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 .
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election without traverse of claims 1-19 in the reply filed on 8/28/2026 is acknowledged. Claim 20 is withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected invention, there being no allowable generic or linking claim.
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 limitations are: “a sanitation component located within the body and directed toward the cavity” in claims 1 and 12.
Because these claim limitations are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, they are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof. In this case, “a sanitation component” is interpreted to mean an ultraviolet light in light of Applicant’s Specification par. 3 (a sanitation component including an ultraviolet light located within the cavity).
If applicant does not intend to have these limitations 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 § 102
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 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 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.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1-2, 4, 8, and 10-11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Muncheryan (US 2235296 A).
Regarding claim 1, Muncheryan teaches a device, comprising:
a body (Fig. 1: housing 1) comprising a top surface (Fig. 1: top/ceiling wall of housing 1, OR wall where door 2 is mounted),
the body being formed to create a cavity located under the top surface and within the body, wherein the cavity receives a component within the body (Fig. 2: brushes B within cavity of housing 1); and
a sanitation component located within the body and directed toward the cavity (NOTE: as set forth above, a sanitation component is interpreted to be an ultraviolet light under 35 U.S.C. 112(f); Fig. 5: ultraviolet lamp 20);
wherein when the component is placed into the cavity, the sanitation component is activated (Pg. 2 C1L30-36: It will be noted that when the main switch S is at "on" position and the door of the cabinet is closed, the switch 15 will close the circuit to the ultraviolet lamp, but when this door is opened, as during handling of the articles in the sterilizer, the circuit will be interrupted, consequently de-energizing the ultraviolet tube; NOTE: a user can place the component into the cavity, and then activate the sanitation component by closing the door; the prior art device can be used this manner of intended use recited by the claim limitation).
Regarding claim 2, Muncheryan teaches the device of claim 1, as set forth above, and teaches comprising a pivotable mechanism located at the top surface of the body and extending into the cavity through an opening in the top surface, wherein the pivotable mechanism pivots at a location of the pivotable mechanism located at the opening of the top surface of the body (Fig. 1: the wall where the door 2 is attached is interpreted to be the top surface, the hinged door 2 reads on the pivotable mechanism and it is pivotably attached at the opening; Fig. 7: rack 29 is attached to the door and extends into the cavity; pg. 2 C2L11-12: rack 29 that is carried by that part of the door).
Regarding claim 4, Muncheryan teaches the device of claim 2, as set forth above, and teaches wherein the pivotable mechanism pivots upwards from the top surface to a position to hold an information handling device at a predetermined location on the body (Fig. 1: the door 2 would be capable of swinging in what is interpreted to be the upward direction to prop up an information handling device at a predetermined location on the body, depending on the geometry of the device).
Regarding claim 8, Muncheryan teaches the device of claim 1, as set forth above, and teaches comprises a front surface and wherein the front surface comprises an opening, wherein the cavity is accessible via the opening and the component is inserted through the opening into the cavity (Fig. 1: the top surface of housing 1 is interpreted to be the top surface, and the surface the door is attached to is interpreted to be the front surface, such that the door closes an opening in the front surface, and this opening would be capable of allowing a component to be inserted into the interior space of the device).
Regarding claim 10, Muncheryan teaches the device of claim 1, as set forth above, and teaches wherein the body comprises at least one activation mechanism, wherein input provided at the at least one activation mechanism activates the sanitation component (Fig. 1: main switch S; Pg. 2 C1L30-36: It will be noted that when the main switch S is at "on" position and the door of the cabinet is closed, the switch 15 will close the circuit to the ultraviolet lamp, but when this door is opened, as during handling of the articles in the sterilizer, the circuit will be interrupted, consequently de-energizing the ultraviolet tube).
Regarding claim 11, Muncheryan teaches the device of claim 1, as set forth above, and teaches wherein the component comprises at least one of: a keyboard and a mouse (Fig. 2: brushes B; pg. 2 C1L46-48: and a removable open wire rack 21 for holding combs, hair-pins, and hairbrushes in an exposing position to the ultraviolet radiation; NOTE: since the housing is sized to fit hairbrushes, it would be sized to fit a mouse, especially since the size of the mouse can vary).
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 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.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claim 3 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Muncheryan.
Regarding claim 3, Muncheryan teaches the device of claim 2, as set forth above, and teaches when the pivotable mechanism is pivoted upwards from the top surface of the body, the portion of the pivotable mechanism extending into the cavity moves towards a front portion of the body (Fig. 7: at least some portions of rack 29 would move closer towards portion 28 when the door rotates outward/upward, wherein portion 28 is interpreted to be the front portion of the body) but does not teach
wherein the portion of the pivotable mechanism extending into the cavity is located towards a back portion of the body.
Whether or not the rack 29 can be interpreted to be located towards a back portion of the body depends on the proportions; in particular, if the portion 28 is high enough, then the rack 29 would be in the lower half of the device and would thus be located towards a back portion of the body.
In the absence of any teaching to the contrary, the distance between portion 28 from the opposite wall of Muncheryan does not affect operation since the housing would still be capable of containing objects to be sterilized. Absent a showing of significance or unexpected results, the claimed proportions are prima facie obviousness and do not modify the operation of the invention and further, do not add patentable significance. In Gardner v. TEC Systems, Inc., 725 F .2d 1338, 220 USPQ 777 (Fed. Cir. 1984), cert. Denied, 469 U.S. 830, 225 USPQ 232 (1984), the Federal Circuit held that where the only difference between the prior art and the claims was a recitation of relative dimensions of the claimed device and a device having the claimed relative dimensions would not perform differently than the prior art device, the claimed device was not patentably distinct from the prior art device. Accordingly, the claimed dimensions and shapes are considered to be not patentably distinct from the disclosed device of Muncheryan, absent a showing of significance or unexpected results. In this case, increasing the height of portion 28 would make more space to contain objects to be sterilized or stored, which is an expected result. Therefore, it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the housing of Muncheryan such that the portion 28 is high enough that the rack 29 occupies the lower half of the device, with a reasonable expectation that the housing would be at least equally capable of containing objects to be sterilized by UV light, and/or be capable of sterilizing/storing more objects or bigger objects.
Claims 5 and 9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Muncheryan in view of La Porte (US 20130063922 A1).
Regarding claim 5, Muncheryan teaches the device of claim 1, as set forth above, but does not teach wherein the body comprises at least one port for connecting a peripheral device to the body.
La Porte teaces a UV sterilization device for sterilizing electronic devices (abstract: A personal electronic device (PED) sanitization device comprises a compartment configured to receive a PED and a sanitization module configured to emit electro-optical (EO) radiation into the interior of the compartment; par. 15: Certain wavelengths of Ultraviolet (UV) radiation may be used to sanitize a PED). La Porte teaches a port in the body of the device for connecting to and charging an electronic device (par. 36: The charging module 122 may be configured to charge or recharge the PED 101. The charging module 122 may comprise a connector configured to supply electrical power to the PED 101. The connector may be a physical connector that plugs into the PED 101, such as a Universal Serial Bus (USB) connector, mini-USB connector, micro-USB connector, 30-pin connector, a proprietary connector, or the like… In some embodiments the connector of the charging module 122 may be further configured to act as a docking connector for the PED 101 (e.g., communicate data between the PED 101 and a computing device, hub, or the like); par. 137: In some embodiments the charging module 122 may comprise a pass-through port configured to allow a cord or cable of a third-party charger to pass into the enclosure 160; Fig. 3: charging module 303). A charging port has the advantage of sterilizing and charging an electronic device at the same time.
It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the device of Muncheryan to have a charging port connectable to an electronic device, as taught by La Porte, in order to conveniently sterilize and charge an electronic device at the same time and thus expand the functionality of the sterilization container.
Regarding claim 9, Muncheryan teaches the device of claim 1, as set forth above, but does not teach comprising a sensor for detecting a presence of the component within the body and, wherein the sanitation component is activated based upon the detected presence.
Muncheryan currently teaches wherein closing the door will start the sanitation component when the main switch is turned on.
La Porte teaches a sensor for detecting the presence of a sterilization target whereby sterilization is activated when a presence is detected (par. 40: In some embodiments the controller 140 is configured to automatically activate the sanitizing module 110 in response to detecting a PED 101 within the enclosure 160. In some embodiments the controller 140 determines that a PED 101 is present within the enclosure 160 by determining whether a PED 101 is connected to the charging module 122. In some embodiments, the apparatus 100 comprises one or more sensors configured to determine whether a PED 101 is present within the enclosure 160. Such sensors may include, but are not limited to, optical sensors, weight sensors, capacitive sensors, resistive sensors, pressure sensors, mechanical switches, or the like). This feature would make the device of Muncheryan more convenient to use since a user may forget to turn off the device when not in use and thus waste energy.
It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the device of Muncheryan to have a sensor for detecting the presence of a sterilization target, whereby the UV sterilization is activated upon the detection of a presence, as taught by La Porte, in order to prevent the device from operating when nothing is being sterilized and the user forgets to turn off the device, which also removes the need for the user to turn the device on and off manually, increasing convenience.
Claim 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Muncheryan in view of Dunn (US 20210283288 A1).
Regarding claim 6, Muncheryan teaches the device of claim 1, as set forth above, but does not teach wherein the body comprises at least one port providing power to a device.
Dunn teaches a UV sterilization container (abstract: A method of sterilizing a waste container with ultraviolet (UV) light is disclosed which includes, inserting an article of waste into the waste container, sealing the container from an external environment to prevent UV light from shining out, activating a UV sanitizing routine stored in a UV light module having at least one UV light source and irradiating an interior surface of the diaper pail with the UV light). Dunn teaches wherein the container has a battery and a port for charging power (par. 48: A power source outlet 53 may be disposed on the rear side 13 of the pail 10. As shown in further detail in FIGS. 6-7 the power source outlet 53 may interface with an adapter 53a that fits therein on one end, and connects to a plug 53b on the other end for attachment to a wall socket to provide electricity and power to the UV sterilizing pail 10. The UV sterilizing pail 10 may be configured to include a battery to hold a charge and power in reserve when the pail 10 is not plugged into an outside power source, or the pail 10 may be configured as a direct coupled power system directly connected to a dc load in order to power the pail 10 without storing energy or an excess charge therein. The battery may be replaceable or rechargeable and configured with a USB port, or similar, to enable charging of the battery. The UV sterilizing module 50 may also be powered through solar power generated by a solar panel (not shown) that may be disposed on the UV sterilizing pail 10. The power source outlet 53 is shown as being disposed on the rear side 13 of the housing 60, but may be disposed on any surface of the UV sterilizing pail 10). This enables the device to be portable and frees the device from having to operate near a power outlet, which increases convenience.
It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the power source of Muncheryan to comprise a battery and a power outlet port connectable to an external power source, as taught by Dunn, in order to make the sterilization container portable and usable without being near a power outlet, which increases convenience.
Claim 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Muncheryan in view of Tapper (US 3777098 A).
Regarding claim 7, Muncheryan teaches the device of claim 1, as set forth above, but does not teach wherein the top surface comprises an indentation.
Muncheryan teaches a door but does not teach a method of locking the door to the housing. If the door opens accidentally, disinfection would stop and/or objects would fall out.
Tapper teaches a microwave with a door that closes a hole on a top surface (abstract: A door latch assembly for a microwave cooking oven; Fig. 1: front face 15 is interpreted to be a top surface, over door 25 pivotably closes it). Tapper teaches wherein the door is closed and locked via projects on the door that insert into apertures on the top/front surface (C3L24-26: Upon closing the oven door 25 against the front face 15 of the oven cavity 13, the guide projection 35 enters the aperture 39; Fig. 1; C2L19-21: FIG. 4 is a fragmentary sectional view of one of the locking projections just prior to being released from its locked position).
It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the top surface of Muncheryan, where the door is attached to, to have apertures that receive projects from the door, as taught by Tapper, in order to lock the door to the surface, thereby preventing interruption of sterilization or objects falling out from the door accidentally opening.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 12-19 are allowed.
Regarding claim 12, Muncheryan teaches A component sanitation device, comprising:
a body comprising a top surface (Fig. 1: surface where the door is attached), a left side surface, a right side surface, a back surface, and a front surface (Fig. 1: top surface of housing 1), wherein the top surface, left side surface, right side surface, and back surface are formed to create a cavity within the body (Fig. 1: corresponding surfaces of housing 1);
wherein the front surface extends between a front portion of the left side surface and a front portion of the right side surface and extends downwards from the top surface (Fig. 1: top surface of housing 1),
a sanitation component comprising an ultraviolet light located within the cavity (NOTE: as set forth above, a sanitation component is interpreted to be an ultraviolet light under 35 U.S.C. 112(f); Fig. 5: ultraviolet lamp 20); and
a mechanism located at the top surface of the body and extending into the cavity through an opening in the top surface, wherein the mechanism pivots at a location of the mechanism located at the opening of the top surface of the body (Fig. 1: door 2, Fig. 7: rack 29), but does not teach
wherein the front surface, left side surface, and right side surface are formed to create an opening below the front surface on the front of the body to access the cavity.
Furthermore, it would not be obvious to have another opening because Muncheryan specifically teaches that the housing aside from the door is supposed to be airtight (pg. 1 C2L42-50: The walls of the housing 1 with the exception of the wall having the opening that is closed by the door 2 are imperforate so that when the door is closed the chamber within the housing is practically air-tight, such provision being particularly effective in bringing about complete sterilization of the articles that are subjected to ultraviolet radiations within the cabinet).
Claims 13-19 are allowed as dependent on claim 12.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to CHANGRU CHEN whose telephone number is (571)272-1201. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 7:30-5:30.
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, Michael Marcheschi can be reached on (571) 272-1374. 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.
/C.C./Examiner, Art Unit 1796
/KEVIN JOYNER/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1799
Prosecution Insights