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 § 102
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
Claims 1-5 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Stibich et al. (US 2017/0000916; hereinafter “Stibich”).
In regard to claim 1, Stibich discloses a device (apparatus 20) using pulsed light capable of sterilizing a container (not explicitly recited) using the pulsed light comprising a visible light band (see [0032]-[0033]), the device comprising: a container mounting area disposed on a stage or structure (the top surface of the chamber 24 is capable of receiving a container); a pulsed light generating lamp (germicidal source 22 which can be in the form of a discharge lamp producing HINS light in a pulsed manner; see [0032]-[0033] and [0052]) and capable of being extended (see two-sided arrow in Figure 1 and at least [0044]) from the container mounting area toward the inside of a container (intended use which the apparatus of Stibich is capable of performing), and an illuminance sensor (sensor 38 in the form of a light beam sensor; [0057]) disposed in the container mounting area (“sensor 38 may be disposed within or exterior to chamber 24;” [0057]) capable of being covered by the container (not explicitly recited) in a state in which the container is mounted on the container mounting area, the illuminance sensor necessarily being capable to measure an illuminance sensing value for determining whether the container is mounted on the container mounting area (a light beam sensor would necessarily be capable of determining that a container is mounted on the container mounting area), wherein the pulsed light generating lamp is capable of generating the pulsed light in response to determining based on the illuminance sensing value, that the container is mounted on the container mounting area (the apparatus is capable of being activated by a user after a container is mounted on the top surface of the chamber). See Figure 1 and paragraphs [0032]-[0033], [0042]-[0045] and [0057].
While Stibich does not explicitly disclose wherein the device is used to sterilize a container which is mounted on a container mounting area, the cited prior art teaches all of the positively recited structure of the claimed apparatus. The limitations regarding the sterilization of a container merely amount to an intended use of the apparatus and the Office holds that the device of Stibich would be capable of performing the intended use. The Courts have held that a statement of intended use in an apparatus claim fails to distinguish over a prior art apparatus. See In re Sinex, 309 F.2d 488, 492, 135 USPQ 302, 305 (CCPA 1962). The Courts have held that apparatus claims must be structurally distinguishable from the prior art in terms of structure, not function. See In re Danley, 120 USPQ 528, 531 (CCPA 1959); and Hewlett-Packard Co. V. Bausch and Lomb, Inc., 15 USPQ2d 1525, 1528 (Fed. Cir. 1990) (see MPEP §§ 2114 and 2173.05(g)). The Courts have held that if the prior art structure is capable of performing the intended use, then it meets the claim. See In re Casey, 152 USPQ 235 (CCPA 1967); and In re Otto, 136 USPQ 458, 459 (CCPA 1963). The Courts have held that it is well settled that the recitation of a new intended use, for an old product, does not make a claim to that old product patentable. See In re Schreiber, 128 F.3d 1473, 1477, 44 USPQ2d 1429, 1431 (Fed. Cir. 1997) (see MPEP § 2114).
In regard to claim 2, Stibich discloses wherein the pulsed light generating lamp is capable of generating the pulsed light if the illuminance sensing value measured by the illuminance sensor is below a predetermined threshold value (i.e. the germicidal source has been extended from the chamber 24 and it is desired that the source operates in a mode in which it is extended such that the sensor measures a distance under a predetermined threshold value). See Figure 1.
In regard to claim 3, Stibich discloses a container cover (chamber 24) capable of surrounding a light-transmissive container (not explicitly recited but capable of being placed within the chamber 24) on an outer surface of the light-transmissive container and block the pulsed light from the pulsed light generating lamp in a sterilization mode for the light-transmissive container. See Figure 1.
In regard to claim 4, Stibich discloses a lamp protection unit (circumjacent barrier 92) configured to surround the pulsed light generating lamp and protrude upward from the container mounting area to prevent the container from contacting the pulsed light generating lamp. See Figure 5 and [0069].
In regard to claim 5, Stibich discloses wherein the pulsed light generating lamp is configured to: ascend and descend from the container mounting area (see Figure 1 and [0044]); descend to be inserted into the container mounting area if the illuminance sensing value exceeds the predetermined threshold value (i.e. when the sensor 38 detects that the germicidal source is out of chamber 24 when it is desired that the source is within the chamber); and ascend from the container mounting area toward the inside of the container if the illuminance sensing value is below the predetermined threshold value (i.e. when the sensor 38 detects that the germicidal source is in the chamber 24 when it is desired that the source is outside of the chamber). It is noted that Stibich teaches that the “sensor 38 may be disposed within or exterior to chamber 24” which necessitates that the illuminance sensing value either exceeding or being below a predetermined threshold value for the desired action of descending or ascending can be determined based upon the relative placement of the sensor. See [0057].
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
Claims 6-11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Stibich in view of Sperry et al. (US 2024/0197140; hereinafter “Sperry”).
In regard to claim 6-11, Stibich discloses a pulsed light generating lamp as noted above in claim 1. Stibich is silent in regard to a receptacle located on the stage or structure. Stibich does disclose wherein the germicidal source 22 may include different types of germicidal sources such as liquid sprayers. See [0031] and [0073].
Sperry discloses a container sanitization station comprising container mounting area (chamber 102) having a receptacle (draining base 110) located on the stage or structure and formed by being recessed to have a step with respect to an upper surface of the stage or structure (see Figure 9A) as recited in claim 6. In regard to claim 8, Sperry discloses at least one spray nozzle (at least one washing nozzle 116) disposed inside the receptacle and spraying washing water toward the inside of the container; and an outlet for discharging liquid accumulated in the receptacle (the holes in the draining base 110). In regard to claim 9, as Sperry discloses that the number 116 refers to “one or more washing nozzles 116” in [0040], it would have been within the ambit of one of ordinary skill in the art to have provided at least two washing nozzles which spray water in different directions. In regard to claim 10, Sperry discloses a blower (“one or more dryers 138 to provide […] moving air;” [0055]) disposed inside the receptacle (below the draining base 110) and capable of generating an air flow toward the inside of the container (not explicitly recited). See Figures 1 and 9A and paragraphs [0042]-[0043] and [0054]-[0055].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the apparatus of Stibich to include the recessed draining base, washing nozzles and blower of Sperry for the purpose of allowing for additional germicidal compositions to be delivered by the germicidal source 22 of Stibich and for the drying after application of a liquid. The combination of familiar elements is likely to be obvious when it does no more than yield predictable results. See KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. __,__, 82 USPQ2d 1385, 1395 – 97 (2007) (see MPEP § 2143, A.). Applying a known technique to a known device (method or product) ready for improvement to yield predictable results is likely to be obvious. See KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. __,__, 82 USPQ2d 1385, 1395 – 97 (2007) (see MPEP § 2143, D.). As such, the pulsed light generating lamp of the above combined invention would be located inside the receptacle and disposed in a recessed area formed to have the step with respect to an arbitrary container entrance contact area of the receptacle as recited in claim 7. Additionally, it is viewed that the combined apparatus of Stibich and Sperry is capable of performing the operation of claim 11 sterilizing a container (not explicitly recited) by the at least one spray nozzle spraying the washing water, the blower generating the air flow to remove the washing water inside the container, and the pulsed light generating lamp generating the pulsed light in response to the container being mounted on the container mounting area as a user would be capable of activating the device with a container placed thereon and all the components of the combined apparatus would perform their normal function under normal operation thereof.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 24 July 2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues that the sensor 38 of Stibich is not “configured to measure an illuminance sensing value for determining whether the container is mounted on the container mounting area” as sensor 38 “is solely concerned with the relative position of the germicidal source.” The Examiner respectfully disagrees. Stibich discloses that the sensor 38 can be a light beam sensor in [0057]. It is held that a light beam sensor would necessarily be capable of determining whether a container is mounted on a container mounting area as the light beam would contact the container. Further, the phrase of “for determining whether the container is mounted on the container mounting area” merely recites how the illuminance sensing value is intended to be used, but does not further limit the structure of the apparatus. If Applicant intends for the limitation to patentably distinguish the structure of the device over the prior art, than additional structure which is capable of carrying out the function of “determining” must be positively recited.
Applicant argues that “Stibich fails to disclose or suggest an illuminance sensor ‘disposed in the container mounting area and covered by the container in a state in which the container is mounted on the container mounting area.’” The Examiner has fully considered the argument but has not found it to be persuasive. As the sensor 38 can be disposed exterior to chamber 24, it is held that the sensor 38 is capable of being covered by a container if a container were to be placed on the top surface of the device. It is held that the recited limitation of a “container mounting area” merely amounts to the intended use of the structure and the top surface of the device of Stibich is capable of having a container mounted thereon.
Applicant argues at “Stibich fails to disclose or suggest ‘the pulsed light generating lamp is configured to generate the pulsed light in response to determining, based on the illuminance sensing value, that the container is mounted on the container mounting area.” The Examiner has fully considered the argument but has not found it to be persuasive. As noted above, the recitation of “determining, based on the illuminance sensing value” is merely a recitation of how the illuminance sensing value as measured by the illuminance sensor is intended to be used, but does not further limit the structure of the apparatus. If Applicant intends for the limitation to patentably distinguish the structure of the device over the prior art, than additional structure which is capable of carrying out the function of “determining” must be positively recited. As such, the germicidal source 22 of Stibich is capable of being operated to produce pulsed light in response to a value detected by the sensor 38. Therefore, the device of Stibich meets the broadest reasonable interpretation of the claimed apparatus. The Courts have held that apparatus claims must be structurally distinguishable from the prior art in terms of structure, not function. See In re Danley, 120 USPQ 528, 531 (CCPA 1959); and Hewlett-Packard Co. V. Bausch and Lomb, Inc., 15 USPQ2d 1525, 1528 (Fed. Cir. 1990) (see MPEP §§ 2114 and 2173.05(g)).
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 TIMOTHY C CLEVELAND whose telephone number is (571)270-5041. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9:00-5:30.
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, Claire Wang can be reached at (571) 270-1051. 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.
/TIMOTHY C CLEVELAND/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1774
Prosecution Insights