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 06/18/2024 has been considered by the Examiner.
Specification
The lengthy specification has not been checked to the extent necessary to determine the presence of all possible minor errors. Applicant’s cooperation is requested in correcting any errors of which applicant may become aware in the specification.
Claim Objections
Claim 1 objected to because of the following informalities:
Lines 9-10: “wall to close, the accommodating space” should be changed to “wall to close the accommodating space”. Please remove comma.
Claim 6 objected to because of the following informalities:
Lines 2-3: “a pin protruding, with respect to an inner surface” should be changed to “a pin protruding with respect to an inner surface”. Please remove comma.
Claim 12 objected to because of the following informalities:
Line 4: “in vertical direction” should be changed to “in a vertical direction”.
Claim 15 objected to because of the following informalities:
Line 3: “the wall” should be changed to “the radiation transmitting wall”.
Line 5: “the wall” should be changed to “the radiation transmitting wall”.
Claim 16 objected to because of the following informalities:
Line 3: “in locking condition” should be changed to “in a locking condition”.
Claim 20 objected to because of the following informalities:
Line 6: “and outer radiation transmitting wall” should be changed to “and the outer radiation transmitting wall”
Claim 31 objected to because of the following informalities:
Lines 5-6: “wherein at least one front reflector” is changed to “wherein the at least one front reflector”.
Lines 7-8: “and front reflector” should be changed to “and the front reflector”.
Claim 35 objected to because of the following informalities:
Lines 4-5: “gravitational forces, in a self-locking manner” should be changed to “gravitational forces in a self-locking manner”. Please remove comma.
Line 5: “with respect the upright housing” should be changed to “with respect to the upright housing”.
Claim 38 objected to because of the following informalities:
Line 3: “said wall” should be changed to “said radiation transmitting wall”.
Appropriate correction is required.
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.
The following limitation(s) invoke 35 U.S.C. 112(f) claim interpretation:
“guiding means for guiding a user’s finger or tool used to press the spring into the unlocking state” in claim 18 (lines 2-3).
The claim limitation(s) above cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification at specific citations listed below (it is noted that citations are made in reference to the printed publication for App. 18/721,605 (U.S. PGPub No. 2025/0090856):
Par. [0011] – Preferably, the spring is accessible via a (small) opening present in the bottom part of the bottom housing segment and/or in a bottom part of the securing element. The securing element is preferably made of one piece of material, preferably polymer material. A middle section of the securing element may be provided with guiding means for guiding a tool, such as screw driver or other pin, to manually operate the spring, in particular to manually move the spring from a locked state to an unlocked state, in order to unlock the securing element which results in unlocking the wall with respect to the housing.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that use the word “means” or “step” but are nonetheless not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph because the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure, materials, or acts to entirely perform the recited function. Such claim limitation(s) is/are:
“a rear reflector for mounting at least one radiation source by means of at least one mounting element” in claim 31 (lines 2-3).
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are not being interpreted to cover only the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant intends to have this/these limitation(s) 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 remove the structure, materials, or acts that performs the claimed function; or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) does/do not recite sufficient structure, materials, or acts to perform the claimed function.
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 1-6, 11-12, 15-16, 18-20, 28-29, 31, 35-38 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.
The limitation “wherein said radiation transmitting wall is provided with a support frame, directly or indirectly, attached to a rear side of said radiation transmitting wall” renders claim 1 (lines 12-13) indefinite. It is unclear what “directly or indirectly” is intended to describe. For instance, (1) does “directly or indirectly” describe how the support frame is provided? Or, (2) does “directly or indirectly” describe how the support frame is attached to a rear side of said radiation transmitting wall? The Examiner believes the correct interpretation is interpretation (2), and also believes this can be corrected by removing the comma after “indirectly”. Please provide explanation and make appropriate corrections.
Claim 5 recites the limitation “a support element” in line 3, whereas support elements were already introduced in a claim that claim 5 depends from (claim 1). It is unclear whether the Applicant intended to claim the same or a different support element. Consider changing to “a single element of the support elements”.
Claim 6 recites the limitation “an inner surface of the circumferential wall” in line 3, whereas opposing vertical inner surfaces of the circumferential wall were already introduced in a claim that claim 6 depends from (claim 1). It is unclear whether the Applicant intended to claim the same or a different inner surface. Consider changing to “the inner surface of the circumferential wall” or “one of the inner surfaces of the circumferential wall”.
Claim 12 recites the limitation “a user” in line 7, whereas a user was already introduced in claim 12 (line 6). It is unclear whether the Applicant intended to claim the same or a different user. Consider changing to “the user”.
Claim 15 recites the limitation “locked state” in line 3, whereas a locked state was already introduced in a claim that claim 15 depends from (claim 12). It is unclear whether the Applicant intended to claim the same or a different locked state. Consider changing to “the locked state”.
Claim 15 recites the limitation “unlocked state” in line 3, whereas an unlocked state was already introduced in a claim that claim 15 depends from (claim 12). It is unclear whether the Applicant intended to claim the same or a different unlocked state. Consider changing to “the unlocked state”.
Claim 15 recites the limitation “visual indicator” in line 5, whereas a visual indicator was already introduced in a claim that claim 15 depends from (claim 12). It is unclear whether the Applicant intended to claim the same or a different visual indicator. Consider changing to “the visual indicator”.
Claim 16 recites the limitation “bottom part of the housing” in line 7, whereas a bottom segment of the housing was already introduced in a claim that claim 16 depends from (claim 11). It is unclear whether the Applicant intended for the “bottom part of the housing” to be interpreted as the same or a different component as “the bottom segment of the housing”. Consider changing to “the bottom segment of the housing”.
Claim 28 recites the limitation "the at least one fan" in line 2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 29 recites the limitation “at least one radiation transmitting wall” in line 2, whereas at least one radiation transmitting wall was already introduced in a claim that claim 29 depends from (claim 1). It is unclear whether the Applicant intended to claim the same or a different at least one radiation transmitting wall. Consider changing to “the at least one radiation transmitting wall”.
Claim 36 recites the limitation “a plurality of slots” in line 5, whereas a plurality of slots was already introduced in a claim that claim 36 depends from (claim 1). It is unclear whether the Applicant intended to claim the same or a different plurality of slots. Consider changing to “the plurality of slots”.
Claim 37 recites the limitation “Housing” in line 1, whereas an upright housing was already introduced in a claim that claim 37 depends from (claim 1). It is unclear whether the Applicant intended to claim the same or a different housing. Consider changing to “the housing”.
Claim 37 recites the limitation “circumferential wall” in line 2, whereas a circumferential wall was already introduced in a claim that claim 37 depends from (claim 1). It is unclear whether the Applicant intended to claim the same or a different circumferential wall. Consider changing to “the circumferential wall”.
Claim 37 recites the limitation “a rear wall” in line 2, whereas a rear wall was already introduced in a claim that claim 37 depends from (claim 1). It is unclear whether the Applicant intended to claim the same or a different rear wall. Consider changing to “the rear wall”.
Claim 37 recites the limitation “accommodating space” in line 3, whereas an accommodating space was already introduced in a claim that claim 37 depends from (claim 1). It is unclear whether the Applicant intended to claim the same or a different accommodating space. Consider changing to “the accommodating space”.
Claim 37 recites the limitation “opposing inner surfaces” in line 4, whereas opposing vertical inner surfaces were already introduced in a claim that claim 37 depends from (claim 1). It is unclear whether the Applicant intended to claim the same or a different opposing inner surfaces. Consider changing to “the opposing inner surfaces”.
Claim 37 recites the limitation “support elements” in line 4, whereas support elements were already introduced in a claim that claim 37 depends from (claim 1). It is unclear whether the Applicant intended to claim the same or a different support elements. Consider changing to “the support elements”.
Claim 37 recites the limitation “a radiation transmitting wall” in line 5, whereas a radiation transmitting wall was already introduced in a claim that claim 37 depends from (claim 1). It is unclear whether the Applicant intended to claim the same or a different radiation transmitting wall. Consider changing to “the radiation transmitting wall”.
Claim 38 recites the limitation “a device” in line 1, whereas a device was already introduced in a claim that claim 38 depends from (claim 1). It is unclear whether the Applicant intended to claim the same or a different device. Consider changing to “the device”.
Claim 38 recites the limitation “a radiation transmitting wall” in line 2, whereas a radiation transmitting wall was already introduced in a claim that claim 38 depends from (claim 1). It is unclear whether the Applicant intended to claim the same or a different radiation transmitting wall. Consider changing to “the radiation transmitting wall”.
Claim 38 recites the limitation “a support frame” in line 2, whereas a support frame was already introduced in a claim that claim 38 depends from (claim 1). It is unclear whether the Applicant intended to claim the same or a different support frame. Consider changing to “the support frame”.
The limitation “said assembly comprising a radiation transmitting wall and a support frame, directly or indirectly, attached to a rear side of said wall” renders claim 38 (lines 2-3) indefinite. It is unclear what “directly or indirectly” is intended to describe. For instance, (1) does “directly or indirectly” describe how the support frame is comprised by the assembly? Or, (2) does “directly or indirectly” describe how the support frame is attached to a rear side of said wall? The Examiner believes the correct interpretation is interpretation (2), and also believes this can be corrected by removing the comma after “indirectly”. Please provide explanation and make appropriate corrections.
Claim 38 recites the limitation “a rear side of said wall” in line 3, whereas a rear side of said radiation transmitting wall was already introduced in a claim that claim 38 depends from (claim 1). It is unclear whether the Applicant intended to claim the same or a different rear side. Consider changing to “the rear side”.
Claim 38 recites the limitation “a plurality of slots” in lines 3-4, whereas a plurality of slots was already introduced in a claim that claim 38 depends from (claim 1). It is unclear whether the Applicant intended to claim the same or a different plurality of slots. Consider changing to “the plurality of slots”.
Claim 38 recites the limitation “a housing” in line 5, whereas a housing was already introduced in a claim that claim 38 depends from (claim 1). It is unclear whether the Applicant intended to claim the same or a different housing. Consider changing to “the housing”.
*All other claims are rejected due to their dependency on a rejected claim.
Double Patenting
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a nonstatutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13.
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer.
Claim 1 provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 17 of copending Application No. 18/721,607 (reference application – hereinafter ‘607 Application). Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other.
Regarding claim 1 of the instant application, claim 17 of the ‘607 Application discloses:
Device for radiating UV and/or IR radiation to a human body (Claim 1, line 1), comprising:
an upright housing comprising a circumferential wall and a rear wall connected to said circumferential wall, wherein said upright housing defines an accommodating space (Claim 1, lines 3-5);
at least one radiation unit accommodated within said accommodating space, wherein each radiation unit comprises at least one radiation source for radiating UV and/or IR radiation, and at least one reflector (Claim 1, lines 6-8), and
at least one radiation transmitting wall to close, in particular seal, the accommodating space at least partially (Claim 1, lines 9-10),
wherein opposing vertical inner surfaces of the circumferential wall are provided with support elements, and wherein said radiation transmitting wall is provided with a support frame, directly or indirectly, attached to a rear side of said radiation transmitting wall, wherein opposing vertical parts of said support frame comprises a plurality of slots configured to co-act with the support elements of the housing for mounting the radiation transmitting wall to the housing (Claim 17, lines 1-6).
Claim 17 of the ‘607 Application anticipates instant claim 1. Therefore, the instant claim 1 is not patentable over claim 17 of the ‘607 Application.
This is a provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejection because the patentably indistinct claims have not in fact been patented.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 1-6, 11-12, 15-16, 18-20, 28-29, 31, and 35-38 contain potentially allowable subject matter.
The prior art of record (namely Ullrich, et al. (U.S. PGPub No. 2003/0078635 – cited on IDS) and Wegdam, et al. (EP 3251725 – cited on IDS)) does not disclose or fairly suggest either singly or in combination the claimed invention of independent claim 1 when taken as a whole, comprising, in addition to the other recited claim elements, a device for radiating UV and/or IR radiation to a human body, comprising: wherein opposing vertical inner surfaces of the circumferential wall are provided with support elements, and wherein said radiation transmitting wall is provided with a support frame, directly or indirectly, attached to a rear side of said radiation transmitting wall, wherein opposing vertical parts of said support frame comprises a plurality of slots configured to co-act with the support elements of the housing for mounting the radiation transmitting wall to the housing.
The Examiner wishes to provide some further comments regarding the prior art considered to be closest to instant claim 1, Ullrich, et al. Ullrich teaches a (Fig. 4, # 1 – housing) tanning module with a housing (Title, Abstract, Par. [0047]). Ullrich also teaches (Fig. 4) in the rectangular housing area 1d, a rectangular first radiation filter 2a and a rectangular second radiation filter 2b (Par. [0047]). While these first and second radiation filters 2a and 2b appear to potentially be opposing inner surfaces of the circumferential wall, it is first noted that these opposing inner surfaces appear to be horizontal instead of vertical. It is further noted that claim 1 requires the circumferential wall to define an accommodating space that accommodates the at least one radiation unit comprising at least one radiation source for radiating UV and/or IR radiation. The Examiner notes that Ullrich’s radiation filters 2a and 2b do not accommodate such a radiation unit comprising at least one radiation source for radiating UV and/or IR radiation. Instead, Ullrich teaches that (Fig. 4, # 3b, 13) a socket 13 for receiving a tanning radiator (i.e., both mechanically and electrically) is in the opening of reflector 3b (Par. [0031]; Par. [0047]). Therefore, even though the radiation filters 2a and 2b appear to potentially include a slot (see annotated Fig. 4 below), there is no way it is co-acting with support elements of the housing (i.e., of the circumferential wall defining said accommodation space for the radiation unit) for mounting the radiation transmitting wall to the housing, as required by the claim. It is also noted that Ullrich does not appear to provide any further guidance regarding the potential slot seen in Fig. 4. Therefore, Ullrich does not reasonably teach or suggest the indicated limitations of instant claim 1.
PNG
media_image1.png
450
608
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Annotated Fig. 4 of Ullrich
No other prior art reference could be found that teaches or renders obvious the limitations of instant claim 1. Due to their dependency on independent claim 1, instant claims 2-6, 11-12, 15-16, 18-20, 28-29, 31, and 35-38 are also considered to contain allowable subject matter.
Therefore, in view of the prior art and its deficiencies, the claimed invention as a whole is rendered novel and non-obvious, and thus, contains allowable subject matter as claimed.
As allowable subject matter has been indicated, applicant's reply must either comply with all formal requirements or specifically traverse each requirement not complied with. See 37 CFR 1.111(b) and MPEP § 707.07(a). Specifically, 35 U.S.C. 112(b) rejections and non-statutory double patenting rejections must be overcome. Please see rejections hereinabove.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure:
Jedrzejewski (U.S. Patent No. 9,950,136)
Hee-eun (KR20050010079)
Chubb, et al. (U.S. Patent No. 5,892,619) – see Fig. 19
Kohler, Jr. (U.S. Patent No. 4,130,120)
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MICHAEL TAYLOR HOLTZCLAW whose telephone number is (571)272-6626. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday (7:30 a.m.-5:00 p.m. 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, Jennifer McDonald can be reached at (571) 270-3061. 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.
/MICHAEL T. HOLTZCLAW/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3796