DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
1. 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
2. The amendment filed 01 December 2025 has been received and considered for examination. Claims 1-6 and 9-22 are presently pending, with claims 1-6 withdrawn from consideration and claims 9-22 being examined herein.
3. All objections and rejections from the previous Office action are withdrawn in view of Applicant’s amendment.
4. New grounds of rejection under 35 U.S.C. 103 are necessitated by the amendment, as detailed below.
Claim Interpretation
5. 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.
6. 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.
7. This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitation(s) is/are: “facial recognition module” in claim 16.
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof, namely a video camera used in conjunction with any conventional facial identification software (page 7).
If applicant does not intend 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 avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
8. 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.
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.
9. Claims 9-11, 13-15, 18, and 21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Brown et al (US 20150246151 A1) in view of Jurak et al (US 20140193296 A1).
10. Regarding claim 9, Brown discloses a vehicle (decontamination system on-board a vehicle, Abstract, pars 0006-0008, FIG. 4A) comprising:
an internal occupant compartment (interior space of the vehicle, par 0022; personnel in the interior space, par 0008);
at least one disinfectant dispersal unit (nozzle 32 through which the disinfectant solution is delivered under pressure with compressed air to atomize the solution, par 0034) within the internal occupant compartment (FIG. 4A, system 10);
a disinfectant storage tank (FIGS. 1-3, reservoir 12) fluidly connected to the at least one disinfectant dispersal unit (fluid communication with the reservoir 12, deliver the disinfectant solution from the reservoir 12 to the nozzle assembly 22, pars 0027 and 0042-0043);
at least one occupant sensor configured to automatically detect occupants within the internal occupant compartment (motion detector 40 is configured for signal communication with the controller 26 to indicate whether or not a person is in the interior space, par 0039);
a controller controllably coupled to the at least one disinfectant dispersal units (programmable controller 26 to control the activation and deactivation of the air compressors 20 and pumps 24 to deliver the disinfectant solution, par 0028), the disinfectant storage tank (flow meter 34 in signal communication with the controller 26…to monitor the flow rate of the solution from the reservoir 12 to the nozzle 32, par 0036) and the at least one occupant sensor (motion detector 40 is configured for signal communication with the controller 26, par 0039), the controller being further configured to automatically make a detection of an end of vehicle operation (vehicle communication system may transmit signals to the controller 26 indicative of the status of these vehicle operations, par 0049; once…the vehicle operations described above are completed, the controller 26 activates the pumps 24 and air compressors 20 to deliver the disinfectant solution, par 0050), and subsequently, in response to the detection (once…the vehicle operations described above are completed, pars 0049-0050), analyze sensor data from the at least one occupant sensor to determine when there are no occupants (if motion is detected…the controller 26 will not initiate the operations, par 0049), when at least one occupant is determined to be present, withhold the automatic dispersal of the nebulized disinfectant (if motion is detected during this staging mode or first time duration, the controller 26 will not initiate the operations, par 0049) and continue to analyze the sensor data from the at least one occupant sensor (until the motion detector detects no motion for a preset time duration, par 0049) and when there are no occupants as determined by the controller (once staging phase has elapsed and vehicle operations described above are completed, par 0050), automatically disperse a nebulized disinfectant from the disinfectant storage tank into the internal occupant compartment using the at least one disinfectant dispersal unit (controller 26 activates the pumps 24 and air compressors 20 to deliver the disinfectant solution and compressed air to the nozzle 32 to atomize the solution and inject the same into the interior space, par 0050); and
at least one display communicatively coupled to the controller (communications cable 78 such as an RJ-45 Ethernet cable provides connection between the input device 42, such as a touchscreen display, and the controller 26, par 0047) and visible from an exterior of the vehicle (touchscreen monitor may be mounted somewhere in the cab of the vehicle such as the console area, par 0047, which is substantially the same as the location of visible display 40 in present FIG. 1), wherein the controller is configured to cause the at least one display to indicate, to an individual located outside the vehicle, a time remaining in a disinfectant process (FIG. 11, for "Time", the screen will display data related to the different phases of the decontamination operation, par 0048). As the ‘Time’ mode of Brown includes the display of data related to the different phases of the decontamination process primarily as operating variables (par 0048, FIGS. 11-12), Brown does not provide sufficient teaching that the display would indicate time remaining in the disinfectant process as performed by the dispersal of the nebulized disinfectant while the process is ongoing.
Jurak teaches an analogous sterilization unit using cycles of circulating disinfectant (par 0045) within an enclosed space such as an automobile (par 0042) with a similar display present to provide a countdown of the time remaining in an ozone generation cycle or until an ozone generation cycle is scheduled to begin (par 0045), to alert users of the current status of the sterilization unit (par 0045).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to configure the display of Brown to indicate a numerical countdown of time remaining during the disinfection process as taught by Jurak, as such an indication would predictably signal to a user the status toward completion of sanitization in the same manner and involves combination of prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results. See MPEP 2143(I)(A).
11. Regarding claim 10, Brown as modified by Jurak teaches the vehicle of claim 9, further comprising at least one vehicle access component controllably coupled to the controller and wherein the controller is configured to prevent vehicle access through the vehicle access component (the controller may transmit one or more control signals to…lock the doors of the interior space, close windows, etc., Brown par 0049) for a duration of a disinfectant dispersal process (once the level of the detected disinfectant compound has dropped to a predetermined threshold for a pre-determined time duration…unlock doors to the vehicle, Brown par 0051).
12. Regarding claim 11, Brown as modified by Jurak teaches the vehicle of claim 9, wherein the disinfectant storage tank includes a storage tank portion (reservoir 12 and other components of the system 10, Brown par 0023 and FIGS. 1-3) and a disinfectant nebulizer portion (connectors 49 to deliver compressed air to one or more nozzles to atomize the disinfectant solution at the nozzles, Brown par 0025 and FIG. 1).
13. Regarding claim 13, Brown as modified by Jurak teaches the vehicle of claim 9, wherein the controller is configured to cause the at least one display to indicate the time remaining as a numerical countdown (display present to provide a countdown of the time remaining, Jurak par 0045).
14. Regarding claim 14, Brown as modified by Jurak teaches the vehicle of claim 9, wherein the vehicle is a passenger vehicle (Other types of vehicles that could incorporate the described decontamination system include police vehicles, buses, trains and aircraft, Brown par 0006).
15. Regarding claim 15, Brown as modified by Jurak teaches the vehicle of claim 9, wherein the vehicle is a mass transit vehicle (buses, trains and aircraft, par 0006).
16. Regarding claim 18, Brown as modified by Jurak teaches the vehicle of claim 9, wherein a disinfectant stored in the storage tank (reservoir 12 in which a disinfectant solution is stored, Brown par 0022) is hydrogen peroxide (disinfectant solution may include an aqueous hydrogen peroxide solution, Brown par 0022).
17. Regarding claim 21, Brown as modified by Jurak teaches the vehicle of claim 9, wherein the at least one occupant sensor is configured to operate constantly (motion detector 40 is configured for signal communication with the controller 26, par 0039; controller monitors time during which the motion detector does not detect movement within the interior space i.e., motion detector operates constantly, Brown par 0008) to detect occupants within the internal occupant compartment (to indicate whether or not a person is in the interior space, Brown par 0039).
18. Claims 16, 17, and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Brown et al (US 20150246151 A1) and Jurak et al (US 20140193296 A1) as applied to claim 9 above, and further in view of Kellogg et al (US 11,000,613 B1).
19. Regarding claim 16, Brown as modified by Jurak teaches the vehicle of claim 9, wherein the at least one occupant sensor includes a motion detector configured to indicate whether or not a person is in the interior space (par 0039). Brown does not teach that this would include a video camera, nor that the controller includes a facial recognition module configured to identify faces in an output of the video camera.
Kellogg teaches a transportable self-sterilizing clinical environment (Title) for use in vehicles such as busses (col 3, lines 24-28) wherein a generator is configured to fill the chamber with air phase anti-pathogen agents, such as a hydrogen peroxide vapor or mist (col 10, lines 30-42). Kellogg teaches that the chamber’s video cameras and computer vision system (used as occupancy sensors, col 13, lines 56-64) can recognize the presence and locations of various humans (col 25, lines 6-29) and may be configured to use facial recognition to determine which humans are present (col 25, lines 10-12), thus reading upon an occupant sensor that includes a video camera and a controller that includes a facial recognition module configured to identify faces from video output used in a similar way to restrict access via the controller during the disinfection process (col 12, lines 46-57).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to use a video camera with a facial recognition module as taught by Kellogg in place of the motion detectors taught by Brown, because doing so would predictably provide the ability to better track the presence and locations of people within the space, as well as enable identification of these people via the facial recognition capability with a reasonable expectation of success. See MPEP 2143(I)(B) and MPEP 2143(I)(G).
20. Regarding claim 17, Brown as modified by Jurak and Kellogg teaches the vehicle of claim 16, and Kellogg teaches wherein the controller is configured to determine that the at least one occupant sensor (computer processor can be used to monitor at least one occupancy sensor, col 13, lines 56-64) detected no occupants (ensuring that no humans are present in the chamber, col 13, lines 56-64) in response to the facial recognition module detecting no faces in the output of the video camera (verifying, often by automatic devices such as the ORICK computer vision system, that no humans are present in the chamber, col 9, lines 46-55; computer vision system uses facial recognition module, col 25, lines 6-12). Kellogg further teaches that prior to the start of a sterilization cycle, the computer processor may use the occupancy sensors to first verify that no humans are present in the chamber and then to restrict access to the chamber (col 12, lines 46-57).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to utilize the video camera/facial recognition system of modified Brown in the same manner taught by Kellogg, as this would predictably provide the same result of ensuring that the interior space is unoccupied when no people/faces are detected by the video camera with a reasonable expectation of success. See MPEP 2143(I)(G).
21. Regarding claim 20, Brown as modified by Jurak teaches the vehicle of claim 9, wherein the at least one sensor system comprises a sensor configured to detect the presence of people or pets within the internal compartment (motion detector 40 is configured for signal communication with the controller 26 to indicate whether or not a person is in the interior space, Brown par 0039). The combination does not teach that this sensor would be an infrared sensor.
Kellogg teaches a transportable self-sterilizing clinical environment (Title) for use in vehicles such as busses (col 3, lines 24-28) wherein occupancy sensors may include one of more infrared sensors (col 13 lines 56-64) as another method of ensuring that no humans are present in the chamber during a sterilization cycle (col 13 lines 56-64).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to substitute the motion sensor of Brown for an infrared sensor configured to detect the presence of people with the internal compartment as taught by Kellogg, because such an infrared sensor would predictably detect occupancy reliably as demonstrated as an alternative to a motion sensor by Kellogg (col 13 lines 56-64). See MPEP 2143(I)(B).
22. Claim 19 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Brown et al (US 20150246151 A1) and Jurak et al (US 20140193296 A1) as applied to claim 9 above, and further in view of Callahan (US 20220023479 A1).
Regarding claim 19, Brown as modified by Jurak teaches the vehicle of claim 9, wherein the controller is configured to cause the at least one display to indicate the time remaining (‘Time’ mode, Brown par 0048 and FIG. 11) as a numeric output (Jurak par 0045). The combination does not teach wherein the display of remaining duration is in a form of a progress bar.
Callahan teaches a surface treatment application for sanitization, sterilization, or decontamination (par 0078) that comprises one of a gaseous dispersal element 200, an aerosolized element 202, and a disinfectant fluid 204 (par 0080) wherein the system has a video display comprising a lighted progress bar (par 0092) to indicate which portions of the surface have complete coverage i.e., indicate the progress toward completion of the sanitization process.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to display a progress bar as taught by Callahan to show progress toward completion of the sanitization operation of Brown, as the progress bar would predictably provide an effective visual to communicate the remaining duration/progress toward sanitization and simply involves a substitition of one known element for another to yield predictable results. See MPEP 2143(I)(B).
23. Claim 22 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Brown et al (US 20150246151 A1) and Jurak et al (US 20140193296 A1) as applied to claim 9 above, and further in view of Simon Garcia (WO 2021240035 A1, references herein made to English Machine Translation).
Regarding claim 22, Brown as modified by Jurak teaches the vehicle of claim 9, wherein the at least one occupant sensor is configured to detect both an end of vehicle operations and a presence of occupants constantly per Brown par 0048. Brown does not specifically teach that the occupancy sensor would begin detecting a presence of occupants within the internal occupant compartment in response to the controller determining an end of vehicle operations.
Simon Garcia teaches a method and device for sterilizing cabins integrated in vehicles (Title, pars 0005-0006 and 0010) wherein “with the vehicle parked and the doors closed, the motion sensors detect that the vehicle is empty of people”, stage (A) i.e. the beginning of the sterilization cycle is allowed to proceed (par 0171, FIG. 1).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to configure the occupancy sensor of Brown to begin detecting a presence of occupants within the internal occupant compartment in response to the controller determining an end of vehicle operations as taught by Simon Garcia. Doing so would predictably enable operation of the sterilization cycle when the vehicle is parked and doors are closes i.e. only when the vehicle is not in use, similarly protecting humans from exposure to sterilization chemicals as taught by Simon Garcia (pars 0026-0028, par 0050) with a reasonable expectation of success. See MPEP 2143(I)(G).
Response to Arguments
24. Applicant’s arguments, see Remarks filed 20 July 2026, sections III-IV with respect to the rejections of claims 9-22 under 35 U.S.C. 101 and of claim 22 under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) have been fully considered and are persuasive. The rejections have been withdrawn in view of the amendment.
25. Applicant’s arguments, see Remarks sections V,VI with respect to the rejection(s) of claim(s) 9-11, 13-15, 18, and 21 under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) and of claims 16-17, 19-20, and 22 under 35 U.S.C. 103 have been fully considered and are persuasive. Because Brown does not teach in requisite detail that the display would continue to display the time remaining during the dispersal of the nebulized disinfectant, the rejection has been withdrawn. However, upon further consideration, a new ground(s) of rejection is made in view of Jurak, who specifically teaches for an analogous sterilization process a display present to provide a countdown of the time remaining to alert users of the current status of the sterilization unit (par 0045), as necessitated by the amendment.
26. In response to applicant's argument that the screen of Brown is in the cab of the vehicle and not visible from an exterior of the vehicle (See Remarks section V, A-B), Examiner finds this unpersuasive. Referring to the present disclosure, the position of screen 40 in the present FIG. 1 is in a console of a cab of a vehicle just like in Brown (par 0047), and said screen 40 is disclosed as visible to individuals outside of the vehicle and may be waiting to enter (Specification page 6 second par). It is therefore understood that the user could peek through a window and view the console display as in a typical vehicle and could similarly do so to view the display of Brown.
27. In response to applicant's argument that the progress bar of Callahan does not describe a sterilization time and is therefore not an appropriate combination (See Remarks section VI, B), Examiner finds this unpersuasive. It is known that a progress bar indicates fractional completion of whatever the progress bar is tracking, and Callahan uses the progress bar display to similarly track fractional completion of an analogous sterilization process (e.g., par 0068). When combined with the timed system of modified Brown that already includes a countdown toward completion as taught by Jurak, the progress bar would show a fractional completion of the sterilization in terms of time. A person having ordinary skill in the art would likely find this the easiest, most obvious way to implement a progress bar into the display control sequence of Brown, as time information is what is available and would provide the same predictable result of displaying progress toward completion.
Conclusion
28. The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure:
Knight et al (US 20240003558 A1) teaches an analogous disinfecting spray humidifier (pars 0043-0044) with a user interface that “may include a display for indicating a remaining time for a sanitization and/or humidification operation to a user. Of course the display is not limited only to indicating the remaining time for such operations, and may be utilized to indicate any suitable information to a user” (par 0075-0076).
.
29. Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). 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.
30. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Eric Talbert whose telephone number is (703)756-5538. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri 8:00-5:00 Eastern 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, 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.
/ERIC TALBERT/Examiner, Art Unit 1758
/MARIS R KESSEL/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1758
Prosecution Insights