DETAILED ACTION
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election without traverse of Group II, Species A, in the reply filed on December 30, 2025 is acknowledged.
Group II, Species A is now considered to be recited by claims 8-11, 13, 14, 21-24, 26-31, and 33.
Claims 12, 25, and 32 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected species, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Claims 12, 25, and 32 recite having vibratory energy resonate with unwanted materials. In applicant’s specification, applicant’s only disclosed technique for achieving vibratory energy resonating with unwanted materials is the use of an ultrasonic transducer, and thus applicant’s claims 12, 25, and 32 are considered to recite subject matter of the unelected species (the unelected species being Method Species B in the Requirement for Election/Restriction dated 8/5/2025).
Language Note
Some of applicant’s claims (such as claim 14) use the word “activates”. It is noted that a Merriam-Webster dictionary definition of “activate” is “to make active or more active”.
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 8-11, 13, 14, 21-24, 26-31, and 33 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.
The term “unwanted” in claim 8 is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “unwanted” is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention. In other words, someone reading claim 8 might ask themselves: “how am I supposed to know if my materials qualify as unwanted or not? Unwanted according to who?” Here is another example of how the word “unwanted” creates a lack of clarity: let’s say we have a consumer product made of many different components, wherein only one of those components comprises plastic. Let’s say that said consumer product is visibly contaminated by dirt. Let’s say a given person (“Bob”) dislikes plastic. For Bob, the consumer product thus contains two types of unwanted materials: dirt and plastic (because Bob dislikes anything plastic). However, a second person (“Sally”) might not dislike plastic. For her, there is only one type of unwanted material on the consumer product: dirt. So, these two different people would disagree over the same question: “how many types of unwanted materials does this consumer product comprise?”.
The term “unwanted” occurs in all the claims, not just claim 8. All claims are thus unclear (due to this use of “unwanted”) and rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) for the above-discussed reason as claim 8.
Claim 8 recites “a product associated with unwanted materials”. This language is unclear because it is not clear what exactly “associated” means in this context. Is applicant reciting that the product is contaminated with the unwanted materials? Or is applicant reciting that the product just has to be near unwanted materials? Or is applicant reciting that a user (that is, as person) mentally associates the product with unwanted materials? Or is applicant saying that the product itself is an unwanted material?
Claim 9 recites “the unwanted materials”. However, it not clear if this phrase “the unwanted materials” refers the “unwanted materials” recited in line 4 of claim 8, and/or the “unwanted materials” recited in line 5 of claim 8, and/or the “unwanted materials” recited in line 7 of claim 8, and/or the “unwanted materials” recited in line 9 of claim 8, and/or the “unwanted materials” recited in line 10 of claim 8. Claim 10 also recites “the unwanted materials”, and thus has the same lack-of-clarity as claim 9. Claim 11 also recites “the unwanted materials”, and thus has the same lack-of-clarity as claim 9.
Claim 13 recites the limitation "the first and second quantities of the unwanted materials". However, the phrase “the unwanted materials” in the larger phrase "the first and second quantities of the unwanted materials" creates confusion. Claim 8 (from which claim 13 depends) recites “a first quantity of unwanted materials” and “a second quantity of unwanted materials”. However, in claim 8, the unwanted materials of the phrase “a first quantity of unwanted materials” are not necessarily identical to the unwanted materials of the phrase “a second quantity of unwanted materials”. Thus, in claim 13, when applicant recites "the first and second quantities of the unwanted materials", it is not clear which unwanted materials are being referred to.
The term “prone to accumulation of unwanted materials” in claim 21 is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “prone to accumulation of unwanted materials” is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention. In other words, someone reading claim 21 might ask themselves: “how am I supposed to know if my product qualifies as prone to accumulation of unwanted materials? If my product accumulates unwanted materials about once every month, can it be considered prone to such accumulation? Or does it need to accumulate such unwanted materials daily in order to qualify as prone to such accumulation?”
Claim 24 depends from claim 211, but there is no claim 211. For purposes of examination, it was presumed that applicant made a typographical mistake and intended to have claim 24 depend from claim 21.
The term “prone to accumulation of unwanted materials” in claim 28 is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “prone to accumulation of unwanted materials” is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention. In other words, someone reading claim 28 might ask themselves: “how am I supposed to know if my product qualifies as prone to accumulation of unwanted materials? If my product accumulates unwanted materials about once every month, can it be considered prone to such accumulation? Or does it need to accumulate such unwanted materials daily in order to qualify as prone to such accumulation?”
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 28, 29, 30, and 33 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by CN116571488 by Tang.
With regard to claims 28 and 29, Tang teaches a washing and sterilizing method for cleaning a instrument (corresponds to applicant’s product) contaminated with blood, wherein the method comprises providing an apparatus (this apparatus, which is illustrated in Figure 1 of Tang, corresponds to applicant’s washer) that has a fixing unit 21 that supports the instrument, a washing device with a plurality of sprayers (one of which is labeled as item 322 in Figure 4), a sterilizing device comprising an ultraviolet (UV) emitter, and a camera 31 (Abstract; pages 3 and 6-9 of translation). Tang’s apparatus also comprises upper and lower (items 41 and 42 in Figure 1, respectively) housing components that come together to form a cleaning housing (pages 6-7 of translation). In the method of Tang, the fixing unit receives and supports the to-be-cleaned instrument, the sprayers spray the instrument to remove blood therefrom, the UV emitter applies UV energy to sterilize the instrument, and the camera detects blood remaining on the instrument from the past (pages 6-9 of translation). Tang teaches that, when the camera locates a patch of blood on the instrument, a particular sprayer (of the plurality of sprayers) may be activated to spray a more highly pressurized spray of liquid on that patch of blood (page 6 of translation), and that particular sprayer is considered to correspond to applicant’s sprayer. A first portion of the blood (of the located patch) is considered to read on applicant’s first quantity of unwanted materials as this first portion is removed by the liquid from the activated sprayer. Microorganisms removed by the UV sterilization correspond to applicant’s second quantity of unwanted materials.
With regard to claim 30, in the method of Tang, first and second quantities of blood in the camera-located patch of blood each comprise blood.
With regard to claim 33, in the method of Tang, the sprayer and UV emitter treatments are performed as part of a sequence for cleaning and sterilizing the instrument (pages 6-7 of translation of Tang), and the sprayer and UV emitter are thus considered to operate sequentially.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
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.
Claims 8-10, 13, and 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over CN116571488 by Tang in view of CN114557782 by Wang.
With regard to claims 8 and 9, Tang teaches a washing and sterilizing method for cleaning a instrument (corresponds to applicant’s product) contaminated with blood, wherein the method comprises providing an apparatus (this apparatus, which is illustrated in Figure 1 of Tang, corresponds to applicant’s washer) that has a fixing unit 21 that supports the instrument, a washing device with a plurality of sprayers (one of which is labeled as item 322 in Figure 4), a sterilizing device comprising an ultraviolet (UV) emitter, and a camera 31 (reads on sensor; Abstract; pages 3 and 6-9 of translation). Tang’s apparatus also comprises upper and lower (items 41 and 42 in Figure 1, respectively) housing components that come together to form a cleaning housing (pages 6-7 of translation). In the method of Tang, the fixing unit receives and supports the to-be-cleaned instrument, the sprayers spray the instrument to remove blood therefrom, the UV emitter applies UV energy to sterilize the instrument, and the camera detects blood remaining on the instrument from the past (pages 6-9 of translation). Tang teaches that, when the camera locates a patch of blood on the instrument, a particular sprayer (of the plurality of sprayers) may be activated to spray a more highly pressurized spray of liquid on that patch of blood (page 6 of translation), and that particular sprayer is considered to correspond to applicant’s sprayer. A first portion of the blood (of the located patch) is considered to read on applicant’s first quantity of unwanted materials as this first portion is removed by the liquid from the activated sprayer. A second portion of the blood (of the located patch) is considered to read on applicant’s third quantity of unwanted materials because it was part of the blood patch detected by the camera. Microorganisms removed by the UV sterilization correspond to applicant’s second quantity of unwanted materials.
Tang does not teach that the method uses a display.
Wang teaches that when using a camera to collect images inside a cleaning apparatus, the captured images can advantageously be presented on a display screen to a user such that the user can be informed of what the camera is seeing (Abstract; page 4 of translation).
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 apparatus of Tang such that the images captured by the camera 31 are also displayed by a display screen to a human user such that the human user can be informed of what the camera is seeing. Wang teaches that when using a camera to collect images inside a cleaning apparatus, the captured images can advantageously be presented on a display screen to a user such that the user can be informed of what the camera is seeing, and motivation for performing the modification would be to allow the user to see what the camera 31 sees so that the user can supervise the performance of the method. In this combination of Tang in view of Wang, a third portion of the blood of the located patch is considered to read on applicant’s fourth quantity of unwanted materials.
With regard to claim 10, in the method of Tang in view of Wang, first and second quantities of blood in the camera-located patch of blood each comprise blood.
With regard to claim 13, in the method of Tang in view of Wang, the sprayer and UV emitter treatments are performed as part of a sequence for cleaning and sterilizing the instrument (pages 6-7 of translation of Tang), and the sprayer and UV emitter are thus considered to operate sequentially.
With regard to claim 14, in the method of Tang in view of Wang, the sprayer whose spray pressure is increased due to the detected patch of blood is activated in response to the patch of blood being detected by the camera (and thus by the above-discussed second portion of patch blood being detected by the camera, wherein, as discussed above in the rejection of claim 8, this second portion corresponds to applicant’s third quantity of unwanted materials).
Claim 11 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over CN116571488 by Tang in view of CN114557782 by Wang as applied to claim 8 above, and further in view of U.S. 2015/0190539 to Deal.
With regard to claim 11, the combination of Tang in view of Wang teaches using UV light to sterilize the treated instrument (pages 6-9 of Tang translation).
The combination of Tang in view of Wang does not explicitly teach that the UV light performs the sterilization by having the UV light resonate with unwanted materials.
Deal teaches that when using UV light to kill microorganisms, it is advantageously to use UV light “at or near 2537 Angstroms, due to the resonance of this wavelength of this wavelength with molecular structures” (Par. 0007).
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 method of Tang in view of Wan such that the UV light used for sterilization comprises UV light at or near 2537 Angstroms such that the UV light resonates with molecular structures of microorganisms and kills them. Motivation for performing the modification was provided by Deal, who teaches that when using UV light to kill microorganisms, it is advantageously to use UV light “at or near 2537 Angstroms, due to the resonance of this wavelength of this wavelength with molecular structures”.
Claims 21-23, 26, and 27 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over CN116571488 by Tang in view of CN114557782 by Wang.
With regard to claims 21 and 22, Tang teaches a washing and sterilizing method for cleaning a instrument (corresponds to applicant’s product) contaminated with blood, wherein the method comprises providing an apparatus (this apparatus, which is illustrated in Figure 1 of Tang, corresponds to applicant’s washer) that has a fixing unit 21 that supports the instrument, a washing device with a plurality of sprayers (one of which is labeled as item 322 in Figure 4), a sterilizing device comprising an ultraviolet (UV) emitter, and a camera 31 (reads on sensor; Abstract; pages 3 and 6-9 of translation). Tang’s apparatus also comprises upper and lower (items 41 and 42 in Figure 1, respectively) housing components that come together to form a cleaning housing (pages 6-7 of translation). In the method of Tang, the fixing unit receives and supports the to-be-cleaned instrument, the sprayers spray the instrument to remove blood therefrom, the UV emitter applies UV energy to sterilize the instrument, and the camera detects blood remaining on the instrument from the past (pages 6-9 of translation). Tang teaches that, when the camera locates a patch of blood on the instrument, a particular sprayer (of the plurality of sprayers) may be activated to spray a more highly pressurized spray of liquid on that patch of blood (page 6 of translation), and that particular sprayer is considered to correspond to applicant’s sprayer. A first portion of the blood (of the located patch) is considered to read on applicant’s first quantity of the unwanted materials as this first portion is removed by the liquid from the activated sprayer. A second portion of the blood (of the located patch) is considered to read on applicant’s third quantity of unwanted materials because it was part of the blood patch detected by the camera. Microorganisms removed by the UV sterilization correspond to applicant’s second quantity of unwanted materials.
Tang does not teach that the method uses a display.
Wang teaches that when using a camera to collect images inside a cleaning apparatus, the captured images can advantageously be presented on a display screen to a user such that the user can be informed of what the camera is seeing (Abstract; page 4 of translation).
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 apparatus of Tang such that the images captured by the camera 31 are also displayed by a display screen to a human user such that the human user can be informed of what the camera is seeing. Wang teaches that when using a camera to collect images inside a cleaning apparatus, the captured images can advantageously be presented on a display screen to a user such that the user can be informed of what the camera is seeing, and motivation for performing the modification would be to allow the user to see what the camera 31 sees so that the user can supervise the performance of the method. In this combination of Tang in view of Wang, a third portion of the blood of the located patch is considered to read on applicant’s fourth quantity of unwanted materials.
The combination of Tang in view of Wang teaches having cleaning performed in an automatic manner (Abstract and page 9 of Tang translation), but the combination of Tang in view of Wang does not explicitly teach having a controller connected to the sprayer, the UV emitter, the camera, and the display screen. However, in the art of cleaning apparatuses designed to perform operations in an automatic manner, it is well known to have a computer controller connected to operating components of the apparatus in order to advantageously allow the control of the components to be executed in an automated manner. 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 method of Tang in view of Wang such that the apparatus used to perform the method comprises a computer controller connected to the operating components (including the sprayers, the UV emitter, the camera, and the display screen) of the apparatus such that the cleaning and sterilizing of Tang in view of Wang can be executed in an automated manner. The combination of Tang in view of Wang teaches having cleaning performed in an automatic manner (Abstract and page 9 of Tang translation), and motivation for performing the modification was provided by the fact that, in the art of cleaning apparatuses designed to perform operations in an automatic manner, it is well known to have a computer controller connected to operating components of the apparatus in order to advantageously allow the control of the components to be executed in an automated manner.
With regard to claim 23, in the method of Tang in view of Wang, first and second quantities of blood in the camera- located patch of blood each comprise blood.
With regard to claim 26, in the method of Tang in view of Wang, the sprayer and UV emitter treatments are performed as part of a sequence for cleaning and sterilizing the instrument (pages 6-7 of translation of Tang), and the sprayer and UV emitter are thus considered to operate sequentially.
With regard to claim 27, in the method of Tang in view of Wang, the sprayer whose spray pressure is increased due to the detected patch of blood is activated in response to the patch of blood being detected by the camera (and thus by the above-discussed second portion of patch blood being detected by the camera, wherein, as discussed above in the rejection of claim 21, this second portion corresponds to applicant’s third quantity of unwanted materials).
Claim 24 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over CN116571488 by Tang in view of CN114557782 by Wang as applied to claim 21 above, and further in view of U.S. 2015/0190539 to Deal.
With regard to claim 24, the combination of Tang in view of Wang teaches using UV light to sterilize the treated instrument (pages 6-9 of Tang translation).
The combination of Tang in view of Wang does not explicitly teach that the UV light performs the sterilization by having the UV light resonate with unwanted materials.
Deal teaches that when using UV light to kill microorganisms, it is advantageously to use UV light “at or near 2537 Angstroms, due to the resonance of this wavelength of this wavelength with molecular structures” (Par. 0007).
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 method of Tang in view of Wan such that the UV light used for sterilization comprises UV light at or near 2537 Angstroms such that the UV light resonates with molecular structures of microorganisms and kills them. Motivation for performing the modification was provided by Deal, who teaches that when using UV light to kill microorganisms, it is advantageously to use UV light “at or near 2537 Angstroms, due to the resonance of this wavelength of this wavelength with molecular structures”.
Claim 31 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over CN116571488 by Tang in view of U.S. 2015/0190539 to Deal.
With regard to claim 31, the teachings of Tang are discussed above in the anticipation rejection of claim 28.
Tang does not explicitly teach that the UV light performs the sterilization by having the UV light resonate with unwanted materials.
Deal teaches that when using UV light to kill microorganisms, it is advantageously to use UV light “at or near 2537 Angstroms, due to the resonance of this wavelength of this wavelength with molecular structures” (Par. 0007).
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 method of Tang such that the UV light used for sterilization comprises UV light at or near 2537 Angstroms such that the UV light resonates with molecular structures of microorganisms and kills them. Motivation for performing the modification was provided by Deal, who teaches that when using UV light to kill microorganisms, it is advantageously to use UV light “at or near 2537 Angstroms, due to the resonance of this wavelength of this wavelength with molecular structures”.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to RYAN L COLEMAN whose telephone number is (571)270-7376. The examiner can normally be reached 9-5 Monday-Friday.
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, Kaj Olsen can be reached at (571)272-1344. 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.
/RLC/
Ryan L. Coleman
Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1714
/KAJ K OLSEN/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1714