DETAILED ACTION N o tice 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/ Restriction REQUIREMENT FOR UNITY OF INVENTION 2. As provided in 37 CFR 1.475(a), a national stage application shall relate to one invention only or to a group of inventions so linked as to form a single general inventive concept (“requirement of unity of invention”). Where a group of inventions is claimed in a national stage application, the requirement of unity of invention shall be fulfilled only when there is a technical relationship among those inventions involving one or more of the same or corresponding special technical features. The expression “special technical features” shall mean those technical features that define a contribution which each of the claimed inventions, considered as a whole, makes over the prior art. The determination whether a group of inventions is so linked as to form a single general inventive concept shall be made without regard to whether the inventions are claimed in separate claims or as alternatives within a single claim. See 37 CFR 1.475(e). When Claims Are Directed to Multiple Categories of Inventions: As provided in 37 CFR 1.475 (b), a national stage application containing claims to different categories of invention will be considered to have unity of invention if the claims are drawn only to one of the following combinations of categories: (1) A product and a process specially adapted for the manufacture of said product; or (2) A product and a process of use of said product; or (3) A product, a process specially adapted for the manufacture of the said product, and a use of the said product; or (4) A process and an apparatus or means specifically designed for carrying out the said process; or (5) A product, a process specially adapted for the manufacture of the said product, and an apparatus or means specifically designed for carrying out the said process. Otherwise, unity of invention might not be present. See 37 CFR 1.475 (c). 3. Restriction is required under 35 U.S.C. 121 and 372. This application contains the following inventions or groups of inventions which are not so linked as to form a single general inventive concept under PCT Rule 13.1. In accordance with 37 CFR 1.499, applicant is required, in reply to this action, to elect a single invention to which the claims must be restricted. Group I , claim s 55-70 , drawn to a UV treatment device . Group II , claims 71- 74 , drawn to a method of using a UV treatment device . 4. The groups of inventions listed above do not relate to a single general inventive concept under PCT Rule 13.1 because, under PCT Rule 13.2, they lack the same or corresponding special technical features for the following reasons: Groups I and II lack unity of invention because even though the inventions of these groups require the technical feature of , this technical feature is not a special technical feature as it does not make a contribution over the prior art in view of 5. During a telephone conversation with Attorney Jack Abid on 03/05/2026, a provisional election was made without traverse to prosecute the invention of Group I, claims 55-70. Affirmation of this election must be made by Applicant in replying to this Office action. Claims 71-74 are withdrawn from further consideration by the Examiner per 37 CFR 1.142(b), as being drawn to a non-elected invention. 6 . Applicant is advised that the reply to this requirement to be complete must include (i) an election of a species or invention to be examined even though the requirement may be traversed (37 CFR 1.143) and (ii) identification of the claims encompassing the elected invention. The election of an invention or species may be made with or without traverse. To preserve a right to petition, the election must be made with traverse. If the reply does not distinctly and specifically point out supposed errors in the restriction requirement, the election shall be treated as an election without traverse. Traversal must be presented at the time of election in order to be considered timely. Failure to timely traverse the requirement will result in the loss of right to petition under 37 CFR 1.144. If claims are added after the election, applicant must indicate which of these claims are readable on the elected invention or species. Should applicant traverse on the ground that the inventions have unity of invention (37 CFR 1.475(a)), applicant must provide reasons in support thereof. Applicant may submit evidence or identify such evidence now of record showing the inventions to be obvious variants or clearly admit on the record that this is the case. Where such evidence or admission is provided by applicant, if the examiner finds one of the inventions unpatentable over the prior art, the evidence or admission may be used in a rejection under 35 U.S.C. 103 or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) of the other invention. 7 . The examiner has required restriction between product or apparatus claims and process claims. Where applicant elects claims directed to the product/apparatus, and all product/apparatus claims are subsequently found allowable, withdrawn process claims that include all the limitations of the allowable product/apparatus claims should be considered for rejoinder. All claims directed to a nonelected process invention must include all the limitations of an allowable product/apparatus claim for that process invention to be rejoined. In the event of rejoinder, the requirement for restriction between the product/apparatus claims and the rejoined process claims will be withdrawn, and the rejoined process claims will be fully examined for patentability in accordance with 37 CFR 1.104. Thus, to be allowable, the rejoined claims must meet all criteria for patentability including the requirements of 35 U.S.C. 101, 102, 103 and 112. Until all claims to the elected product/apparatus are found allowable, an otherwise proper restriction requirement between product/apparatus claims and process claims may be maintained. Withdrawn process claims that are not commensurate in scope with an allowable product/apparatus claim will not be rejoined. See MPEP § 821.04. Additionally, in order for rejoinder to occur, applicant is advised that the process claims should be amended during prosecution to require the limitations of the product/apparatus claims. Failure to do so may result in no rejoinder. Further, note that the prohibition against double patenting rejections of 35 U.S.C. 121 does not apply where the restriction requirement is withdrawn by the examiner before the patent issues. See MPEP § 804.01. Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112 8 . 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 appl icant regards as his invention. 9 . Claim 57 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 57 recites the limitation "the first pair of lateral walls" and “the second pair of lateral walls”. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. It is likely the Applicant is referring to “first and second pairs of walls” as stated from claim 55. One could argue that a pair of walls can be considered a pair of lateral walls, but in the 10 th line of claim 55, the claim recites “a lateral wall”, implying that the pair of walls is different than the lateral wall as claimed . T hus, the limitation of the first and second pair of lateral walls is unclear. Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103 1 0 . 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 . 1 1 . Claim s 55 -62, 64-65, and 68-70 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 10 3 as being unpatentable over Yerby ( US 20130256560 A1 ) , further in view of Dayton ( US 20160324997 A1 ). Regarding claim 55, Yerby teaches a n 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] ) , 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) , a chamber width along a transverse axis, and a chamber depth along a longitudinal axis (see drawing below of top-down view of chamber) , and 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 range s of t he 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, t his “ 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 a retention feature 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 (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]). Regarding claim 56, modified Yerby in view of Dayton teaches wherein the retention feature comprises one of a projection from the chamber floor (Dayton, pyramidal supports 104, Fig. 5), for the same modification purpose as stated in claim 55 rejection above. 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 58, modified Yerby teaches wherein the housing (22, Fig. 1) includes 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 for a user to place the handheld device within the chamber with the lower edge resting on the chamber floor (article to be sanitized is placed within the chamber, which can include the floor 34, Fig. 2 and [0025-0027]) . 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 62, 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]). Regarding claim 64, modified Yerby teaches a cycle initiation toggle for initiating a 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 2 0”, 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) . 1 2 . Claim 63 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 10 3 as being unpatentable over Yerby ( US 20130256560 A1 ), further in view of Dayton ( US 20160324997 A1 ), as applied to claim 62 above, further in view of Peifer ( US 6096264 A ). 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). 1 3 . Claim 6 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 10 3 as being unpatentable over Yerby ( US 20130256560 A1 ), further in view of Dayton ( US 20160324997 A1 ), as applied to claim 62 above, further in view of McKelvie ( US 20210369895 A1 ) . Regarding claim 66, 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 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. Mc K elvie 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]). 1 4 . Claim 67 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 10 3 as being unpatentable over Yerby ( US 20130256560 A1 ), further in view of Dayton ( US 20160324997 A1 ), further in view of McKelvie ( US 20210369895 A1 ), as applied to claim 66 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 (“t he 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, 7 th 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, 7 th 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, 7 th paragraph of English translation). Conclusion 1 5 . Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to FILLIN "Examiner name" \* MERGEFORMAT Aham Lee whose telephone number is FILLIN "Phone number" \* MERGEFORMAT (703)756-5622 . The examiner can normally be reached FILLIN "Work Schedule?" \* MERGEFORMAT 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, FILLIN "SPE Name?" \* MERGEFORMAT Maris R. Kessel can be reached at FILLIN "SPE Phone?" \* MERGEFORMAT (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