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 .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on April 29, 2026 has been entered.
Summary
The Applicant’s arguments and claim amendments received on April 20, 2026 are entered into the file. Currently, claim 1 is amended; claims 13, 14, and 17 are cancelled; claims 21-24 are withdrawn; resulting in claims 1-12, 15, 16, 18-20, 25, and 26 pending for examination.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 03/05/2026 has been considered by the examiner.
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 1-12, 15, 16, 18-20, 25, and 26 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.
Regarding claim 1, the limitation in lines 14-16 reciting “wherein the photochromatic pigment is reversible such that the photochromatic pigment is configured to change from the second state back to the first state after a predetermined period of time” is indefinite in view of the limitations in lines 4-8 reciting “the photochromatic pigment comprising a first pigment and a second pigment … the first pigment being configured to change from a first state to a second state in response to exposure to an ultraviolet (UV) light source, and the second pigment being configured to change from a first state to a second state in response to exposure to an ultraviolet (UV) light source”.
Specifically, it is not clear whether the “first state” and “second state” recited in the limitation in lines 14-16 are intended to refer to the first state and second state of the first pigment or to the first state and second state of the second pigment, or if the first and second states of the first and second pigments are the same. In other words, the recitation of “the first state” and “the second state” in line 15 is unclear because it is uncertain which of the two previously-recited first states and which of the two previously-recited second states are being referred to. See MPEP 2173.05(e).
In looking to the instant specification, paragraph [0043] discloses that photochromatic pigments may take various forms, where a “first state” of a photochromatic pigment is to mean that the photochromatic pigment is invisible to the naked eye under ambient light, while a “second state” of a photochromatic pigment is to mean that the photochromatic pigment is visible to the naked eye under ambient light, where the photochromatic pigments, when in a visible state, may be various colors or combinations of colors. Based on this disclosure, the terms “first state” and “second state” are interpreted broadly to refer to invisible and visible states, respectively, of the photochromatic pigments, such that first and second pigments each being configured to change between first and second states is interpreted as merely requiring that the first and second pigments are each capable of changing between invisible and visible states, but not to specifically require that the visible state of the first pigment is identical to the visible state of the second pigment. Similarly, the limitation requiring that the photochromatic pigment is configured to change from the second state back to the first state is interpreted to mean that the photochromatic pigment is capable of changing from the visible state back to the invisible state, not necessarily that the visible state of photochromatic pigment is identical to the visible state of either of the first or second pigments individually.
In order to overcome this rejection, the limitation in lines 6-7 reciting “the second pigment being configured to change from a first state to a second state” could be amended to recite --the second pigment being configured to change from the first state to the second state--. Consistent with this amendment, each instance of the terms “first state” and “second state” will be interpreted to mean a state which is invisible to a naked eye under ambient lighting and a state which is visible to the naked eye under ambient lighting, respectively, where the first and second states of one pigment may be, but need not necessarily be, identical to the first and second states of another pigment. Moreover, it is noted that the limitation requiring that the photochromatic pigment is configured to change from the second state back to the first state is interpreted to be satisfied when at least one of the first and second pigments in the photochromatic pigment are capable of changing from the second state back to the first state as claimed.
Regarding claims 8, 9, and 12, the limitations reciting “wherein the first layer includes a plurality of indicators formed from the photochromatic pigment” are indefinite in view of the amendments to claim 1 and the Applicant’s explanation on pages 5-6 of the remarks filed April 20, 2026 clarifying that the photochromatic pigment is disposed on the first layer, such that the photochromatic pigment and the first layer are set forth as distinct elements of the claimed laminate. For the purpose of applying prior art, these limitations will be interpreted to mean that the laminate includes a plurality of indicators formed from the photochromatic pigment, consistent with the disclosure in paragraphs [0062]-[0064] of the as-filed specification.
Regarding claim 10, the limitation reciting “wherein the first layer includes a plurality of indicators having at least one of a first color, a first material, or a first pattern that is different than at least one of a second color, a second material, or a second pattern of the first layer” is indefinite for the reasons presented above with respect to claims 8, 9, and 12. In particular, it is noted that the plurality of indicators in the context of the present invention refers to a plurality of indicators formed from the photochromatic pigment, where the photochromatic pigment and the first layer are set forth as distinct elements of the claimed laminate, such that the first layer cannot be said to “include” a plurality of indicators.
In looking to the instant specification, the present application does not appear to explicitly disclose a plurality of indicators having a first color, a first material, or a first pattern that is different than a second color, a second material, or a second pattern of the first layer. It is not clear whether this limitation is intended to require that the laminate includes a plurality of indicators formed from the photochromatic pigment, wherein a first portion of the indicators has a first color, a first material, or a first pattern that is different from a second color, a second material, or a second pattern of a second portion of the indicators, or if this limitation can be satisfied by a first color, first material, or first pattern of the indicators formed from the photochromatic pigment being different than a second color, second material, or second pattern of the first layer on which the photochromatic pigment is disposed.
The closest disclosure in the instant specification appears to be in paragraphs [0060]-[0061] and Figs. 2B-2C, which describe embodiments in which the laminate (200B, 200C) includes one or more graphic indicators (212) combined with one or more text indicators (214) which may be formed of the photochromatic pigment. Based on this disclosure, the limitation in claim 10 will be interpreted to mean that the laminate includes a plurality of indicators formed from the photochromatic pigment, wherein the plurality of indicators include a first portion having at least one of a first color, a first material, or a first pattern that is different than at least one of a second color, a second material, or a second pattern of a second portion of the plurality of indicators.
Regarding claims 2-7, 11, 15, 16, 18-20, 25, and 26, the claims are rejected based on their dependency on claim 1.
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.
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 1, 3-10, 12, 15, 18-20, and 25 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Dayton (US 2017/0157279, previously cited) in view of Kang et al. (US 2007/0054223, previously cited).
Regarding claims 1 and 15, Dayton teaches a photochromic indicator (10; laminate) comprising a protective layer (14) having a photochromic material (12; photochromic pigment) applied to the inward-facing surface (20) of the protective layer, wherein the photochromic material is disposed between the inward-facing surface of the protective layer and a pressure-sensitive adhesive (18) ([0021], see Fig. 2A reproduced below). The protective layer (14) corresponds to the claimed first layer which is a continuous layer having a photochromic material (12) deposited on a first surface thereof.
Dayton further teaches an alternative embodiment in which the photochromic material (12) is formed between the protective layer (14) and an underlying backing layer (26) ([0024], see Fig. 2B reproduced below). In this embodiment, either the protective layer (14) or the backing layer (26) can be taken to correspond to the claimed first layer which is a continuous layer having a photochromic material (12) deposited on a first surface thereof.
PNG
media_image1.png
337
591
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Dayton teaches that the pressure-sensitive adhesive (18) is used to adhere the indicator to a surface (22), such that the indicator can be applied as a sticker, decal, label, or placard to the surface to be rendered pathogen-reduced during a decontamination process and can be disposable to be replaced after a predetermined period of time ([0021]-[0022], [0050], claim 8, Fig. 3). Therefore, the pressure-sensitive adhesive corresponds to the claimed second layer which is a coupling layer configured to removably couple the photochromic indicator to a component.
Dayton teaches that the photochromic material may be substantially transparent to visible light prior to exposure to UVC light such that the indicator is minimally detectable at a casual glance (first state, invisible to the naked eye under ambient lighting), and may be selected to change color, exhibit a variable opacity, etc. (second state, visible to the naked eye under ambient lighting) once exposed to UVC light ([0024], [0045]).
Dayton further teaches that each of the regions (12A, 12B, 12C) of photochromic material can exhibit different visible responses to being exposed to UV light, which can be achieved by forming each of the plurality of regions from a different photochromic material ([0046]-[0047]). Dayton therefore teaches that the photochromic material comprises a first pigment and a second pigment. Alternatively, each of the regions (12A, 12B, 12C) can exhibit the same visible response to being exposed to UV light ([0045]), such that a first particle of the photochromic material and a second particle of the photochromic material can be taken to correspond to the claimed first and second pigments.
Dayton further teaches that the apparatus can utilize a reversible photochromic indicator that exhibits a visible response to receiving a predetermined minimum exposure to UVC light emitted, wherein an extent to which a decontamination process was completed can be determined based on whether the photochromic material exhibits the visible response ([0007]-[0009]). The second state therefore serves to indicate that the indicator has been exposed to the UV light source for disinfection. Dayton further teaches that the photochromic material may exhibit the visible response to a lesser extent after the photochromic material ceases to be exposed to the UVC light (e.g., returns to its original appearance) ([0008], [0044]), such that the photochromic material is capable of changing from the visible second state back to the invisible first state after a predetermined period of time. In particular, Dayton teaches that the photochromic indicator can be left in place for use during multiple decontamination processes, or can be disposable to be replaced after a predetermined period of time or a predetermined number of decontamination processes have been performed ([0050]), such that the indicator can be used to indicate disinfection of a surface of a component for a plurality of disinfection cycles without the laminate being replaced. Dayton further teaches a variety of photochromic materials, such as materials based on spiropyrans, spirooxazines, and diarylethenes ([0027])-[0043]), which are known to be reversible photochromic pigments capable of undergoing a plurality of color-changing cycles between invisible and visible states.
Although Dayton teaches that the photochromic material (12) may be formed as distinct regions (12A, 12B, 12C) for the purposes of redundancy so that if one region is damaged, the other regions can still be relied upon to provide a visible response ([0045]), Dayton differs from the claimed invention in that the reference does not expressly teach that the first layer includes a pigment texture comprising an embossed pattern, wherein the photochromic pigment is disposed in the embossed pattern.
However, in the analogous art of photochromic articles, Kang et al. teaches a photochromic film comprising an embossed portion (32) formed on a part or whole of a basic material (31) which is coated with a photochromic substance (33) that fills each of the unit embossed portions (Abstract, [0024], Fig. 3). Similar to Dayton, Kang et al. teaches that by filling embossed portions with the photochromic substance, each of the unit embossed portions are isolated from each other, thereby prolonging the life of the photochromic substance ([0002], [0033]).
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 photochromic indicator taught by Dayton by forming a pigment texture comprising an embossed pattern in the first layer with the photochromic pigment disposed therein, as taught by Kang et al., in order to isolate the embossed portions from each other so as to prolong the life of the photochromic material.
Regarding claims 3 and 4, Dayton in view of Kang et al. teaches all of the limitations of claim 1 above, and Dayton further teaches that the protective layer (14) is formed of a material that is substantially transparent to UVC light (e.g., allows transmission of at least 60% of the intensity of UVC light) [0019]. Dayton teaches that short-wave ultraviolet (UVC) includes wavelengths within a range from about 250 nm to about 260 nm [0006]. Therefore, the protective layer of the first layer is formed of a material that is at least 30% UV transparent to light within a wavelength range from about 250 nm to about 260 nm, which falls squarely within the range of claim 4.
Regarding claim 5, Dayton in view of Kang et al. teaches all of the limitations of claim 3 above. As noted above, Dayton teaches that the protective layer (14) is formed of a material that is substantially transparent to UVC light, which includes wavelengths within a range from about 250 nm to about 260 nm ([0006], [0019]). Therefore, the protective layer of the first layer is formed of a material that is at least 30% UV transparent to light within a wavelength range from about 250 nm to about 260 nm, which overlaps the range of claim 5. In the case where the claimed ranges overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art, a prima facie case of obviousness exists. See MPEP 2144.05(I).
Regarding claim 6, Dayton in view of Kang et al. teaches all of the limitations of claim 1 above, and Dayton further teaches that the protective layer (14) can be formed from UVC transmissive materials such as fluorinated ethylene propylene ([0019]), which is a non-flammable material.
Regarding claims 7, 8, and 12, Dayton in view of Kang et al. teaches all of the limitations of claim 1 above. As shown in Fig. 1 of Dayton, the photochromic indicator (10) is illustrated as having a generally rectangular shape with a plurality of edges defining a surface area thereof. The photochromatic indicator includes a plurality of regions of photochromic material (12A, 12B, 12C; plurality of indicators) formed across less than an entirety of the surface area as an ordered array ([0019], Fig. 1).
Regarding claim 9, Dayton in view of Kang et al. teaches all of the limitations of claim 7 above. Dayton teaches an embodiment in which at least one, and optionally a plurality of regions of photochromic material (12A,12B, 12C; plurality of indicators) are formed as distinct regions across less than the entirety of the surface area ([0019], Fig. 1C), and differs from the claimed invention in that the reference does not expressly teach an embodiment in which the plurality of indicators are formed across an entirety of the surface area.
It would, however, have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the photochromatic indicator taught by Dayton in view of Kang et al. by forming the regions of photochromic material across the entirety of the surface area in order to increase the area covered by the photochromatic material to thereby enable a user to more easily observe a color change.
Regarding claim 10, Dayton in view of Kang et al. teaches all of the limitations of claim 1 above, and Dayton further teaches that the photochromatic layer (10) includes a plurality of regions of photochromatic material (12A, 12B, 12C; plurality of indicators) which each optionally exhibit different visible responses (e.g., turn different colors) [0046]. Therefore, the plurality of regions of photochromatic material include a first color and a second color which is different from the first color.
Regarding claim 18, Dayton in view of Kang et al. teaches all of the limitations of claim 1 above. As noted above, Dayton teaches that the photochromic material (12) can be formed as a plurality of regions (12A, 12B, 12C) of photochromic material which exhibit different visible responses by each region using a different photochromic material ([0046]-[0047]). Dayton teaches that the photochromic material can be selected to continually exhibit a visible response to UVC exposure for a predetermined length of time (e.g., at least 2 minutes, at least 15 minutes, etc.) after the material ceases to be exposed to UVC light, where the visible response exhibited by the photochromic material is reversible ([0007], [0044]). Dayton further teaches that the different visible responses may be used to estimate the progress of the decontamination process [0046].
The different photochromic materials used in the different regions therefore correspond to the claimed first and second pigments which are configured to change from the second to the first state after first and second different predetermined periods of time. One of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that different photochromic materials would have at least somewhat different reversion times, such that the first pigment can be taken to correspond to the material having a reversion time that is less than the reversion time of the second pigment.
Regarding claim 19, Dayton in view of Kang et al. teaches all of the limitations of claim 1 above. In the case where the protective layer (14) corresponds to the claimed first layer, the first layer is an outermost layer of the indicator (Fig. 2A).
Regarding claim 20, Dayton in view of Kang et al. teaches all of the limitations of claim 1 above. In the case where the backing layer (26) corresponds to the claimed first layer, the protective layer (14) which is formed on top of the backing layer having the photochromic material (12) is an outermost layer of the laminate (Fig. 2B).
Regarding claim 25, Dayton in view of Kang et al. teaches all of the limitations of claim 1 above, and Dayton further teaches that the protective layer is formed of UVC transmissive materials, wherein the listed polymeric materials are only UVC transmissive when formed at small cross sectional thicknesses, such as 0.001 to 0.005 in ([0019]), equivalent to 1 to 5 mils, which falls squarely within the claimed range. In the case where the claimed ranges overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art, a prima facie case of obviousness exists. See MPEP 2144.05(I).
Claims 2 and 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Dayton (US 2017/0157279, previously cited) in view of Kang et al. (US 2007/0054223, previously cited) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Young et al. (US 2020/0047868, previously cited).
Regarding claim 2, Dayton in view of Kang et al. teaches all of the limitations of claim 1 above. Although Dayton further teaches that the protective layer can be formed from any UVC transmissive materials applied over the photochromic material, wherein examples of polymeric materials are listed ([0019]), the reference does not expressly teach that the first layer is formed from a fiberglass material or a polyvinyl material.
However, in the analogous art of adhesive laminates, Young et al. teaches a decorative laminate (10) comprising a first layer (62a), a decorative layer (76), and a second layer (62b), wherein the decorative layer is selectively disposed between the first and second layers ([0026], Fig. 1). Similar to the photochromic indicator of Dayton, the decorative laminate taught by Young et al. may include light-activated materials in the decorative layer, for instance, an ultraviolet (UV) activated pigment that is non-visible until exposed to a source of UV light, wherein the decorative layer can be deposited in a decorative and/or functional pattern [0027]. Young et al. teaches that the first layer (62a) can be transparent to ultraviolet and/or infrared light in order to allow such light incident on the first layer to penetrate to the decorative layer and affect any light-activated materials, wherein polyvinyl fluoride materials are said to be advantageous for the laminate layers due to their physical toughness, chemical inertness, abrasion resistance, consistent performance regardless of temperature changes, and print receptivity ([0029], [0048]). The laminate layers can additionally or alternatively include non-polymer materials; for instance, a thermoplastic fluoropolymer material can be reinforced with glass fibers (fiberglass), wherein such reinforced materials can be advantageous for use in high-traffic areas [0049].
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 photochromic indicator of Dayton in view of Kang et al. by selecting a fiberglass-reinforced polyvinyl material as the material of the protective layer onto which the photochromic material is printed, as taught by Young et al., in order to ensure that the indicator has good physical toughness, chemical inertness, abrasion resistance, and print receptivity and to enable the indicator to be used in high-traffic areas.
Regarding claim 16, Dayton in view of Kang et al. teaches all of the limitations of claim 1 above but does not expressly teach that a backing layer is removably coupled to the adhesive layer.
However, in the analogous art of adhesive laminates, Young et al. teaches a decorative laminate comprising an adhesive layer, such as a pressure-sensitive adhesive, and a release liner (backing layer) which can be removed from the adhesive and discarded when the decorative laminate is applied to a substrate ([0058]-[0059]).
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 photochromic indicator of Dayton in view of Kang et al. by including a release liner removably coupled to the second adhesive layer, as taught by Young et al., in order to protect the adhesive prior to application of the indicator to a substrate or surface.
Claim 11 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Dayton (US 2017/0157279, previously cited) in view of Kang et al. (US 2007/0054223, previously cited) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Amhof et al. (US 2001/0006818, previously cited).
Regarding claim 11, Dayton in view of Kang et al. teaches all of the limitations of claim 1 above. Although Dayton teaches that the photochromic indicator (10) may be applied to surfaces (22) of objects (24) such as a patient bed, tray table, and door, e.g., in a patient room or examination room within a healthcare facility ([0004], [0026], Fig. 3), the reference does not expressly teach that the photochromatic indicator is configured as a plurality of sections each separated by a series of perforations.
However, in the analogous art of sterilization indicators, Amhof et al. teaches a label which may be used in a sterilization tracking system, wherein the label has first and second portions which each change color upon exposure to a sterilization procedure (Abstract, [0018]). The label (10) comprises first and second portions (26, 28) constructed to be manually separable from each other, for example, by perforations (35) which allow manual tearing of the second portion from the first portion ([0034], Figs. 1-2). Amhof et al. teaches a sterilizing tracking system which involves adhering the label to an object to be sterilized, subjecting the object to a sterilization procedure, removing the second portion of the label from the first portion, leaving the first portion adhered to the object, and then adhering the second portion to a patient’s file such that the label provides a link between a patient and records kept on sterilization parameters, e.g., at a hospital ([0074]-[0079], [0082], Figs. 4a-4f).
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 photochromic indicator taught by Dayton in view of Kang et al. by forming the indicator to have a plurality of sections which are separated from each other by perforations, as taught by Amhof et al., in order to enable one section of the indicator to remain attached to the sterilized object while another section can be easily detached and retained for record-keeping purposes.
Claim 26 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Dayton (US 2017/0157279, previously cited) in view of Kang et al. (US 2007/0054223, previously cited) as applied to claim 15 above, and further in view of Drexler et al. (US 20160089851, cited on IDS).
Regarding claim 26, Dayton in view of Kang et al. teaches all of the limitations of claim 15 above. Although Dayton teaches that the indicator (10) can include a pressure-sensitive adhesive (18) used to adhere the indicator to a variety of surfaces, such as a bed, a tray table, or a door ([0021], [0026], claim 8, Fig. 3), the reference does not teach that the adhesive comprises a heat-activated adhesive.
However, in the analogous art of adhesive laminates, Drexler et al. teaches a decorative laminate used in a variety of applications, including for surfaces of walls, countertops, and aircraft interior structural components such as ceiling panels, floor panels, stowage bins, lavatory and galley panels, and the like [0004]. Drexler et al. teaches that an adhesive layer (63) is formed on a side of the decorative laminate (10) so that the laminate can be attached to a structural component (28) ([0050], [0051], Figs. 4A-4B). The adhesive layer may comprise a pressure-sensitive adhesive, a hot melt adhesive, a spray adhesive, or another suitable adhesive [0050].
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 indicator taught by Dayton in view of Kang et al. by substituting the pressure sensitive adhesive for a hot melt adhesive, as taught by Drexler et al., as both are known to be suitable for adhering laminates to surfaces of objects. One of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that the type of adhesive (e.g., pressure sensitive or hot melt) may be appropriately selected based the type of surface to which the laminate is intended to be adhered.
Response to Arguments
Response-Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The previous rejections of claims 1-12, 15, 16, 18-20, 25, and 26 under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) as failing to comply with the written description requirement and under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention is overcome by the Applicant’s amendments to claim 1 in the response filed April 20, 2026. However, in light of the amendments to claim 1, new issues under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) are presented in the office action above.
Response-Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
Applicant's arguments, see pages 7-11 of the remarks filed April 20, 2026, have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. In particular, the Applicant argues that Dayton teaches that the photochromic indicator is used for the purpose of verification of adequate UVC exposure during a single decontamination process, not for indicating disinfection status to users for repeated disinfection cycles.
This argument is not persuasive. As acknowledged by the Applicant, Dayton teaches that the photochromatic indicator can be left in place for use during multiple decontamination processes or can be disposable to be replaced after a predetermined time or after a predetermined number of decontamination processes have been performed [0050]. Dayton further teaches that the apparatus can utilize a reversible photochromic indicator which exhibits a visible response to receiving a minimum exposure of UVC light, and subsequently exhibits the visible response to a lesser extend (e.g., returns to its original appearance) after ceasing to be exposed to the UVC light during a decontamination process ([0007], [0044]). It is further noted that the spiropryan-, spirooxazine-, and diarylethene-based photochromic materials taught by Dayton ([0027]-[0043]) are known to be reversible photochromic pigments which are capable of reversibly changing between a visible second state and a non-visible first state a plurality of times. Therefore, the Applicant’s argument that the photochromic indicator taught by Dayton is not used for indicating disinfection status to users for repeated disinfection cycles is not persuasive, as Dayton does expressly teach its indicator being used for such purposes.
It is further noted that the limitation reciting “the photochromatic pigment is configured to change from the second state back to the first state after a predetermined period of time, the second state indicating that the laminate has been exposed to the UV light source for disinfection, enabling the laminate to indicate disinfection of a surface of the component for a plurality of disinfection cycles without the laminate being replaced” is interpreted as functional language related to an intended use of the claimed laminate and is considered to be met by any laminate capable of performing the recited function. As explained above, Dayton teaches that the photochromic pigment and laminate are capable of performing in the manner claimed, thus satisfying the claimed functional limitation.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Romo et al. (US 2015/0343102, previously cited) teaches an article for detecting sterilization or disinfection resulting from electromagnetic energy such as ultraviolet C (Abstract). A photochromic structure may be designed such that a photochromic response (e.g., a visual activation) may be reversible and may occur several times (e.g., for repeated cycles), where the visual activation may dissipate over time once the UV-C exposure has been completed, allowing the indicator to return to its unexposed condition for reuse ([0082], [0085], [0122]).
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to REBECCA L GRUSBY whose telephone number is (571) 272-1564. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday, 8:30 AM-5:30 PM.
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, Mark Ruthkosky can be reached at (571) 272-1291. 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.
/Rebecca L Grusby/Examiner, Art Unit 1785
Prosecution Insights