Detailed Action
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Claim Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier.
Such claim limitation(s) are “inlet feed system” and “rolling module” in claim 1; “electronics control box” in claim 2.
The corresponding structure in the disclosure for an inlet feed system configured to draw a mat into the device is taken to include one or more feed rollers 1102.
The corresponding structure in the disclosure for a rolling module configured to roll the sanitized mat into a roll is taken to include a first belt 1121 and a second belt 1123.
The corresponding structure in the disclosure for an electronics control box configured to identify a user of the device and to control is taken to include a display 587 coupled with a microprocessor.
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
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.
Claims 2-3, and 9-16 are 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 2 recites the limitation “ultraviolet radiation module”. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claims 3, 10, and 14 each recites the limitation “the inlet module”. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claims 9-13, 15-16 each recites the limitation “the electronics control box”. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claims 11 and 14 each recites the limitation “the UV illumination module”. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 14 recites the limitation “the inlet gap” and “the one or more sensors.” There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 16 recites that the ultraviolet irradiation module is configured to “illuminate any single point along the first surface of the mat and the second surface of the mat for not more than 10 seconds.” The phrase “any single point” renders the scope of the claim unclear because it is not apparent what constitutes a “point” on a moving, deformable mat (e.g., whether a “point” is an infinitesimal location, a pixel-sized area, a sensor-defined region, or a finite area determined by the UV beam/spot size). Further, the claim does not specify how the “not more than 10 seconds” illumination time is determined for such “point” while the mat is transported (e.g., whether the 10 seconds is a continuous dwell time, a cumulative exposure time over multiple passes, or measured with respect to a reference frame such as the device coordinates or the mat coordinates). As a result, a person of ordinary skill in the art cannot ascertain the metes and bounds of the claim with reasonable certainty.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claims 1-4, 7-13 and 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 20210339291A1 [hereinafter Allan] in view of US 20130270384 [hereinafter Akpan], and further in view of US 5223229 [hereinafter Brucker] (note the instant application is a CIP. Since the parent application at least fails to disclose “an automatic door actuator configured to selectively prevent a door from opening and to open the door,” the claims are given the effective filing date of 02/22/2024 later than the date Allan was published 11/04/2021).
Regarding Claim 1:
Allan teaches a device for cleaning a mat (Abstract: device for cleaning an exercise mat), the device comprising:
an inlet feed system configured to draw a mat into the device (Figs. 1 and 11, paras. [0091, 0102]: inlet slot 104 and guide rollers 120 to receive an exercise mat);
an ultraviolet irradiation module configured to sanitize the mat (Fig.13, paras. [0092, 0123-0124]: one or more ultraviolet sources 150 to direct UV light onto the mat to disinfect the mat).
Allan further teaches a concaved door to roll up the mat after it is cleaned and passed through the device, and the door is hingedly coupled to the main body of the device to be movable between a closed position and an open position. However, Allan does not specifically note that a rolling module configured to roll the sanitized mat into a roll, and an automatic door actuator configured to selectively prevent a door from opening and to open the door.
Akpan teaches a rolling module configured to roll the sanitized mat into a roll (Figs. 5 and 6 and para. [0036]: a rolling mechanism includes a first rolling belt and a second rolling belt to cause the mat to coil on itself to form a tight and compact rolled mat).
Brucker teaches an automatic door actuator configured to selectively prevent a door from opening and to open the door (Fig. 1 and 3:7-10 and 49-55, 4: 50-61: a latch means 40 and a catch means 42 automatically actuated the door to open or “prevent the door...from moving away from the chamber,” i.e., keep the door closed).
Allan teaches a mat cleaning device operating with the exit door in an open or a closed position. It also teaches rolling the sanitized mat by guiding it through the outlet using the concave exit door arrangement. Akpan teaches that using a two-belt rolling assembly provides positive capture and controlled redirection of a carpet’s leading edge to reliably initiate and maintain rolling. Brucker teaches a sterilizer using a controller to command a door-actuating mechanism (e.g., a solenoid-actuated release) to selectively prevent opening during operation and to automatically allow/open the door under safe, end-of-cycle conditions.
Therefore, it would have been obvious for an ordinary skilled person in the art, before the effective time of filing, to incorporate the two-belt assembly of Akpan into the rolling module of Allan (as an additional rolling feature upstream of / cooperating with the concave exit door) because it is a known, predictable way to improve handling of flexible mats that reduces slippage and misfeeds and the roll-start reliability, and reduces jamming at the outlet, thereby improving throughput and consistency of producing a rolled mat for exit and user retrieval. Likewise, one of ordinary skilled in the art would have been motivated to incorporate the automatically actuated door mechanism of Brucker into the mat cleaning device of Akpan to achieve a predictable safety and automation improvement: keeping the exit door reliably closed during mat insertion and processing, and then automatically releasing/opening the door only when the cycle has reached a permitted end state so the user can retrieve the cleaned/rolled mat. The combination merely uses a known, controller-driven door actuator in a similar enclosed, cycle-based appliance, yielding the expected result of controlled door access synchronized to device operation.
Regarding Claim 2:
The combined reference teaches the device of claim 1. Allan further teaches an electronics control box configured to identify a user of the device and to control the inlet feed system, the ultraviolet radiation module, the rolling module, and the automatic door actuator (paras. [0096, 0098, 0145, 0146, 0149]: a processing unit 176 of processor 170 communicatively coupled to the display 108, to verify the user’s identity, draw the mat inwardly to the inlet 104, control activation of UV source 150, open or close the door 109).
Regarding Claim 3:
The combined reference teaches the device of claim 1. Allan further teaches wherein the inlet feed system includes a plurality of feed rollers configured to reduce resistance from friction between the mat and an external surface of the inlet module (para. [0090]: a pair of guide rollers (e.g., roller120) to reduce friction between the mat being fed into the inlet slot 104).
Regarding Claim 4:
The combined reference teaches the device of claim 1. Allan further teaches wherein the inlet feed system includes one or more sensors proximal to an inlet gap, the sensors configured to determine whether the mat is fed into the inlet gap straight or askew (paras. [0103, 0140]: “the first pair of rollers 120 include a sensor (not shown) that is activated by the exercise mat when it is inserted by the user into the housing 102. Activation of the sensor may activate the at least one or the motors 124 ,126 to receive the exercise mat and automatically pull the exercise mat inwardly”, “communication interface 172 may transmit information relating to the components of the device 100, including one or more sensor units within the housing 102 to track a position of the exercise mat therein).
Regarding Claim 8:
The combined reference teaches the device of claim 1. Akpan further teaches wherein the second rolling belt is disposed at an adjustable angle relative to the first rolling belt (Fig. 5, para. [0005]: the roller axes defining the second belt path can be inclined forwardly (or rearwardly) from vertical by about 5°–15°, i.e., the second belt set is at a tilt relative to the machine geometry).
Regarding Claim 9:
The combined reference teaches the device of claim 1. Brucker further teaches wherein the automatic door actuator comprises:
a rod in association with the door (Fig. 1, 4: 43-44: the latch means 24 includes a pair of pins 34,36); and
a linear actuator in operative communication with the electronics control box and configured to selectively advance and retract the rod (5: 43-48; 8: 32-33 and 39-40: the catch means 42 includes a plunger 102 actuated by solenoid 104 (“linear actuator”), and “solenoid 104 may be actuated to cause the latch means 40 to move upwardly such that the pins 44, 46 are disengaged from the first stop surfaces 60, 62 and the door 20 is allowed to pivot outwardly until the pins 44, 46 contact the second stop surfaces 68, 70.” “The microprocessor 158 further provides output signals to actuate relays for controlling the various operations... a door solenoid relay 204 to control power to the door release actuating solenoid 104).
Regarding Claim 10:
The combined reference teaches the device of claim 9. Allan further teaches the device operates with the exit door closed while a mat is being fed into the device (Fig. 6B). Brucker further teaches the electronics control box is configured to cause the linear actuator to retract the rod (8: 32-33 and 39-40: “The microprocessor 158 further provides output signals to actuate relays for controlling the various operations... a door solenoid relay 204 to control power to the door release actuating solenoid 104).
Modifying Allan in view of Brucker would configure Allan’s electronics control box so that, upon detecting mat insertion, the controller maintains the door actuator in the non-opening (retracted/rest) state, thereby keeping the door closed during insertion/operation.
Regarding Claim 11:
The combined reference teaches the device of claim 9. Allan further teaches the UV illumination module is activated during its cleaning process. Brucker further teaches wherein the electronics control box is configured to cause the linear actuator to not advance the rod [during the sterilization cycle] (10: 40-49: the watchdog circuit 211 “monitors an output from the microprocessor 158 to determine whether any error condition or interrupt has occurred... includes a check for...opening of the door during the cycle”).
Modifying Allan in view of Brucker would configure Allan’s electronics control box so that, upon the UV illumination is activated and the device enters into a cleaning cycle, the door actuator maintains the door in a closed state during the operation.
Regarding Claim 12:
The combined reference teaches the device of claim 9. Allan in view of Akpan teaches a cleaning device includes a rolling module to roll up the mat during the cleaning process. Brucker further teaches wherein the electronics control box is configured to cause the linear actuator to not advance [during the sterilization cycle] (10: 40-49: the watchdog circuit 211 “monitors an output from the microprocessor 158 to determine whether any error condition or interrupt has occurred... includes a check for...opening of the door during the cycle”).
As such, in the modified Allan device, the operating cycle includes feeding/UV treatment and the subsequent rolling step (as an automated operation commanded by the controller), and modify Allan in view of Brucker would configure Allan’s electronics control box so that before the cleaning device concluded its entire cleaning cycle, the door actuator maintains the door in a closed state during the operation.
Regarding Claim 13:
The combined reference teaches the device of claim 9. Allan in view of Akpan teaches a cleaning device concludes it cleaning process after the rolling step. Brucker further teaches wherein the electronics control box is configured to cause the linear actuator to advance the rod after the [conclusion of a sterilization cycle] (3:48-51: “The control means further actuates the solenoid actuated plunger of the release means to cause the sterilizer door to partially open at the conclusion of a sterilization cycle”).
Modify Allan in view of Brucker would configure Allan’s electronics control box so that after the cleaning device concluded its entire cleaning cycle, the door actuator opens the door.
Regarding Claim 16:
The combined reference teaches the device of claim 1. Allan further teaches wherein the electronics control box is configured to illuminate any single point of a surface of the mat with UV irradiation for not more than 10 seconds (para. [0128]: Allan teaches controlling roller speed so the mat traverses the UV-illumination pathway from the first rollers to the outlet in about 10 seconds in at least one embodiment, thereby limiting the dwell time of portions of the mat in the UV-illumination region to about 10 seconds (i.e., not more than 10 seconds in that embodiment)).
Claim 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over the combined references of Allan, Akpan, and Brucker, and further in view of US 4926215A [hereinafter Rank].
Regarding Claim 5:
The combined references teaches the device of claim 1. Allan further teaches wherein the ultraviolet irradiation module comprises: a first UV lamp configured to illuminate a first surface of the mat as it passes; and a second UV lamp configured to illuminate a second, opposite surface of the mat as it passes (para. [0126]: teaches a UV source having “more than one UV lamp,” where the lamps are positioned to direct UV-C light to “two surfaces (e.g., front and back)” of the mat as it travels along the pathway).
However, the combined references does not specifically note the first and second pair of opposing channel guides.
Rank teaches:
a first pair of opposing channel guides having a minimum gap therebetween defining an entrance aperture (3:66-67, 4:40-42: “A pair of upper and lower feed guide plates 64 and 66 are located within the housing and define the slot 18,” (i.e., a bounded gap between opposing guides, “The separation of the plates 64 and 66, and the height of the slot 18, is maintained by spacer bars 95” (a “minimum gap” structure, not just a vague opening), and
a relatively larger gap therebetween defining an entrance feed aperture (4: 3-4 and 17-20: teaches guide plate geometry that forms a wider funnel feed region (functions as “feed aperture”) to facilitate insertion/feeding into the slot (i.e., a relatively larger gap compared to the constrained slot height);
a second pair of opposing channel guides having a minimum gap therebetween defining an exit aperture (2: 6-7: use the same opposing guide-plate/slot arrangement through the device (slot extends from inlet to outlet), so the exit side likewise has a constrained slot height (minimum gap)), and
a relatively larger gap therebetween defining an exit feed aperture (4: 18-21, 40-42: because the rear guide plates 72, 74 include angled portions 84, 86 that “form a funnel shape” after the light unit 60, the plates diverge at the exit so the spacing between them is larger than the minimum slot gap, thereby defining a relatively larger exit feed aperture that guides the sheet as it exits).
Modifying Allan in view of Rank would entail disposing the UV lamps taught in Allan between the channel guides disclosed by Rank to enable to UV lamps illuminate a surface of the mat as it passes the channel guides.
Allan teaches a mat-cleaning device using a UV source. Rank teaches, for a sheet/light-processing device, using opposing upper and lower guide plates define a slot and angled portions at the infeed/outfeed to facilitate insertion and guiding of the sheet into/out of the slot. Since both Allan and Rank address guiding a flexible planar article through an enclosed processing region, one or ordinary skilled person in the art would have found Rank to be analogous guidance art for Allan’s mat pathway. Therefore, it would have been obvious for an ordinary skilled person in the art, before the effective time of filing, to incorporate the opposing guide-plate/slot-with-funnel structure of Rank into the UV irradiation region of Allan such that the mat passes through a controlled channel in the UV region, yielding an improved cleaning device where the mat is held more consistently within the intended illumination zone by constraining the mat’s position and spacing as it passes the UV lamps.
Claim 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over the combined references of Allan, Akpan, and Brucker, and further in view of US 4194837A [hereinafter Tani].
Regarding Claim 6:
The combined references teaches the device of claim 1. However, the combined references does not specifically note that the ultraviolet irradiation module comprises a first/second belt deflector configured to form a first/second gap between a first/second surface of the mat and a first/second conveying belt. Tani teaches a first/second belt deflector configured to form a first/second gap between a first/second surface of the mat and a first/second conveying belt (Claim 1, 2:65-68, 3:43-46: a belt deflection means includes a belt lifting rotatable roller 9 and a guide plate 10, the sheet is guided to travel beneath the guide plate at the irradiation position, while the belts pass over the belt lifting roller and therefore travel above the guide plate (i.e., the belt is routed away from the sheet), creating the needed gap/clearance between the sheet surface and belt in that irradiation region).
Allan teaches a mat-cleaning device that uses multiple UV lamps to irradiate two opposite surfaces of a mat as the mat travels along a pathway. Tani teaches a conveying system in which a belt deflecting means (e.g., a belt lifting roller/guide structure) is effective to move belt away at an irradiation position, including an operating mode in which the belt is intentionally displaced so the conveyed sheet-like article is not in contact with (and is spaced from) the belt in the irradiation zone. Therefore, it would have been obvious for an ordinary skilled person in the art, before the effective time of filing, to incorporate Tani’s belt-deflecting technique in Allan’s UV irradiation module by providing, in the UV irradiation region, conveying belts and belt deflecting means as taught by Tani that locally deflect the belts away from the mat away to form a gap between the mat surface and the adjacent belt. One of ordinary skilled person would be motivated to do so since it provides predictable advantages for an irradiation-based process as it reduces belt interference with irradiation of the mat surfaces (e.g., shadowing/blocked exposure and/or contact-based shielding), improves uniformity of irradiation, and reduces contamination between the belt and the mat surface in the UV zone.
Claim 14 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over the combined references of Allan, Akpan, and Brucker, and further in view of Rank and WO2010089766A1 [hereinafter Lakshminaraya].
Regarding Claim 14:
The combined references teaches the device of claim 5. Allan further teaches the electronics control box is configured to activate one or more feed rollers to transport the mat from the inlet module (para. [0103]: the device has rollers/motors and a sensor at the inlet such that sensor activation causes motors/rollers to pull the mat inward automatically (roller actuation responsive to sensor)).
However, the combined references does not specifically note that in response to a signal from the one or more sensors that the mat is not fed into the inlet gap askew.
Lakshminaraya teaches in response to a signal from the one or more sensors that the mat is not fed into the inlet gap askew (claim 1: “wherein skew is sensed if one and only one of the two sensors (7) detects the presence of the media item; wherein if any said skew is detected, the motor (5) on that side is stopped or made to run slower and on account of the grip of the pinch roller (6)”).
Allan teaches using sensors to trigger motor/roller feeding and automatically pull a flexible mat into the device. Lakshminaraya teaches that, in sheet/media feed systems, it is known to detect skew/askew feeding and then perform corrective feed control (skew correction) to avoid misfeeds and jams. Therefore, it would have been obvious for an ordinary skilled person in the art, before the effective time of filing, to implement Lakshminaraya’s skew-detection/skew-correction control in Allan’s inlet feeding stage so that, when sensors indicate the mat is entering the inlet gap askew, the controller activates/controls the feed rollers to transport (and effectively straighten/ensure proper entry of) the mat into the UV module, providing a predictable improvement of feed reliability, reduced jamming, and consistent positioning of the mat for downstream UV treatment.
Claim 15 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over the combined references of Allan, Akpan, and Brucker, and further in view of US20210023248A1 [hereinafter Townsend].
Regarding Claim 15:
The combined references teaches the device of claim 1. Allen further teaches the electronic control box (the processor and display controlling operations). Brucker further teaches the automatic control actuator … preventing the door from opening (teaches a door catch/lock mechanism that physically prevents the door from moving away (opening)).
However, the combined references does not specifically note that activate the UV irradiation module only when [that actuator] is preventing the door from opening. Townsend teaches activate the UV irradiation module only when [that actuator] is preventing the door from opening (paras. [0005, 0034]: “a door must be closed before the ultraviolet disinfecting lamps are turned on,” “Computer 62 can be used to turn lamps 30 and 32 on and off, to prevent lamps 30 and 32 from being turned on if the door is open”).
Allan teaches a mat cleaning device with a controlling mechanism to control the operation of each component, including its exit door and the UV illumination module. Townsend teaches a disinfecting device with a controlled UV light located inside a chamber. Therefore, it would be obvious for an ordinary skilled person in the art, before the effective time of filing, to incorporate Townsend’s door interlock control into Allan’s control mechanism such that Allan’s UV irradiation module is activated only when the automatic door actuator ensures the door is secured. One of ordinary skilled in the art would be motivated to make such a modification because Townsend’ interlock provides a predictable and well-known improvement for UV system, where it reduces the risk of user exposure to UV radiation, and improves the safety compliance in an enclosed treatment device.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JING WANG whose telephone number is (571)272-2504. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 7:30-17:00.
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, Robert Kim can be reached at 571-272-2293. 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.
/JING WANG/Examiner, Art Unit 2881
/ROBERT H KIM/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2881