door (36, Fig. 1).
Regarding claim 61, modified Yerby teaches wherein the door comprises a flexible panel (the door 36 is segmented, and thus as a whole unit, is flexible, Fig. 1).
Regarding claim 64, modified Yerby teaches a cycle initiation toggle for initiating the UV cycle (switch 70, Fig. 1).
Regarding claim 65, modified Yerby teaches wherein the cycle initiation toggle comprises one of a button (switch 70, Fig. 1).
Regarding claim 68, modified Yerby teaches a screen carried by the housing and configured to provide content to a user during a cycle (“One or more… displays may be provided on the outside of the housing 22 to indicate the status of the sanitizing device 20”, Fig. 1 and [0045]).
Regarding claim 69, the limitation of “wherein the door control system is configured to open the door automatically at an end of a cycle” is taught by the claim 62 modification of automating the opening/closing of the door in modified Yerby’s device, because the UV light sources are shut off once a disinfection cycle is completed ([0048]), even citing that “[i]f the sensor 68 detects an attempt to open the door 36 while the UV radiation sources are activated, the controller immediately shuts off power to the UV radiation sources” ([0048]).
Regarding claim 70, modified Yerby teaches wherein the housing includes a transparent internal wall (wire mesh protective cage 80 being transparent because the mesh inherently lets the UV radiation pass through due to the gaps in the mesh, Fig. 5) separating the chamber (38, Fig. 2) from the UV radiation source (42, Fig. 2); and wherein the transparent internal wall includes a visibility-enhancing pattern (wire mesh pattern can visibly enhance the location of the UV light sources, Fig. 2).
8. Claim 63 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yerby (US 20130256560 A1), further in view of Dayton (US 20160324997 A1), further in view of Berry (US 5340551 A), further in view of Deal et al. (US 20140271348 A1), further in view of McKelvie (US 20210369895 A1), as applied to claim 55 above, further in view of Peifer (US 6096264 A, cited in prior office action).
Regarding claim 63, modified Yerby teaches the opening/closing of a door of a chamber (see claim 62 rejection above), citing how the UV light sources are activated when the door is closed ([0042]) and a UV resistant window can be used for user viewing (39, Fig. 2 and [0025]), but fails to teach a visible light source configured to illuminate the chamber when the door is in the closed position.
Peifer teaches a UV sterilization chamber (10, Fig. 1) for handheld objects (toothbrushes 2, 4, Fig. 1), where a visible light source (illumination unit 58, Fig. 1) is mounted in the housing (12, Fig. 1), for the purpose of “general illumination” (col.2, line 28).
Modified Yerby and Peifer are both considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of UV disinfection chambers for articles to be sterilized.
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 interior housing walls of modified Yerby by incorporating a visible light illumination lamp mounted to an interior housing wall for the purpose of “general illumination” (Peifer, col.2, line 28), specifically in the context of a user viewing through Yerby’s UV resistant window during a sterilization cycle (i.e., door is in a closed position).
9. Claim 67 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yerby (US 20130256560 A1), further in view of Dayton (US 20160324997 A1), further in view of Berry (US 5340551 A), further in view of Deal et al. (US 20140271348 A1), further in view of McKelvie (US 20210369895 A1), as applied to claim 55 above, further in view of Um (KR 102191559 B1).
Regarding claim 67, the modified Yerby/McKelvie combination teaches a door control system (Yerby, controller 62 and electrical contacts 68, Fig. 2 and 9) with a lock in a default unlocked position (McKelvie, lock 15, Fig. 1), but is silent to the limitation of wherein the UV treatment device includes an energy storage device coupled to the power source to detect a loss of power from the power source and coupled to the door control system to open the door in response to detecting the loss of power from the power source.
Um teaches a chamber for objects to be cleaned (Fig. 1-10), utilizing an air circulation device (400, Fig. 7) that sterilizes incoming air (UV lamp 450, Fig. 8) to clean the object within the chamber, wherein the chamber includes an energy storage device (auxiliary battery 390, Fig. 1) coupled to the power source (power supply unit 460, Fig. 10) to detect a loss of power from the power source (“the auxiliary battery 390 supplies auxiliary power in an emergency so that the chamber 10 can operate even when the power is cut off”, p.3, 7th paragraph of English translation) and coupled to the door control system to open the door in response to detecting the loss of power from the power source (“since the door 200 is electronically opened and closed, an auxiliary battery 390 is provided to open and close the door 200 by receiving a current through an emergency power supply during a power failure”, p.3, 7th paragraph of English translation).
It is important to note that the modified Yerby/McKelvie combination teaches a door control system that defaults the door to be unlocked (i.e., biased to an opening position) during power failure. Thus, Um’s recitation of “provided to open and close the door” would not be pertinent in this context, especially because Um utilizes the term of closing the door in required conjunction with locking said door (“to close and lock the door”, abstract of English translation), which is counter to what the lock of the modified Yerby/McKelvie combination teaches.
The modified Yerby/McKelvie combination and Um are both considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of chambers for cleaning objects placed therein by utilizing UV light, utilizing a lock default configuration of an unlocked (i.e., “biased to open”) position during unexpected power loss/failure.
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 unlocked door control system during power failure of the modified Yerby/McKelvie combination by incorporating an auxiliary battery that delivers power to the automated doors as taught by Um in order to open the automated door (Um, p.3, 7th paragraph of English translation).
10. Claims 75 and 79-80 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yerby (US 20130256560 A1), further in view of Dayton (US 20160324997 A1), further in view of Berry (US 5340551 A), further in view of Deal et al. (US 20140271348 A1), further in view of McKelvie (US 20210369895 A1), further in view of Khajavi et al. (US 20180280554 A1, cited in prior office action).
Regarding claim 75, Yerby teaches an ultraviolet (UV) treatment device (sanitizing device 20, Fig. 1-10) comprising:
a housing (22, Fig. 1) comprising
first and second pairs of walls defining a chamber therebetween (first pair of side walls 28 and second pair of walls being ceiling wall 32, and rear wall 30, Fig. 2 and 3B),
a chamber floor (floor 34, Fig. 2) extending from the lateral wall and to receive a handheld device (article to be sanitized can be placed within the chamber interior, which can include the floor wall, Fig. 2 and [0025-0027]),
a door (36, Fig. 1) moveable between a closed position (Fig. 1) blocking the lateral access opening (opening 26, Fig. 2) and an open position (Fig. 2) removed from the lateral access opening (door open defines opening 26, Fig. 2) to provide access to the chamber through the lateral access opening (article to be sanitized is placed within the chamber, which can include the floor 34, Fig. 2 and [0025-0027]);
at least one mounting bracket carried on an external surface of the housing (top wall of cart 37 that apparatus 20 is placed onto, Fig. 1), an arm coupled to the at least one mounting bracket and extending laterally therefrom (one of four support arms under top wall of cart 37, Fig. 1);
and a UV radiation source mounted to the housing and configured to direct UV radiation into the chamber (42, Fig. 2); and
a floor stand coupled to the at least one mounting bracket and extending from a floor surface (see drawing below).
PNG
media_image3.png
310
459
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Yerby teaches the chamber having a chamber height along a vertical axis (see drawing below),
PNG
media_image1.png
354
436
media_image1.png
Greyscale
a chamber width along a transverse axis, and a chamber depth along a longitudinal axis (see drawing below of top-down view of chamber),
PNG
media_image2.png
355
391
media_image2.png
Greyscale
and the first and second pairs of walls (first pair of side walls 28 and second pair of walls being ceiling wall 32, and rear wall 30, Fig. 2 and 3B) defining a lateral wall (front wall 24, Fig. 1) having a lateral access opening to the chamber (opening 26, Fig. 2), but fails to teach the chamber depth being less than the chamber width and the chamber height, and the lateral access opening having an opening width greater than the chamber depth.
Yerby mentions that “the size of the housing 22 or the opening 26 can vary depending on the article to be disinfected” ([0025]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to have arrived at the claimed ranges of the chamber depth being less than the chamber width/height and the lateral access opening having an opening width greater than the chamber depth with a reasonable expectation of success through routine optimization, because Yerby suggests that alternative housing dimensions can be used to account for the dimensions of the article to be disinfected. Furthermore, this “device having the claimed relative dimensions would not perform differently than the prior art device” (MPEP 2144.04.IV.A).
Modified Yerby fails to teach an elongate ridge extending from the chamber floor configured to inhibit sliding of the handheld device along the chamber floor towards the lateral access opening when the handheld device is resting with a lower edge resting on the chamber floor, the retention feature being transparent to UV radiation.
Dayton teaches a UV sterilization chamber (Fig. 5-7) having a floor (20, Fig. 5) including a series of UV transparent pyramidal supports/ridges extending from the chamber floor (104, Fig. 5, where “the floor 20 itself can optionally be formed of the FEP polymeric material”, which was defined to be UV transparent, floor 20 including the supports 104, [0035]) that the object to be sterilized can be placed between (Fig. 5) in order to “to limit the surface area of the floor in contact with the object placed in the disinfecting chamber” ([0035]).
Modified Yerby and Dayton are both considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of UV disinfection chambers for articles to be sterilized.
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 floor wall of modified Yerby by incorporating a plurality of UV-transparent pyramidal supports extending from the floor as taught by Dayton in order to “limit the surface area of the floor in contact with the object placed in the disinfecting chamber” (Dayton, [0035]).
The Yerby/Dayton combination teaches a frustoconical shape ([0035]), thus failing to teach elongate ridges having a shape that comprises first and second ends, and a medial portion between the first and second ends, the first and second ends extending upwardly to a greater height than a height of the medial portion.
Berry teaches a sterilization cassette acting as a sterilization chamber for an autoclave (Fig. 5), having an elongate ridge (extending tabs 48, Fig. 2-2A) extending from the chamber floor (base 23, Fig. 1) having a shape that comprises first and second ends (ends of tabs 48, Fig. 2), and a medial portion between the first and second ends (a trough of a receiving channel 51, Fig. 2), the first and second ends extending upwardly to a greater height than a height of the medial portion (the channel 51 troughs are lower in elevation than the ends of tabs 48, Fig. 2).
The Yerby/Dayton combination and Berry are both considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of holding means for articles to be sterilized in a sterilization process/chamber.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to change the shape of a frustoconical support of the Yerby/Dayton combination as desired, including the tab shape as taught by Berry (according to not only decorative preferences but also the functional equivalence of a holding means for articles to be sterilized within the chamber) with a reasonable expectation of success, because the configuration of the elongate ridge “is a matter of choice which a person of ordinary skill in the art would have found obvious absent persuasive evidence that the particular configuration of the claimed container was significant” (MPEP 2144.04.B).
Modified Yerby fails to teach a radiation sensor in the chamber, the radiation sensor configured to measure radiation received from the UV radiation source, a controller coupled to the UV radiation source and the radiation sensor and configured to end a UV cycle when a UV dosage is achieved.
Deal teaches a UV disinfection chamber (Fig. 1-4) for objects (abstract) with a controller (microcontroller 23, Fig. 6) operatively connected to UV radiation sources (14, Fig. 1-4) and UV-C radiation sensors (16, Fig. 1-4) in order for the sensors to receive UV-C radiation and for the microcontroller to terminate power to all of the UV-C bulbs/emitters when the required reflected dosage of UV-C has been received by all of the sensors ([0027]).
Modified Yerby and Deal are both considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of UV disinfection chambers for placed objects.
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-C disinfection apparatus of modified Yerby by incorporating a controller in operative connection to both UV-C radiation sources and UV-C sensors as taught by Deal, because doing so would allow the sensors to receive UV-C radiation and the microcontroller to terminate power to all of the UV-C bulbs/emitters when the required reflected dosage of UV-C has been received by all of the sensors (Deal, [0027]) with a reasonable expectation of success.
Modified Yerby teaches a door control system (electrical contacts 68 in communication with the controller 62, Fig. 2, 9, and [0042]).
Modified Yerby is silent to the door control system configured to control positioning of the door, as this is a manual action done by the user ([0028], “selectively opened and closed”), wherein the door control system configured to cause the door to be in the open position when the UV radiation source is not activated.
However, it would have been obvious to have automated the door to selectively open/close via the controller already monitoring and subsequently controlling disinfection cycles, because “providing an automatic or mechanical means to replace a manual activity which accomplished the same result is not sufficient to distinguish over the prior art” (see MPEP 2144.04,III).
From this modification, the limitation of “wherein the door control system configured to cause the door to be in the open position when the UV radiation source is not activated” is taught by modified Yerby because “the sensor comprises a contact on the housing 22 and a magnet 69 in the door 36, the completed circuit activating the UV radiation source only when the door 36 is in the closed position to enclose the chamber 38 (Fig. 2 and [0042]).
Modified Yerby teaches wherein the door control system (controller 62 and contacts 68, Fig. 2 and 9) is configured to receive power from a power source (power supply 64, Fig. 9), but is still silent to the limitation of wherein the door control system is configured to cause the door to be biased to the open position when there is no power from the power source.
McKelvie teaches a UV sterilization cabinet (10, Fig. 1) having a door (16, Fig. 1), where there is a lock (15, Fig. 1) in a default unlocked position (i.e., “biased to the open position”), only being locked when a disinfection cycle is occurring ([0049]), because “this permits the cabinet door 16 to open should there be a power failure” ([0049]).
Modified Yerby and McKelvie are both considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of UV disinfection chambers for articles to be sterilized utilizing chamber door-based criteria to initiate disinfection cycles.
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 automated opening/closing door control system of modified Yerby by incorporating a lock having a default unlocked position with respect to the door in order to “permit the cabinet door to open should there be a power failure” (McKelvie, [0049]).
Modified Yerby teaches an arm coupled to the at least one mounting bracket and extending laterally therefrom (one of four support arms under top wall of cart 37, Fig. 1), but fails to teach a hygiene dispenser carried by the arm.
Khajavi teaches a UV sterilization apparatus for handheld objects like phones (100, Fig. 2, with emitters 122, Fig. 3 and 10), having a hand sanitizing solution dispenser (110, Fig. 2 and 10) attached the external wall of the sterilization chamber (140, Fig. 10) that is operatively connected to the controller (158, Fig. 10) to automatically dispense sanitizing solution and/or allow the object to be sterilized to be retrieved after the hand sanitizer has been dispensed [0044]).
Modified Yerby and Khajavi are both considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of UV sterilization apparatuses for objects to be sterilized with controller operations.
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 sterilization chamber of modified Yerby by incorporating a hand sanitizer dispenser mounted to the chamber as taught by Khajavi, because doing so would allow automatic dispensing of sanitizing solution to the user (Khajavi, [0044]) with a reasonable expectation of success.
With this modification, the instant combination would teach a hygiene dispenser (Khajavi, 110, Fig. 2) carried by the arm (Yerby, one of the four arms supporting/carrying the cart 37 that the sterilization chamber 20 is mounted on also carries the hand sanitizer dispenser because the hand sanitizer dispenser is also attached to the sterilization chamber, Fig. 1).
Regarding claim 79, modified Yerby teaches signage (“One or more indicator lamps or displays may be provided on the outside of the housing 22 to indicate the status of the sanitizing device 20”, Fig. 1 and [0045]) to be received by the mounting bracket (cart 37 holds/receives the sterilization apparatus 20, Fig. 1).
Regarding claim 80, modified Yerby teaches a handle extending outwardly and coupled to the mounting bracket (handle of cart 37, Fig. 1).
11. Claims 76 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yerby (US 20130256560 A1), further in view of Dayton (US 20160324997 A1), further in view of Berry (US 5340551 A), further in view of Deal et al. (US 20140271348 A1), further in view of McKelvie (US 20210369895 A1), further in view of Khajavi (US 20180280554 A1) as applied to claim 75 above, further in view of Shin (US 20090010826 A1).
Regarding claim 76, Yerby teaches a mounting bracket carried on an external surface of the housing (top wall of cart 37 that apparatus 20 is placed onto, Fig. 1), but fails to teach wherein the at least one mounting bracket comprises first and second elongate hook brackets.
Shin teaches a toothbrush sterilizer (10, Fig. 1-3) utilizing UV radiation (via emitters 20, Fig. 3), having a mounting bracket (160, Fig. 1-3) in order to provide a detachable fixation to the toothbrush sterilizer ([0064]) by means of two hooks (162, Fig. 1) and two corresponding receiving slots (latch hole 129, Fig. 8).
Modified Yerby and Shin are both considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of UV sterilization chambers with mounting brackets on an external surface of the chamber housing.
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 cart top wall (i.e., mounting bracket) and its respective “mounting” wall of the sterilization apparatus of modified Yerby by incorporating two hooks on the mounting bracket and two corresponding receiving slots on the sterilization apparatus housing as taught by Shin, because doing so would provide, when removed, a detachability to the mounted surface and when attached, a fixation to the mounted surface (Shin, [0064]) with a reasonable expectation of success.
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
/SEAN E CONLEY/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1799
