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 Interpretation
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.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1, 4 & 7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Stewart (U.S. Publication No. 2021/0308311).
Stewart discloses a sterilization method for sterilizing a predetermined area of human activity comprising (paragraphs 19-21):
Setting sterilization area within the area of human activity (paragraphs 25 & 40);
Setting peripheral area that are adjacent to or in proximity to the sterilization area (paragraphs 28 & 40);
Acquiring peripheral area information relating to the peripheral area (paragraphs 29 & 40);
Determining an irradiation mode (i.e., on or off) for irradiating sterilization electromagnetic waves onto the sterilization area based on the peripheral area information (paragraphs 29 & 40); and
Irradiating sterilization electromagnetic wave onto the sterilization area in the irradiation mode (paragraphs 23, 29 & 40).
Concerning claim 4, Stewart also discloses wherein human presence information showing whether or not a person is present within the peripheral areas is included in the peripheral area information, and in a case in which the human presence information shows that a person is present within the peripheral areas, an irradiation intensity, which is one of the irradiation modes of the sterilization electromagnetic waves, is set to 0 (paragraphs 29 & 40).
Regarding claim 7, Stewart continues to disclose a sterilization system that sterilizes a predetermined area of human activity (paragraphs 19-21) comprising:
a sterilization electromagnetic wave emitting device (100) that emits sterilization electromagnetic waves (paragraphs 19, 20 & 23); and
A control device that controls the sterilization electromagnetic wave emitting device (paragraphs 21-23), wherein the control device:
Sets a sterilization area within the area of human activity based on an input from a user (paragraph 25);
Sets peripheral areas that are adjacent to or in proximity to the sterilization area (paragraphs 29 & 40);
Acquires peripheral area information, which is information relating to the peripheral areas (paragraphs 29 & 40); and
Based on the peripheral area information, decides an irradiation mode (i.e., on or off) for irradiating the sterilization electromagnetic waves onto the sterilization area, and then controls the sterilization electromagnetic wave emitting device such that this irradiation mode is implemented (paragraphs 29 & 40).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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.
Claims 5 & 6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Stewart (U.S. Publication No. 2021/0308311) in view of Kupa et al. (U.S. Publication No. 2021/0018884).
With respect to claims 5 & 6, Stewart is relied upon as set forth above. While Stewart continues to disclose that the irradiation mode is decided based additionally on sterilization area information acquired from the sterilization area by a sensor (paragraphs 20 & 23), and in a case in which a person is present in the sterilization area, the irradiation of the sterilization electromagnetic waves is halted (paragraph 26); the reference does not appear to disclose that the irradiation mode is decided based additionally on a degree of contamination of the sterilization area that is determined by the length of stay of a person prior to sterilization, and an irradiation amount is decided in accordance with the degree of contamination in the relevant area prior to the sterilization electromagnetic waves being irradiated thereon. Kupa discloses a sterilization method for sterilizing a predetermined area of human activity by irradiating sterilization electromagnetic waves onto the sterilization area in an irradiation mode (Abstract; Figure 1). The reference continues to disclose that the irradiation mode is decided based additionally on a degree of contamination of the sterilization area that is determined by the length of stay of a person prior to sterilization, and an irradiation amount is decided in accordance with the degree of contamination in the relevant area prior to the sterilization electromagnetic waves being irradiated thereon in order to ensure the proper amount of UV radiation is applied to the sterilization area to successfully sterilize said area (paragraphs 55 & 56). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to decide the irradiation mode additionally on a degree of contamination of the sterilization area that is determined by the length of stay of a person prior to sterilization, and an irradiation amount is decided in accordance with the degree of contamination in the relevant area prior to the sterilization electromagnetic waves being irradiated thereon in order to ensure the proper amount of UV radiation is applied to the sterilization area to successfully sterilize said area as exemplified by Kupa.
As such, claims 5 & 6 are not patentable over Stewart in view of Kupa.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 2 & 3 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.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to KEVIN C JOYNER whose telephone number is (571)272-2709. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 8:00AM-4:30PM.
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, MICHAEL MARCHESCHI can be reached at (571) 272-1374. 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.
/KEVIN JOYNER/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1799
Prosecution Insights