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 .
Election/Restrictions
Applicant's election with traverse of claims 1-17 in the reply filed on 5/18/26 is acknowledged. The traversal is on the ground(s) that there is no search and examination burden. This is not found persuasive because the two groups fall under different statutory categories of invention and therefore require a different search and examination strategy.
The requirement is still deemed proper and is therefore made FINAL.
Claim Objections
Claims 6 and 15 are objected to because of the following informalities:
Claims 6 and 15 should read “monitor duty cycles” for grammatical purposes.
Appropriate 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.
Claims 1-2 and 7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Engelhardt (US 8,296,493) in view of Havens (US 2008/0265179).
Regarding claim 1, Engelhardt (US 8,296,493) teaches –
An ultraviolet (UV) sterilization device (title, abstract, Figs. 1-9) comprising:
a housing defining a cavity therein (Fig. 1 specifically, enclosure 30 defines an interior space), and having a door configured to permit access to the cavity (door 40);
at least one tray carried within the cavity and configured to receive at least one device (Fig. 4 specifically, means of support 70 and reflective inner surfaces 90 define a tray for holding a device, Col. 3 lines 64-67);
at least one UV light (UV light sources 62 and 65, Col. 4 lines 23-32) carried within the cavity adjacent the at least one tray (Fig. 4 shows this)
the at least one tray comprising a material transparent to the emission spectrum (Col. 3 lines 64-67 disclose the tray transmits the disinfecting radiation from the lights and thus is transparent to it); and
a controller coupled to the at least one UV CBA and configured to selectively power the at least one UV CBA for disinfecting the at least one device (Figs. 1 and 3 Control circuit 100, col. 4 lines 33-45 disclose the circuit operates and thus powers the disinfecting sources).
Engelhardt appears to be silent with regards to the light source including a circuit board with LEDs thereon and the LEDs irradiating with an emission spectrum having a spectral width less than the entire UV band.
Havens (US 2008/0265179) teaches an ultraviolet sterilization device (title, abstract) including a light source that includes a circuit board with LEDs thereon (Fig. 1 UV light system 105; pars. 29-30 teaches these lights 105 include LED chips, the chips and wall structure together forming a circuit board structure) and the LEDs irradiating with an emission spectrum having a spectral width less than the entire UV band (par. 30 specifically teaches the LEDs emitting UV light in a specific band that is less than the entire band, for example UV-C light). 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 Engelhardt such that the light source includes a circuit board with LEDs thereon and the LEDs irradiating with an emission spectrum having a spectral width less than the entire UV band as taught by Havens to arrive at the claimed invention. One would have been motivated to do so to take advantage of the high efficiency of LED light sources and to tailor the level of sterilization for the particular application of sterilizing devices to arrive at an improved device.
Regarding claim 2, modified Engelhardt further teaches the plurality of LED UV sources is configured to perform 360 degree irradiation of the at least one device without UV shadowing (Col. 4 lines 15-17 teach all of the surfaces of the device are exposed to the disinfecting light).
Regarding claim 7, modified Engelhardt further teaches the material comprises quartz (Havens teaches the tray 207 being made of quartz, par. 42).
Claims 3-4 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Engelhardt (US 8,296,493) in view of Havens (US 2008/0265179) as applied to claim 1 above and further in view of Paskal (US 2005/120593).
Regarding claim 3, modified Engelhardt appears to be silent with regards to a positive air pressure source to create positive air pressure when the door is open.
Paskal (US 2005/120593) teaches a sterilizing container (system 10) including a positive air pressure source (Fig. 2 fan 74) for maintaining positive pressure within the system, thereby reducing contaminants entering the system and maintained the items that are sanitized in a sanitized state (abstract, p. 6 lines 28-34). 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 Engelhardt such that it includes a positive air pressure source as taught by Paskal to create positive air pressure when the door is open to arrive at the claimed invention. One would have been motivated to do so to expel contaminants from the enclosure to arrive at an improved device.
Regarding claim 4, modified Engelhardt further teaches an air filter coupled to the positive air pressure source (Paskal teaches a filter 72 of filtered air system 70).
Claim 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Engelhardt (US 8,296,493) in view of Havens (US 2008/0265179) as applied to claim 1 above and further in view of Lin (US 2018/0055959).
Regarding claim 5, modified Engelhardt appears to be silent with regards to the controller driving the plurality of LED UV sources with a stepped waveform.
Lin (US 2018/0055959) teaches a UV sanitizing system (abstract) including a light source that is controlled to be driven with a stepped waveform (par. 45 discloses a step waveform being controlled by control unit 120, par. 52 disclose the advantages of using different frequencies). 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 Engelhardt such that the LEDs are driven with a stepped waveform as taught by Lin to arrive at the claimed invention. One would have been motivated to do so to more effectively and efficiently sterilize the at least one device to arrive at an improved sterilization device.
Claim 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Engelhardt (US 8,296,493) in view of Havens (US 2008/0265179) as applied to claim 1 above and further in view of Bettles (US 2015/0297768).
Regarding claim 6, modified Engelhardt appears to be silent with regards to monitoring a duty cycle of the plurality of UV sources.
Bettles (US 2015/0297768) teaches a UV sterilization device (abstract) including a controller that is configured to monitor a duty cycle of the plurality of LED UV sources (par. 48 control system 16). 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 Engelhardt such that duty cycles of the LEDs are monitored and controlled as taught by Bettles to arrive at the claimed invention. One would have been motivated to do so to adjust and monitor the performance of the LEDs in response to data such as the device to be sterilized to arrive at an improved sterilization device.
Claim 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Engelhardt (US 8,296,493) in view of Havens (US 2008/0265179) as applied to claim 1 above and further in view of Shur (US 2018/0185529).
Regarding claim 8, Engelhardt appears to be silent with regards to the controller selectively powering the UV CBA when the at least one device is detected on a respective tray.
Shur (US 2018/0185529), with an effective filing date of 12/29/2016, teaches an object disinfection device wherein the tray can sense the presence of an object before activating the sterilizing lights (Figs. 1-3 light emitting sources 12a, fluorescent source 18 and sensor 20, load sensor 22, and element 24; Paragraphs [0037]-[0039]). 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 taught by Engelhardt such that the controller can power the UV CBAs when the mobile device is detected on a respective tray as taught by Shur to arrive at the claimed invention. One would have been motivated to do so in order to save energy by only powering the CBAs when needed, and to give the operator more control over the performance of the device to arrive at an improve disinfection device. The combination of familiar prior art elements according to known methods to arrive at the predictable result of an improved disinfection device is prima facie obviousness. See MPEP 2143(I)(A) for more details.
Claims 9-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Engelhardt (US 8,296,493) in view of Havens (US 2008/0265179) as applied to claim 1 above and further in view of Sunkara (US 2015/0118107).
Regarding claim 9, modified Engelhardt appears to be silent with regards to a keypad.
Sunkara (US 2015/0118107) teaches a sterilization enclosure wherein there is a keypad for entering a passcode in order to access the contents of the cabinet (Paragraph [0079]). 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 taught by Engelhardt such that there is a keypad carried on an external surface of said housing and coupled to said controller; and wherein said controller is configured to unlock said door based upon a code received from said keypad as taught by Sunkara to arrive at the claimed invention. One would have been motivated to do so in order to prevent unauthorized individuals from tampering with the contents of the sterilization cabinet to arrive at an improved apparatus. All of the claimed features are taught by the prior art and an ordinary artisan could have combined them to arrive at nothing more than predictable results. See MPEP 2143(I)(A) for more details.
Regarding claim 10, modified Engelhardt appear to be silent with regards to a transceiver, server and wireless base station.
Sunkara (US 2015/0118107) teaches a disinfecting cabinet (title, abstract) including a wireless transceiver communicating with a server (par. 83 discloses the device connects to a central server over WiFi) communicating via a wireless base station (the additional computers in the network read on this limitation, see also par. 83). 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 Engelhardt such that it includes a wireless transceiver coupled to the controller communicating via a wireless base station as taught by Sunkara to arrive at the claimed invention. One would have been motivated to do so to wirelessly control the operation of the device to arrive at an improved device.
Claim 11 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Engelhardt (US 8,296,493) in view of Havens (US 2008/0265179) as applied to claim 1 above and further in view of Rascooly (US 2018/013572).
Regarding claim 11, Engelhardt appears to be silent with regards to an NFC device to unlock the door.
Rascooly (US 2018/013572) teaches a sterilization system (abstract) including a near field communications (NFC) device configured to communicate with the at least one device when external to the cavity and unlock the door when the at least one device is authorized (pars. 114-115 discloses the lid only being operated when a detected authorized catheter is detected by a near field communication system incorporated into the catheter and device). 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 Engelhardt such that it includes an NFC device to unlock the door when the device is authorized to process the device with the sterilizer as taught by Rascooly to arrive at the claimed invention. One would have been motivated to do so to ensure only authorized users and devices can access the device to arrive at a more secure sterilizer.
Claims 12-13 and 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Engelhardt (US 8,296,493) in view of Havens (US 2008/0265179) in view of Paskal (US 2005/120593) in view of Sunkara (US 2015/0118107).
Regarding claim 12, Engelhardt (US 8,296,493) teaches –
An ultraviolet (UV) sterilization device (title, abstract, Figs. 1-9) comprising:
a housing defining a cavity therein (Fig. 1 specifically, enclosure 30 defines an interior space), and having a door configured to permit access to the cavity (door 40);
at least one tray carried within the cavity and configured to receive at least one device (Fig. 4 specifically, means of support 70 and reflective inner surfaces 90 define a tray for holding a device, Col. 3 lines 64-67);
at least one UV light (UV light sources 62 and 65, Col. 4 lines 23-32) carried within the cavity adjacent the at least one tray (Fig. 4 shows this),
the light sources configured to
perform 360 degree irradiation of the at least one device without UV shadowing (Col. 4 lines 15-17 teach all of the surfaces of the device are exposed to the disinfecting light);
a controller coupled to the at least one UV CBA and configured to selectively power the at least one UV CBA for disinfecting the at least one device (Figs. 1 and 3 Control circuit 100, col. 4 lines 33-45 disclose the circuit operates and thus powers the disinfecting sources).
Engelhardt appears to be silent with regards to the light source including a circuit board with LEDs thereon, the LEDs irradiating with an emission spectrum having a spectral width less than the entire UV band, a positive air pressure source, and a wireless transceiver communicating with a server via a base station.
Regarding the limitations directed towards a circuit board and the emission spectrum: Havens (US 2008/0265179) teaches an ultraviolet sterilization device (title, abstract) including a light source that includes a circuit board with LEDs thereon (Fig. 1 UV light system 105; pars. 29-30 teaches these lights 105 include LED chips, the chips and wall structure together forming a circuit board structure) and the LEDs irradiating with an emission spectrum having a spectral width less than the entire UV band (par. 30 specifically teaches the LEDs emitting UV light in a specific band that is less than the entire band, for example UV-C light). 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 Engelhardt such that the light source includes a circuit board with LEDs thereon and the LEDs irradiating with an emission spectrum having a spectral width less than the entire UV band as taught by Havens to arrive at the claimed invention. One would have been motivated to do so to take advantage of the high efficiency of LED light sources and to tailor the level of sterilization for the particular application of sterilizing devices to arrive at an improved device.
Regarding the limitation directed towards a pressure source: Paskal (US 2005/120593) teaches a sterilizing container (system 10) including a positive air pressure source (Fig. 2 fan 74) for maintaining positive pressure within the system, thereby reducing contaminants entering the system and maintained the items that are sanitized in a sanitized state (abstract, p. 6 lines 28-34). 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 Engelhardt such that it includes a positive air pressure source as taught by Paskal to create positive air pressure when the door is open to arrive at the claimed invention. One would have been motivated to do so to expel contaminants from the enclosure to arrive at an improved device.
Regarding the limitation directed towards a wireless transceiver: Sunkara (US 2015/0118107) teaches a disinfecting cabinet (title, abstract) including a wireless transceiver communicating with a server (par. 83 discloses the device connects to a central server over WiFi) communicating via a wireless base station (the additional computers in the network read on this limitation, see also par. 83). 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 Engelhardt such that it includes a wireless transceiver coupled to the controller communicating via a wireless base station as taught by Sunkara to arrive at the claimed invention. One would have been motivated to do so to wirelessly control the operation of the device to arrive at an improved device.
Regarding claim 13, modified Engelhardt further teaches an air filter coupled to the positive air pressure source (Paskal teaches a filter 72 of filtered air system 70).
Regarding claim 16, modified Engelhardt further teaches the material comprises quartz (Havens teaches the tray 207 being made of quartz, par. 42).
Claim 14 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Engelhardt (US 8,296,493) in view of Havens (US 2008/0265179) in view of Paskal (US 2005/120593) in view of Sunkara (US 2015/0118107) as applied to claim 13 above and further in view of Lin (US 2018/0055959).
Regarding claim 14, modified Engelhardt appears to be silent with regards to the controller driving the plurality of LED UV sources with a stepped waveform.
Lin (US 2018/0055959) teaches a UV sanitizing system (abstract) including a light source that is controlled to be driven with a stepped waveform (par. 45 discloses a step waveform being controlled by control unit 120, par. 52 disclose the advantages of using different frequencies). 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 Engelhardt such that the LEDs are driven with a stepped waveform as taught by Lin to arrive at the claimed invention. One would have been motivated to do so to more effectively and efficiently sterilize the at least one device to arrive at an improved sterilization device.
Claim 15 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Engelhardt (US 8,296,493) in view of Havens (US 2008/0265179) in view of Paskal (US 2005/120593) in view of Sunkara (US 2015/0118107) as applied to claim 13 above and further in view of Bettles (US 2015/0297768).
Regarding claim 15, modified Engelhardt appears to be silent with regards to monitoring a duty cycle of the plurality of UV sources.
Bettles (US 2015/0297768) teaches a UV sterilization device (abstract) including a controller that is configured to monitor a duty cycle of the plurality of LED UV sources (par. 48 control system 16). 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 Engelhardt such that duty cycles of the LEDs are monitored and controlled as taught by Bettles to arrive at the claimed invention. One would have been motivated to do so to adjust and monitor the performance of the LEDs in response to data such as the device to be sterilized to arrive at an improved sterilization device.
Claim 17 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Engelhardt (US 8,296,493) in view of Havens (US 2008/0265179) in view of Paskal (US 2005/120593) in view of Sunkara (US 2015/0118107) as applied to claim 13 above and further in view of Shur (US 2018/0185529).
Regarding claim 17, Engelhardt appears to be silent with regards to the controller selectively powering the UV CBA when the at least one device is detected on a respective tray.
Shur (US 2018/0185529), with an effective filing date of 12/29/2016, teaches an object disinfection device wherein the tray can sense the presence of an object before activating the sterilizing lights (Figs. 1-3 light emitting sources 12a, fluorescent source 18 and sensor 20, load sensor 22, and element 24; Paragraphs [0037]-[0039]). 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 taught by Engelhardt such that the controller can power the UV CBAs when the mobile device is detected on a respective tray as taught by Shur to arrive at the claimed invention. One would have been motivated to do so in order to save energy by only powering the CBAs when needed, and to give the operator more control over the performance of the device to arrive at an improve disinfection device. The combination of familiar prior art elements according to known methods to arrive at the predictable result of an improved disinfection device is prima facie obviousness. See MPEP 2143(I)(A) for more details.
Conclusion
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