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
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 the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 1 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Levy et al. (U.S. Patent Application Publication Number 20200368380, from hereinafter “Levy”).
In regards to claim 1, Lev teaches an apparatus for decontaminating a target object (see, i.e., abstract), the apparatus comprising a body defining decontamination chamber (see FIG. 1, at least, the case is the body) a plurality of decontaminating light elements to emit decontaminating radiation in the decontamination chamber (plurality of ultraviolet lights 3781-378b, paragraphs 0071 teaches that these are lamps) and a transmissive mounting structure for supporting the target object in the decontamination chamber (FIGS. 5 and 7, support posts 184, paragraph 0051), the transmissive mounting structure comprising quartz glass (paragraph 0051 teaches quartz for the posts).
In regards to claim 2, Levy teaches that the plurality of decontaminating light elements comprise UVC light elements (paragraphs 0046-0051 at least).
In regards to claim 3, Levy teaches that the plurality of decontaminating light elements comprise UV bulbs or lamps comprising mercury (paragraph 0048 teaches OSRAM UV-C lamps-these comprise mercury).
In regards to claim 4, Levy teaches that the transmissive mounting structure comprises a platform to support the target object above the base of the body (FIG. 9, gripping supports 386 have this configuration in FIG. 5A) and the plurality of decontaminating light elements includes at least one decontaminating light element located below the transmissive mounting structure, wherein the transmissive mounting structure allows transmission of the decontaminating radiation from the at least one decontaminating light element to the target object (FIGS 8-9, lights 378a-378b are clearly below both types of support structure shown in FIG. 9).
In regards to claim 6, Levy teaches that the transmissive mounting structure comprises a transmissive post extending from a base (see, i.e., FIG. 9, support posts 384).
In regards to claim 13, Levy teaches an apparatus for decontaminating a target object (abstract) comprising a body including a base, a sidewall, a lid moveable to an open position and a closed position (see FIGS. 1-4, this is a carrying case in the Levy reference) wherein the body defines a decontamination chamber for receiving a target object (see FIG 1, the chamber is the interior of the case), a mounting structure extending from the base for supporting the target object spaced apart from the body (see, i.e., FIG. 1, support posts 184) and a plurality of decontaminating light elements to decontaminate the target object support supported by the mounting structure (plurality of ultraviolet lights 3781-378b, paragraphs 0071 teaches that these are lamps) .
In regards to claim 14, Levy teaches that the mounting structure comprises a cone-shaped structure (see FIGS 5A and 10, the mounting structures are at least somewhat conical in shape).
In regards to claim 16, Levy teaches that the plurality of decontaminating light elements includes a plurality of decontaminating light elements provided on the body (plurality of ultraviolet lights 3781-378b, paragraphs 0071 teaches that these are lamps) .
In regards to claim 17, Levy teaches that the plurality of decontaminating light elements comprise UVC light elements (paragraphs 0046-0051 at least).
In regards to claim 18, Levy teaches that the plurality of decontaminating light elements comprise UV bulbs or lamps comprising mercury (paragraph 0048 teaches OSRAM UV-C lamps-these comprise mercury).
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.
Claim(s) 9-12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Levy as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Farren et al. (WO 2011/153288, from hereinafter “Farren”).
In regards to claims 9-12, Levy fails to explicitly teach that the apparatus is configured to achieve log 2 through log 5 of the at least one contaminant organism.
Farren teaches that the apparatus is configured to achieve log 2 through log 5 of the at least one contaminant organism (paragraphs 0236-0239).
In view of the teaching of Farren, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed that the apparatus is configured to achieve log 2 through log 5 of the at least one contaminant organism. As Farren discusses, a log 5 reduction is 99.99% sterilization-very nearly 100% of all organisms are killed. As the highest possible sterilization is desired, this would have been obvious.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 4 and 7-8 as well as claim 15 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims. The closest prior art fails to teach affixing the UV elements to the mounting structures themselves.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to NICOLE M IPPOLITO whose telephone number is (571)270-7449. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Thursday 6:00am-4:00pm Mountain Time.
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 H 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.
/NICOLE M IPPOLITO/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2881
Prosecution Insights