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 .
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement filed 1/14/25 fails to comply with 37 CFR 1.98(a)(3)(i) because it does not include a concise explanation of the relevance, as it is presently understood by the individual designated in 37 CFR 1.56(c) most knowledgeable about the content of the information, of each reference listed that is not in the English language. It has been placed in the application file, but the information referred to therein has not been considered.
The Office Action has no translation attached and the JP 2001-247108 and JP 20-2000-0004612 do not have attached translations. The attached foreign references do not have identifying publication or application numbers on them. Correction is required.
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.
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 1-6, 8-10 and 12-13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Durkin (US 2012/0068088) in view of Jenkins (US 2002/0146343).
Regarding claim 1, Durkin (US 2012/0068088) teaches –
A container sterilization device (Title, abstract Figs. 1-4 apparatus 1) configured to sterilize a container (abstract), the device comprising:
a housing (Apparatus 1) provided with an openable door (cover 4)
and providing an accommodation space therein (lower chamber 9, see fig. 2);
a container mounting area on which the container is configured to be mounted (resilient grips 40 and resilient grips 19, see fig. 2 and 4d) the container mounting area being disposed on at least a portion of a bottom surface of the accommodation space (the grips 40 are attached to the dividing wall 7, and the orientation of the device as claimed is arbitrary and furthermore the device could be turned upside down such that the wall 7 is a lower wall) and comprising a container contact area configured to support a lower end of the container (the grips 19, 40 form a step with respect to the container contact point, as they are raised from the lower surface); and
a lamp configured to be extended from the container mounting area toward an inside of the container (bulb 6), wherein
a lower end of the pulsed light generating lamp is configured to be disposed lower than a lower end of the container mounted on the container mounting area (see fig. 4d where the lamp is recessed with respect to the bottle when mounted in position) and,
wherein, in a state in which the container is mounted on the container mounting area, one of the container contact area of the container mounting area or the pulsed light generating lamp is configured to ascend or descend so that a distance between an upper end of the pulsed light generating lamp and a floor of an inner surface of the container reaches a first predetermined distance (par. 98 teaches the grips 19 and 40 are resilient and therefore reversibly elastic and flexible and therefore the grips 19, 40 are well capable of performing this function of ascending or descending such that a distance between the lamp and floor of the container 32 reach some predetermined distance; the structure is taught and the function is well capable of being performed by the prior art device, and therefore the limitation is met, MPEP 2114, II).
Durkin appears to be silent with regards to the lamp being specifically a pulsed visible light generating lamp.
Jenkins (US 2002/0146343) teaches an article sterilizer (title, abstract) including a xenon flash lamp that pulses visible light to sterilize objects (par. 29, par. 33). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the device disclosed by Durkin to include a pulsed light generating lamp to pulse light comprising a visible light band as taught by Jenkins to arrive at the claimed invention. One would have been motivated to do so to take advantage of the lower temperatures and less wear associated with pulsed light sterilization (par. 31).
Regarding claim 2, modified Durkin further teaches the pulsed light generating lamp has a first electrode and a second electrode located at the lower end of the pulsed light generating lamp (Figs. 1-2 and 4 show socket 12 and connection 16 comprising two connection points of a plug which provide electricity to the lamp, reading on the electrode parts, pars. 90 and 106), and a light generating area between the first electrode and the second electrode protruded toward the inside of the container (the bulb 6 part of the lamp).
Regarding claim 3, modified Durkin further teaches the pulsed light generating lamp has a '∩' shape (se fig. 4).
Regarding claim 4, modified Durkin further teaches the pulsed light generating lamp is a xenon lamp or a xenon lamp (Jenkins teaches this as set forth above).
Regarding claim 5, modified Durkin further teaches the pulsed light generating lamp is disposed so that upper ends of the first electrode and the second electrode are lower than the lower end of the container mounted on the container mounting area (fig. 4 shows the connection socket and the electrodes being positioned more recessed than the container when mounted).
Regarding claim 6, modified Durkin further teaches the pulsed light generating lamp is located inside the container mounting area (Figs. 1-2 and 4 all show this) and disposed in a recessed area formed to have a step with respect to the container contact area of the container mounting area (the grips 19, 40 form a step with respect to the container contact point, as they are raised from the lower surface).
Regarding claims 8 and 9, modified Durkin is well capable of performing the claimed functions of having the container contact area and/or the lamp ascend or descend such that the floor of the container and the lamp reach a predetermined distance, and there are no means positively recited for performing this claimed function. Therefore, the limitations are entirely functional and a person could simply move the device up or down with their hands while attaching the apparatus 1 to the bottle 30 (par. 104) to arrive at the assembled state that in fig. 4 shows. This assembled state shows a fixed and predetermined distance between the lamp and a floor of the bottle. All of the structure is taught and the device is well capable of performing the claimed functions, and therefore all the limitations of the claims are met. MPEP 2114, II.
Regarding claim 10, modified Durkin further teaches mount holder that protrudes upward from the container mounting area to support the container while the container is spaced apart from the bottom surface of the accommodation space (Fig. 2 shows collar 20 and grip 40 extending from the container mounting support area as claimed, see the container in place in fig. 4d).
Regarding claims 12 and 13, modified Durkin is similarly well equipped to perform the claimed function of ascending or descending to a predetermined distance between the lamp and the floor of the container and all the structure required is taught (par. 104). Therefore, all the claim limitations are met, see the rejections of claim 8-9 above. MPEP 2114, II.
Claims 7 and 11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Durkin (US 2012/0068088) in view of Jenkins (US 2002/0146343) as applied to claim 6 and 10 above and further in view of Park (US 2020/0345876).
Regarding claim 7, modified Durkin is set forth with regards to claim 6 above but appears to be silent with regards to the container mounting area being formed of a light transmissive material.
Park (US 2020/0345876) teaches a similar bottle sterilizer (abstract) that includes a mounting area with a light-transmitting element (fig. 3 element 190). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the device disclosed by Durkin such that the container mounting area is formed of a light-transmissive material as taught by Park to arrive at the claimed invention. One would have been motivated to do so to better transmit UV light and to allow more thorough sterilization to arrive at an improved device. The combination of familiar prior art elements including sterilizing lights and light transmissive structures according to known means to arrive at results that are nothing more than predictable is prima facie obvious. MPEP 2143(I)(A).
Regarding claim 11, modified Durkin is set forth with regards to claim 6 above but appears to be silent with regards to the mount holder being formed of a light transmissive material.
Park (US 2020/0345876) teaches a similar bottle sterilizer (abstract) that includes a mounting area with a light-transmitting element (fig. 3 element 190). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the device disclosed by Durkin such that the mount holder is formed of a light-transmissive material as taught by Park to arrive at the claimed invention. One would have been motivated to do so to better transmit UV light and to allow more thorough sterilization to arrive at an improved device. The combination of familiar prior art elements including sterilizing lights and light transmissive structures according to known means to arrive at results that are nothing more than predictable is prima facie obvious. MPEP 2143(I)(A).
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 7/17/26 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant’s remarks directed towards the IDS filed 1/14/25 are not persuasive. The appropriate documents have not been included as required above and the references have not been considered.
Applicant’s remarks directed towards the 103 rejection of claim 1 are further not persuasive.
Applicant argues that Durkin does not perform the claimed function where in a state which the container is mounted on the container mounting area, one of the container contact area of the container mounting area or the pulsed light generating lamp is configured to ascend or descend so that a distance between an upper end of the pulsed light generating lamp and a floor of an inner surface of the container reaches a first predetermined distance, which is not persuasive. The grips 19 and 40 are specifically resilient and therefore flexible to some degree, and could reasonably be used in such a way that the bottle and/or device could be pushed towards and away from one another while the container 32 and device 1 of Durkin are engaged with one another to satisfy the claim limitation. Crucially, there is no structure in the claim that is attributed to performing this claimed function of ascending and descending and the limitation is broad enough to include the use of pressing and pulling the container 32 and device 1 towards and away from one another while the two structures are in contact with one or both of the resilient grips 19 and 40. The claim only sets forth this function passively as something that is applied to the device by some otherwise unclaimed means, and does not require for example a motor or actuator to perform the function. Therefore, because Durkin teaches all of the claimed structure of the claim and could reasonably be used in such a way to satisfy the claimed function, all of the limitations of the claim are met. See MPEP 2114, II.
Claim 1 remains rejected. The remaining claims remain rejected similarly.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 BRENDAN A HENSEL whose telephone number is (571)272-6615. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Thu 8:30 - 7pm;.
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, Maris Kessel can be reached at (571) 270-7698. 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.
/BRENDAN A HENSEL/Examiner, Art Unit 1758
Prosecution Insights