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 .
Response to Amendment
Claim amendments filed 22 December 2025 are acknowledged. Claims 1-17 are pending with claims 18-19 being cancelled.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 22 December 2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
The inclusion of the limitations of cancelled dependent claims 18 and 19 into independent claim 1 would not overcome the previously presented 35 U.S.C. 103 rejections applied to claims 18 and 19. Additionally, the applicant argues that the addition of limitation “a wireless communication module including an antenna” would overcome the 35 U.S.C. 103 rejection with respect to Jaques in view of Whiting, Park, Doswell, and Zhang. However, Park teaches the use of a wireless communication module to enable the operation of a sanitation sprayer (program code may be transferred to unit controller over any suitable wireless communications links, paragraph [0068]). While Park does not explicitly teach the construction of an antenna, an antenna is known method of wireless communication.
In response to applicant's argument that the first person camera, ultrasonic distance sensor, and antenna provide benefits not explicitly taught by the prior art, the fact that the inventor has recognized another advantage which would flow naturally from following the suggestion of the prior art cannot be the basis for patentability when the differences would otherwise be obvious. See Ex parte Obiaya, 227 USPQ 58, 60 (Bd. Pat. App. & Inter. 1985).
As a combination of Jaques in view of Whiting, Park, Doswell, and Zhang teaches an motivates all structural features of claimed invention the 35 U.S.C. 103 rejections of claims 1-10, 13, and 17-19 are maintained. It should also be noted that the motivation for combination of prior art features may be different from the current applicants while still being valid. Additionally, the 35 U.S.C. 103 rejections of claims 11-12 with respect to Jaques in view of Whiting, Park, Doswell, Zhang, and Grinstead and the 35 U.S.C. 103 rejections of claims 14-16 with respect to Jaques in view of Whiting, Park, Doswell, Zhang, and Robinson are maintained.
The rejections of claims 18 and 19 are withdrawn due to the claims being cancelled.
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 1-10, 13, and 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Jaques (US 20190105418 A1) in view of Whiting (US 20180133750 A1), Park (US 20180214591 A1), Doswell (US 20160136672 A1), and Zhang (CN 109010879 A).
Regarding claim 1, Jaques teaches a sanitation sprayer (sanitizer delivery device, abstract), comprising: a body (Figure 6 sanitizer delivery device “602”) supported by drive wheels and one or more casters (motorized wheels and push wheels, paragraph [0080]); a boom coupled with the body (Figure 5 lift device “508”), wherein the body is configured to facilitate movement along an aisle between seats (transport device configured to assist the system moving from one position to another, paragraph [0080]); a liquid tank in fluid communication with the nozzles (Figure 5 sanitizer and carrier mixture “507” connected to nozzles “503a”-“503c”); an air compressor/blower system for dispersing a disinfectant stored in the liquid tank (compressed air source, paragraph [0008]), but does not teach nozzles disposed along the length of the boom, wherein the drive wheels are configured to rotate at different speeds so as to steer the sanitation sprayer, one or more electrostatic nozzles wherein the nozzles are configured to electrostatically charge disinfectant exiting the sanitation sprayer, or one or more ultrasonic sensors configured to provide distance detection for centering the sanitation sprayer in an aisle between seats; and a wireless communication module including an antenna, the wireless communication module configured to enable remote operation of the sanitation sprayer and to transmit sensor data from one or more onboard sensors, wherein the one or more onboard sensors include at least one camera configured to provide a first-person view or to enable automated detection of objects or obstructions during operation. However, Whiting teaches nozzles disposed along the length of the boom (Figure 1 nozzles “103” placed on the length of the vertical boom assembly “10”). Whiting does not teach wherein the drive wheels are configured to rotate at different speeds so as to steer the sanitation sprayer, one or more electrostatic nozzles wherein the nozzles are configured to electrostatically charge disinfectant exiting the sanitation sprayer, or one or more ultrasonic sensors configured to provide distance detection for centering the sanitation sprayer in an aisle between seats; and a wireless communication module including an antenna, the wireless communication module configured to enable remote operation of the sanitation sprayer and to transmit sensor data from one or more onboard sensors, wherein the one or more onboard sensors include at least one camera configured to provide a first-person view or to enable automated detection of objects or obstructions during operation.
Jaques and Whiting are considered analogous to the current invention because all are in the field of portable spraying apparatuses. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to combine the sanitation sprayer taught by Jaques with the boom assembly taught by Whiting because Whiting teaches the boom design advantageously allows for equal liquid pressurization across the manifold (paragraph [0053]).
Park teaches or one or more electrostatic nozzles wherein the nozzles are configured to electrostatically charge disinfectant exiting the sanitation sprayer (nozzles equipped with electrostatic charging devices, paragraph [0060]); and a wireless communication module including an antenna, the wireless communication module configured to enable remote operation of the sanitation sprayer and to transmit sensor data from one or more onboard sensors (program code may be transferred to unit controller over any suitable wireless communications links, paragraph [0068]), wherein the one or more onboard sensors include at least one camera configured to provide a first-person view or to enable automated detection of objects or obstructions during operation (Figure 3A the sensor which may be a camera “328” is mounted at the top of the device so only the surroundings and not the spraying device would be in view exemplified by view of the camera “328e” in operation in figure 5A). While the combination of Jaques, Whiting, Park, and Doswell does not explicitly disclose the camera provides a first-person view, an apparatus claim pertains to what the device is not what the device does. Therefore, the camera taught in the combination of Jaques, Whiting, and Park fulfills the limitation recited in claim 19 (See MPEP 2144 II). Park does not teach wherein the drive wheels are configured to rotate at different speeds so as to steer the sanitation sprayer, or one or more ultrasonic sensors configured to provide distance detection for centering the sanitation sprayer in an aisle between seats.
Jaques Whiting, and Park are considered analogous to the current invention because all are in the field of mobile spraying apparatuses. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to further modify the nozzle configuration taught by Jaques, Whiting, and Park with the electrostatic charging devices taught by Park because Park teaches that electrostatic charge causes decontamination droplets to more rapidly adhere to surfaces (paragraph [0060]). Additionally, Park teaches the camera advantageously allows for observation of the droplets on the surface to determine sufficient decontamination coverage (paragraph [0083]), and the wireless communication module advantageously allows for information exchange between multiple decontamination units (paragraph [0070]). While, Park does not explicitly teach an antenna, an antenna is known method of wireless communication. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to use an antenna to facilitate wireless communication as taught by Park with a reasonable expectation of success (See MPEP 2143 I (E)).
Doswell teaches drive wheels are configured to rotate at different speeds so as to steer the sanitation sprayer as desired (wheels are supported by individual axle members which allows for independent movement, paragraph [0087]), but does not teach one or more ultrasonic sensors configured to provide distance detection for centering the sanitation sprayer in an aisle between seats.
Jaques, Whiting, Park, and Doswell are considered analogous to the current invention because all are in the field of mobile spraying apparatuses. Therefore, it would have been obvious to combine the sanitation device taught by Jaques, Whiting, and Park with the individually controlled wheels taught by Doswell because Doswell teaches it assists with steering (paragraph [0087]).
Zhang teaches one or more ultrasonic sensors configured to provide distance detection for centering the sanitation sprayer in an aisle between seats (environment detection device including an ultrasonic sensor module to obtain environment information, paragraph [0076]).
Jaques, Whiting, Park, Doswell, and Zhang are considered analogous to the current invention because all are in the field of mobile spraying apparatuses. Therefore, it would have been obvious to combine the sanitation device taught by Jaques, Whiting, Park, and Doswell with the ultrasonic sensor taught by Zhang because Zhang teaches the ultrasonic sensor allows for the device to avoid obstacles on the route and the planned route can be walked (paragraph [0076]).
Regarding claim 2, the combination of Jaques, Whiting, Park, Doswell, Zhang teaches all aspects of the current invention as discussed above except wherein the body has a narrow width to facilitate moving along an aisle between airplane seats. However, Park further teaches the use of a mobile decontamination unit in an aircraft (Figure 1C decontamination unit “300” used in airplane aisle).
Jaques, Whiting, Park, Doswell, and Zhang are considered analogous to the current invention because all are in the field of mobile spraying apparatuses. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to further modify the mobile sanitization unit taught by Jaques, Whiting, Park, Doswell, and Zhang with the device width capable to fit in an aisle between seats taught by Park because Park teaches that the configuration allows aircraft cabins to be efficiently decontaminated (paragraph [0043]).
Regarding claim 3, the combination of Jaques, Whiting, Park, Doswell, and Zhang teaches all aspects of the current invention as discussed above including wherein the width of the body is configured to match an airline galley cart (Figure 1C decontamination unit “300” used in an airplane aisle as a galley cart is, Park).
Regarding claim 4, the combination of Jaques, Whiting, Park, Doswell, and Zhang teaches all aspects of the current invention including wherein the drive wheels are configured to rotate at different speeds so as to steer the sanitation sprayer as desired (wheels are supported by individual axle members which allows for independent movement, paragraph [0087], Doswell).
Regarding claim 5, the combination of Jaques, Whiting, Park, Doswell, and Zhang teaches all aspects of the current invention except wherein the one or more casters are of a swivel verity that allows the drive wheels to steer the sanitation sprayer in various desirable directions. However, Doswell further teaches the one or more casters are of a swivel verity that allows the drive wheels to steer the sanitation sprayer in various desirable directions (rotatably supported wheels, paragraph [0089]).
Jaques, Whiting, Park, Doswell, and Zhang are analogous to the current invention as discussed above. Therefore, it would have been obvious to further modify the sanitation device taught by Jaques, Whiting, Park, Doswell, and Zhang with the rotatable supported wheels taught by Doswell because Doswell teaches it assists with steering (paragraph [0087]).
Regarding claim 6, the combination of Jaques, Whiting, Park, Doswell, and Zhang teaches wherein the boom comprises a generally elongate member that is vertically erected with respect to the body by way of a boom support (Figure 1 boom assembly “10” extends vertically in reference to spraying system “100” and supportably mounted to chassis “106”, Jaques).
Regarding claim 7, the combination of Jaques, Whiting, Park, Doswell, and Zhang teaches all aspects of the current invention except wherein a stack light is disposed atop the boom support and configured to provide a visual indication of any of various operating modes of the sanitation sprayer. However Doswell teaches further wherein a stack light is disposed atop the boom support and configured to provide a visual indication of any of various operating modes of the sanitation sprayer (nozzle cap includes a number of colored LEDs to show operational status, paragraph [0105] on top of support column, paragraph [0098]).
Jaques, Whiting, Park, Doswell, and Zhang are analogous to the current invention as discussed above. Therefore it would have been obvious to further modify the sanitation device taught by Jaques, Whiting, Park, Doswell, and Zhang with the visual indicator taught by Doswell because Doswell teaches that the multicolor LEDs are the preferred embodiment for visual indicators (paragraph [0125]).
Regarding claim 8, the combination of Jaques, Whiting, Park, Doswell, and Zhang teaches all aspects of the current invention as discussed above except wherein the nozzles include side nozzles that are configured to spray disinfectant to the sides of the sanitation sprayer. However, Park further teaches side nozzles that are configured to spray disinfectant to the sides of the sanitation sprayer (Figure 3A nozzles “322” disposed on the sides of the decontamination unit).
Jaques, Whiting, Park, Doswell, and Zhang are analogous to the current invention as discussed above. Therefore, it would have been obvious to further modify the sanitation unit taught by Jaques, Whiting, Park, Doswell, and Zhang with the side facing nozzles taught by Park because Park teaches that a variety of nozzle locations advantageously allows for all surfaces to get adequate decontamination (paragraph [0080]).
Regarding claim 9, the combination of Jaques, Whiting, Park, Doswell, and Zhang teaches all aspects of the current invention as discussed above including where the nozzles include front nozzles that are configured to spray the disinfectant in a forward direction with respect to the sanitation sprayer (Figure 8A depicts four forward facing nozzles, Jaques).
Regarding claim 10, the combination of Jaques, Whiting, Park, Doswell, and Zhang teaches all aspects of the current invention including wherein the side nozzles and the front nozzles are of an electrostatic variety configured to positively or negatively charge the disinfectant exiting the sanitation sprayer (nozzles equipped with electrostatic charging devices, paragraph [0060], Park).
Regarding claim 13, the combination of Jaques, Whiting, Park, Doswell, and Zhang teaches wherein the liquid tank is configured to hold a desired volume of liquid disinfectant to be sprayed into an indoor space (reservoir configured to hold a sanitizer in liquid form configured to be misted, paragraph [0008], Jaques).
Regarding claim 17, the combination of Jaques, Whiting, Park, Doswell, and Zhang teaches further comprising one or more modules that include electronic equipment for remotely operating the sanitation sprayer (sanitizer delivery device may include a portable spray unit with remote control, paragraph [0040], Jaques).
Claims 11-12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Jaques in view of Whiting, Park, Doswell, and Zhang as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Grinstead (US 20190167829 A1).
Regarding claim 11, the combination of Jaques, Whiting, Park, Doswell, and Zhang teaches all aspects of the current invention as discussed above except wherein a control panel includes multiple switches and indicator lights configured to facilitate operation of the sanitation sprayer. However Grinstead teaches a control panel includes multiple switches and indicator lights configured to facilitate operation of the sanitation sprayer (digital display with LED showing fogging device information and has input devices such as buttons and knobs, paragraph [0048]).
Jaques, Whiting, Park, Doswell, Zhang, and Grinstead are considered analogous to the current invention because all are in the field of portable spraying apparatuses. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to combine the sanitation device taught by Jaques, Whiting, Park, Doswell, and Zhang with the control panel taught by Grinstead because Grinstead teaches the control panel allows for maintenance needs and job performance of the device may be monitored (paragraph [0048]).
Regarding claim 12, the combination of Jaques, Whiting, Park, Doswell, Zhang, and Grinstead teaches all aspects of the current invention except wherein the control panel includes an E-stop pushbutton configured to enable a practitioner to immediately cease operation of the sanitation sprayer. However, Grinstead further teaches an E-stop pushbutton configured to enable a practitioner to immediately cease operation of the sanitation sprayer (emergency stop button is available, paragraph [0071]).
Jaques, Whiting, Park, Doswell, Zhang, and Grinstead are considered analogous to the current invention as discussed above. While Grinstead does not specifically disclose the location of the emergency stop button, the rearrangement of part will not constitute patentable subject matter unless it modifies the operation of the device (See MPEP 2144.04 VI (C)). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to further modify the control panel taught by Jaques, Whiting, Park, Doswell, Zhang, and Grinstead with the emergency stop button taught by Grinstead because Grinstead teaches the emergency stop as a safety feature to ensure the sanitation chemicals are not releases while a person is present (paragraph [0074]).
Claims 14-16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Jaques in view of Whiting, Park, Doswell, and Zhang as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Robinson (US 20220088256 A1).
Regarding claim 14, the combination of Jaques, Whiting, Park, Doswell, and Zhang teaches all aspects of the current invention except wherein the air compressor/blower system includes an air compressor/blower motor, a blower output plenum, and an air filter. However, Robinson teaches an air compressor/blower motor (blower motor, paragraph [0022]), a blower output plenum (ducts, paragraph [0023]), and an air filter (air passed through air filter, paragraph [0023]).
Jaques, Whiting, Park, Doswell, and Zhang and Robinson are considered analogous to the current invention because all are in the field of spraying apparatuses. Therefore, it would have been obvious to combine the sanitation device taught by Jaques, Whiting, Park, Doswell, and Zhang and the air blower system taught by Robinson because Robinson teaches this air blower configuration allows for control of particle concentration in the disinfecting mist (abstract).
Regarding claim 15, the combination of Jaques, Whiting, Park, Doswell, Zhang, and Robinson teaches all aspects of the current invention as discussed above except wherein the air compressor blower motor intakes air through the air filter and outputs air through the blower output plenum to a manifold system that is in fluid communication with the nozzles. However, Robinson further teaches the air compressor blower motor intakes air through the air filter and outputs air through the blower output plenum to a manifold system that is in fluid communication with the nozzles (air enters device through the filter via blower motor and is directed through ducts towards the air nozzles, paragraph [0022]-[0023]).
Jaques, Whiting, Park, Doswell, Zhang, and Robinson are considered analogous to the current invention as discussed above. Therefore, it would have been obvious to further modify the compressor system taught by Jaques, Whiting, Park, Doswell, Zhang, and Robinson with the equipment orientation taught by Robinson because Robinson teaches that the filter will advantageously remove particles contained in the air delivered through the disinfectant misting device (paragraph [0022]).
Regarding claim 16, the combination of Jaques, Whiting, Park, Doswell, Zhang, and Robinson teaches all aspect of the current invention as discussed above except wherein a water pump pushes the liquid disinfectant from the liquid tank to the manifold. However, Robinson further teaches a water pump pushes the liquid disinfectant from the liquid tank to the manifold (fluid reservoir connected to a pump, paragraph [0020]).
Jaques, Whiting, Park, Doswell, Zhang, and Robinson are considered analogous to the current invention as discussed above. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to further modify the sanitation sprayer device taught by Jaques, Whiting, Park, Doswell, Zhang, and Robinson with the liquid pump taught by Robinson because Robinson teaches that the pump allows for a specific level of fluid is maintained to generate mist most effectively (paragraph [0031]).
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 KAYLA ROSE SARANTAKOS whose telephone number is (703)756-5524. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri 7:00-4:00.
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.
/K.R.S./Examiner, Art Unit 1799
/DONALD R SPAMER/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1799