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 Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claims 8-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention. Claim 1 was amended to recite “the slit comprises a downward slit configured to expose the pulsed light toward a center of a ground area where the sterilization device is disposed.” Claim 8 recites, “wherein the slit is formed between the housing and the door based on a protrusion. While the original disclosure describes these elements separately, see e.g., instant Figs. 19 and 20 respectively, it fails to describe them together. As such, the slit of claim 8 that “comprises a downward slit configured to expose the pulsed light toward a center of a ground area” and “is formed between the housing and the door” is new matter. Accordingly, the claim is rejected for failing the written description requirement.
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.
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.
Claims 1-4 and 6-7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 2018/0071417 A1 [Taboada] in view of US 9,517,284 B1 [Stibich].
Regarding Claim 1:
Taboada teaches a container sterilization device using light configured to sterilize a container using, the device comprising:
a housing formed of a light-blocking material and providing an accommodation space therein (Fig. 1 (120) bottom);
a door formed of the light-blocking material and openably connected to the housing (Fig. 1 (120) top);
a lamp disposed within the accommodation space and configured to generate the pulsed light (para 16 – xenon lamp);
at least one support unit configured to space the sterilization device from the ground (Fig. 1 – legs (145));
and
a slit configured to expose the pulsed light below a predetermined threshold value among the pulsed light emitted from the pulsed light generating lamp to the outside of the housing (Fig. 1 (115)),
wherein the slit comprises a downward slit configured to expose the pulsed light toward a center of a ground area where the sterilization device is disposed (Fig. 1 (115) is on the bottom of the housing facing the ground, light reflecting off the diffusively reflective interior surfaces of (120) will naturally include some light that is reflected through (115) towards a center of a ground area under the device.).
However, Taboada fails to teach that the lamp is a pulsed light generating lamp and the light is a pulsed light comprising a visible light band.
Stibich teaches a sterilizing device that uses a pulsed light generating lamp to produce light and the light is a pulsed light comprising a visible light band. Abstract, 7:2-22.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective time of filing to replace the xenon lamp of Taboada with the Xenon flashtube of Stibich. One would have been motivated to do so since this would provide a germicidal light with a strong peak or germicidal radiation and further provides heat for additional microorganism deactivation. Stibich 7:2-22.
Regarding Claim 2:
The above modified invention teaches the device of claim 1, wherein the sterilization device is configured to visualize a progress of a sterilization operation to a user of the sterilization device by exposing the pulsed light below the threshold value through the slit. Light emitted from the chamber is an indicator that progress towards sterilization is being made. Whatever light is emitted is below an arbitrary threshold.
Regarding Claim 3:
The above modified invention teaches the device of claim 1, wherein the threshold value is an intensity corresponding to a predetermined impact on eyesight of a user of the sterilization device. Any intensity has an impact on eyesight of a user. As such, any intensity corresponds to such a predetermined intensity.
Regarding Claim 4:
The above modified invention teaches the device of claim 1, wherein downward slit exposes the pulsed light toward a bottom surface of the sterilization device. As shown in Taboada Fig. 1 (115).
Regarding Claim 6:
The above modified invention teaches the device of claim 1, wherein the slit is configured to be closed under user control. Stibich teaches lids on apertures in the sterilization housing. See e.g., Fig. 3 (76), 17:14-42. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective time of filing to add the automated lid of Stibich to the aperture of Taboada. One would have been motivated to do so since this would allow one to isolate the sterilization chamber from ambient atmosphere.
Regarding Claim 7:
The above modified invention teaches the device of claim 1, wherein the slit is configured to control an amount of the pulsed light exposed to the outside of the housing under user control. Stibich teaches lids on apertures of the sterilization housing which allow for control of the amount of pulsed light exposed to the outside. See e.g., Fig. 3 (76), 17:14-42. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective time of filing to add the automated lid of Stibich to the aperture of Taboada. One would have been motivated to do so since this would allow one to isolate the sterilization chamber from ambient atmosphere.
Response to Arguments
The 35 USC 112(f) interpretations of record are withdrawn in light of applicant’s amendments.
The indefiniteness rejections of record are withdrawn in light of applicant’s amendments.
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim 1 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to WYATT A STOFFA whose telephone number is (571)270-1782. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 0700-1600 EST.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, 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.
WYATT STOFFA
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 2881
/WYATT A STOFFA/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2881
Prosecution Insights