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
This is an office action in response to Applicant's arguments and remarks filed on 12/10/2025. Claims 1-10, 12-19 and 21-28 are pending in the application. Claims 12-19 and 22 have been withdrawn and claims 1-10, 21 and 23-28 are being examined herein.
Status of Objections and Rejections
All rejections from the previous office action are maintained in view of Applicant's amendment.
New grounds of rejection under 35 U.S.C. 103 are necessitated by the amendments.
Claim Interpretation
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.
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.
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) are: “sanitizing control unit is configured to receive the one or more action detection signals from the one or more sensors… and configured to modify operation of the UV lamps.” in claim 1, and “resource allocation control unit is configured to generate one or more resource recommendations regarding the UV lamps” in claim 1 and 21.
Because these claim limitation(s) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, they are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof. Specifically, both the sanitization control unit and resource allocation unit are described to represent circuits, circuitry, or portions thereof that can be implemented as hardware with associated instructions that include and/or are connected to one or more logic- based devices, such as microprocessors, processors, controllers, or the like (specification, para 0082). Further, applicant discloses that the resource allocation control unit and sanitization control unit can be part of a common control unit such as a common integrated chip (para 0058).
If applicant does not intend to have 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 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 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
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
Claim(s) 1, 4-6, 8-10, 21, 23-24 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ufkes (US 20220105220) in view of Stibich (US 20130330235), Miles (US 11602574), and Trapani (US 20150086420).
Regarding claim 1, Ufkes discloses a system for sanitizing an enclosed space (para 0002, para 0058; Fig. 2, disinfection system 200, apparatus 202), the system comprising:
one or more sensors within the enclosed space (para 0059, camera 208, acoustic transducer 210, environmental sensors 212, and radiation sensor 214),
wherein the one or more sensors are configured to detect one or more actions within the enclosed space and output one or more action detection signals indicative of the one or more actions (para 0059, sensors configured to detect input signals associated with occupants = understood to be actions in enclosed space, and communicate with controller 204);
ultraviolet (UV) lamps within the enclosed space (para 0059, lamps = LED emitters 206a emitters configured to emit light in UVC range between 100-280 nm),
wherein the UV lamps are configured to emit UV light in relation to one or more portions of the enclosed space (para 0061, radiation sensor 310 configured to measure radiation reflected from surfaces 324 within interior surface = understood that emitters are configured to emit UV radiation in relation to one or more portions in enclosed space);
and a sanitizing control unit in communication with the one or more sensors and the UV lamps (para 0059, sanitizing control unit = processor of controller 204 which is in communication with UV emitters 206a and sensors)
and wherein the sanitizing control unit is configured to modify operation of the UV lamps in response to the one or more actions being a triggering event (para 0063-0064, controller 204 processes real time temporal/spectral characteristics to identify cough/sneeze (46) = understood to be triggering event and actuate UVC radiation to inactivate pathogens generated by the cough/sneeze, Fig. 5, steps 504-514), and
a resource allocation control unit in communication with the one or more sensors (para 0059, controller 204 comprises a processor = understood to include both sanitization control unit and resource allocation unit, controller in communication with sensors 208 and 210), wherein the resource allocation control unit is configured to generate one or more resource recommendations regarding the UV lamps for the enclosed space based on one or more of the triggering events (Para 0064, Fig. 5, routine/algorithm 500 is programmed within controller 204. During the routine, controller 204 configures an operational mode [502] wherein emitters are emitted at an operational setting [504]. Sensor data is taken in by the controller [506], processed [508] and assessed for a trigger condition [510, i.e. a sneeze or cough]. If a trigger is sensed [510], the controller modulates an UV emission response [understood to be resource allocation in step 512], and emitters are modulated in accordance with logic/recommendation [514]).
Ufkes does not teach wherein the resource allocation unit is configured to generate one or more resource recommendations which change a number and locations of the UV lamps in response to the triggering event. PHOSITA would be concerned with different ways to module UV emission in response to a triggering event.
Stibich teaches a disinfection source control system (abstract) including a processor for receiving data regarding disinfection sources in a room [0143] and issuing operating parameters for the multiple disinfection sources based on said data [0143], wherein the operating parameters are specific for each of the disinfection sources [0160]. The one or more individual operating parameters may include run times of the disinfection sources, positions or speed of the disinfection sources within the room, orientation of components comprising the disinfection sources, and rates of germicidal discharge from the disinfection sources and/or power supplied to the disinfection sources [0160]. PHOSITA
Miles teaches an ultraviolet disinfection system [abstract] including a plurality of UV lamps, sensors, and a computer system wherein the computer system comprises a processor [col 2, lines 42-50]. Miles teaches wherein the computer system may determine an amount of power consumed at a time of day (understood to be a triggering event) and determine a number of ultraviolet lamps to turn on based on the time and power consumption (understood to change a number of UV lamps in a space, col 5, lines 17-35).
Trapani teaches a room sterilization system comprising a mobile emitter with one or more UV emitters [abstract], sensors [0066], and a computer controller [0067]. Trapani further teaches wherein the computer controller can reposition a UV lamp based on UV data received from the sensors (understood to be a triggering event) to provide sufficient dosage of UV light [0175] wherein the repositioning can be automatic or manually executed by an operator [0175-0176, 0192].
Stibich, Miles, and Trapani are all considered analogous to the claimed invention since both all are drawn to disinfection systems. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the controller as taught by Ufkes with the computer controllers as taught by as taught by Stibich, Miles, and Trapani since Stibich, Miles, and Trapani teach the computer controllers to receive data from sensors in an enclosed space (understood to be triggering events) and issue recommendations regarding the number [Miles, col 5, lines 17-35] and locations [Trapani, 0175-0176, 0192] of said sources to minimize treatment time [Trapani, 0192] and conserve power [Miles, col 6, lines 25-46] and this involves the combination of elements to yield a predictable result with a reasonable expectation of success. See MPEP 2143(I)(A) and 2413(I)(G).
Regarding claim 4, Modified Ufkes teaches the system of claim 1, wherein the UV lamps are configured to emit the UV light within a far UV spectrum (Ufkes, para 0004, Far UV spectrum known in the art to be between 207-222 nm, emitters are capable of emitting within 100-280, para 0059, certain embodiments disclosed teach disinfection apparatuses 402a with emitters capable of emitting within 207-225, para 0063)
Regarding claim 5, Modified Ufkes teaches the system of claim 1, wherein the triggering event comprises one or both of a cough or a sneeze (Ufkes, para 0063, disinfection system processes cough/sneeze with audio sensors to determine location and actuates UV response to inactivate pathogens associated with the event = cough/sneeze understood to be triggering event).
Regarding claim 6, Modified Ufkes teaches the system of claim 1, wherein the one or more sensors comprise one or more of at least one microphone, at least one camera, at least one particulate sensor, or at least one pressure sensor (Ufkes, para 0059, sensors include optical sensor/camera 208 and acoustic transducer = understood to be microphone 210).
Regarding claim 8, Modified Ufkes teaches the system of claim 1, wherein the sanitizing control unit is configured to modify operation of the UV lamps in response to the one or more actions being a triggering event by activating the UV lamps to emit the UV light (Ufkes, para 0063-0064, controller 204 programmed with routine 500 wherein controller actuate UVC radiation to inactivate pathogens generated by the cough/sneeze = triggering event, Fig. 5, steps 510-514).
Regarding claim 9, Modified Ufkes teaches the system of claim 1, wherein the sanitizing control unit is configured to modify operation of the UV lamps in response to the one or more actions being a triggering event by increasing an intensity of the UV light (Ufkes, para 0059, controller 204 can selectively pulse UV emissions from emitters at a first wavelength 222, then a second separate wavelength 264 = understood to be increasing intensity, controller can modulate duty cycle/phase or intensity of emitters 206a-206n).
Regarding claim 10, Modified Ufkes teaches the system of claim 1, wherein the one or more sensors and the UV lamps are integrated in a common housing (Ufkes, para 0059, germicidal apparatus 202 may be comprised of housing 232, a plurality of emitters [understood to be lamps], and sensors 208, 210, 212, and 214 = understood to all be housed within housing 232).
Regarding claim 21, Ufkes discloses a system for allocating sanitizing resources within an enclosed space (para 0065; Fig. 6 adaptive germicidal disinfection system 200 and apparatus 202, system has controller 204 programmed with resource allocation routine 600), the system comprising:
one or more sensors within the enclosed space (Fig. 2, apparatus 202 includes sensors camera 208, acoustic transducer 210, and radiation sensor 214; para 0065 apparatus has one or more environmental sensors),
wherein the one or more sensors are configured to detect one or more actions within the enclosed space (Fig. 6, para 0065, radiation sensor 214 may detect action = lamp emission dose in step 616), and output one or more action detection signals indicative of the one or more actions (Fig. 6, para 0059, sensors output data to be processed in step 608),
and a resource allocation control unit in communication with the one or more sensors (para 0065, controller 204 understood to be resource allocation unit in communication with sensors optical 208, acoustic 210, and radiation 214; para 0065 apparatus has one or more environmental sensors [606] and processing sensor data [608] to detect occupant load [610]),
wherein the resource allocation control unit is configured to generate one or more resource recommendations regarding ultraviolet (UV) lamps for the enclosed space based on one or more triggering events of the one or more actions (para 0065, Fig. 6, after processing sensor data, controller 204 is configured to generate recommendation based on current emission and modulates emissions parameters based on emission data [612, 614] until a triggering event is encountered = understood to be exposure limit [618]. The controller then makes a recommendation to adjust UV emissions resources based on triggering event if target dose of emission [620] isn’t met, and emitters are modulated according to recommendations [614] before radiation is measured again [616]).
Ufkes does not teach wherein the resource allocation unit is configured to generate one or more resource recommendations which change a number and locations of the UV lamps in response to one or more triggering events of the one or more actions.
One having ordinary skill in the art would be concerned with properly dosing UV radiation in response to a triggering event and would seek to prevent unnecessary exposure to occupants within a space by modifying locations and numbers of the UV emitters, motivating one to turn towards Stibich, Miles, and Trapani.
Stibich teaches a disinfection source control system (abstract) including a processor for receiving data regarding disinfection sources in a room [0143] and issuing operating parameters for the multiple disinfection sources based on said data [0143], wherein the operating parameters are specific for each of the disinfection sources [0160]. The one or more individual operating parameters may include run times of the disinfection sources, positions or speed of the disinfection sources within the room, orientation of components comprising the disinfection sources, and rates of germicidal discharge from the disinfection sources and/or power supplied to the disinfection sources [0160].
Miles teaches an ultraviolet disinfection system [abstract] including a plurality of UV lamps, sensors, and a computer system wherein the computer system comprises a processor [col 2, lines 42-50]. Miles teaches wherein the computer system may determine an amount of power consumed at a time of day (understood to be a triggering event) and determine a number of ultraviolet lamps to turn on based on the time and power consumption (understood to change a number of UV lamps in a space, col 5, lines 17-35).
Trapani teaches a room sterilization system comprising a mobile emitter with one or more UV emitters [abstract], sensors [0066], and a computer controller [0067]. Trapani further teaches wherein the computer controller can reposition a UV lamp based on UV data received from the sensors (understood to be a triggering event) to provide sufficient dosage of UV light [0175] wherein the repositioning can be automatic or manually executed by an operator [0175-0176, 0192].
Stibich, Miles, and Trapani are all considered analogous to the claimed invention since both all are drawn to disinfection systems. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the controller as taught by Ufkes with the computer controllers as taught by as taught by Stibich, Miles, and Trapani since Stibich, Miles, and Trapani teach the computer controllers to receive data from sensors in an enclosed space (understood to be triggering events) and issue recommendations regarding the number [Miles, col 5, lines 17-35] and locations [Trapani, 0175-0176, 0192] of said sources to ensure proper dosage of UV light [Trapani, 0175] and prevent unnecessary UV exposure to occupants within a space [Stibich, 0051, 0076-0077] and this involves the combination of elements to yield a predictable result with a reasonable expectation of success. See MPEP 2143(I)(A) and 2413(I)(G).
Regarding claim 23, Modified Ufkes teaches the system of claim 1, wherein the number [Miles, col 5, lines 17-35] and the locations [Trapani, 0175-0176, 0192] of the UV lamps are changeable based on the one or more resource recommendations.
Regarding claim 24, Modified Ufkes teaches the system of claim 21, wherein the number [Miles, col 5, lines 17-35] and the locations [Trapani, 0175-0176, 0192] of the UV lamps are changeable based on the one or more resource recommendations.
Claim(s) 2-3 and 7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ufkes (US 20220105220) in view of Stibich (US 20130330235), Miles (US 11602574), and Trapani (US 20150086420) as applied to claim 1 above, further in view of Khaw (US 20220185062).
Regarding claim 2, Modified Ufkes discloses the system of claim 1, wherein the enclosed space being sanitized by the disinfection system 200 is a room (Ufkes, Figures 4a-4d) but fails to explicitly teach wherein the enclosed space comprises an internal cabin of a vehicle.
Khaw discloses a system for cleaning vehicle cabins (Fig. 3, cabin 302, para 0026) by controlling air flow within a cabin (para 0064) with an air pressure sensor (Fig. 3, 320) and fans (Fig. 3, 308 and 314, para 0075-0077). Khaw further discloses wherein the system irradiates air within the cabin 302 with an ultraviolet light source (702) configured to emit within the far-UVC spectrum (para 0109) to reduce bacteria levels.
Khaw is considered analogous to the claimed invention since both are drawn to systems for disinfecting enclosed spaces with far-UVC light. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to substitute the room as disclosed by Modified Ufkes with the vehicle cabin as disclosed by Khaw since a vehicle cabin is understood to be an obvious variant of an enclosed space and this involves the substitution of elements to yield a predictable result (sanitization of a vehicle cabin) with a predictable expectation of success. See MPEP 2143(I)(B).
Regarding claim 3, Modified Ufkes discloses the system of claim 2, comprising one or more sensors (Ufkes, para 0059, camera 208, acoustic transducer 210, environmental sensors 212, and radiation sensor 214) but does not teach wherein the one or more sensors are associated with one or more seats within the internal cabin.
Khaw further discloses wherein the system for cleaning vehicle cabins comprises an occupancy sensor 402 which may be a weight sensor associated with each seat in the cabin of the vehicle (para 0085) and a particulate sensor (404) configured to measure a particulate level associated with the air inside the cabin (para 0087) wherein both sensors send signals to a processor (300) to determine an unhealthy assessment associated with a passenger and control cleaning operations based on said assessment (para 0091-0092).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the sensors as disclosed by Ufkes to include the occupancy and contaminant sensors as disclosed by Khaw to more accurately locate sources of contamination inside the vehicle cabin since Khaw teaches the sensors are used to determine which seats the contamination is occurring from and this involves the combination of elements to yield a predictable result with a reasonable expectation of success. See MPEP 2143(I)(A).
Regarding claim 7, Modified Ufkes discloses the system of claim 1, wherein the one or more sensors comprise at least one microphone (para 0059, acoustic transducer 210), at least one camera (para 0059, camera 208), but does not teach wherein the at least one or more sensors comprises at least one particulate sensor, and at least one pressure sensor.
Khaw discloses a system for cleaning vehicle cabins (Fig. 3, cabin 302, para 0026) by controlling air flow within a cabin (para 0064) with an air pressure sensor (Fig. 3, 320) and fans (Fig. 3, 308 and 314, para 0075-0077). Khaw further discloses wherein the system comprises irradiating air within the cabin 302 with an ultraviolet light source (702) configured to emit within the far-UVC spectrum (para 0109) to reduce bacteria levels, and wherein the system for a particulate sensor (404) configured to measure a particulate level associated with the air inside the cabin (para 0087).
Khaw is considered analogous to the claimed invention since both are drawn to systems for disinfecting enclosed spaces with far-UVC light. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the disinfection system as disclosed by Modified Ufkes to include the air pressure and particulate sensors as disclosed by Khaw to more accurately locate the trigger condition (sneeze/cough) in the enclosed space (Ufkes, para 0063, trigger condition = sneeze or cough) by detecting a pressure and particulate differential caused by the trigger condition and this involves the combination of elements to yield a predictable result with a reasonable expectation of success. See MPEP 2143(I)(A).
Claim(s) 25 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ufkes (US 20220105220) in view of Stibich (US 20130330235), Miles (US 11602574), and Trapani (US 20150086420), as applied to claim 1 above, further in view of Hatti (US 20190030195).
Regarding claim 25, Modified Ufkes teaches the system of claim 1 comprising ultraviolet (UV) lamps within the enclosed space (Ufkes, para 0059, lamps = LED emitters 206a emitters configured to emit light in UVC range between 100-280 nm) but does not teach wherein the UV lamps are associated with one or more seats within the enclosed space, and wherein the UV lamps are mounted above the one or more seats.
Hatti teaches an aircraft cabin disinfection system including one or more UV radiation sources to disinfect the cabin [abstract], wherein the light sources (Fig. 2, 9) are configured to be mounted above seating areas in a cabin and provide sterilizing light ([0033], UV lights understood to be associated with one or more seats).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the system as taught by Ufkes to mount the UV lamps above a seating area to selectively disinfect the seating surfaces where pathogens are likely to propagate and this involves the combination of elements to yield a predictable result with a reasonable expectation of success. See MPEP 2143(I)(A).
Claim(s) 26 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ufkes (US 20220105220) in view of Stibich (US 20130330235), Miles (US 11602574), and Trapani (US 20150086420), as applied to claim 1 above, further in view of Hatti (US 20190030195) and Romo et al. (US 20210077651 A1).
Regarding claim 26, Modified Ufkes teaches the system of claim 1, including a sanitizing control unit configured to modify operation of the UV lamps (Ufkes, [0063-0064], controller 204 controls UV lamps) including identifying a targeting event and emitting a pulse of UV radiation towards the event (Ufkes, [0036]). Modified Ufkes also teaches wherein the controller may process data signals from sensors to determine the approximate location of a triggering event (Ufkes, [0036]) but does not explicitly teach wherein the sanitizing control unit is configured to determine a center point of the triggering event, and control one or more of the UV lamps so that a higher dose of the UV light is focused at the center point and a lower dose of the UV light is further away from the center point.
Hatti teaches an aircraft cabin disinfection system including one or more UV radiation sources (Fig. 2, 9) are to disinfect the aircraft cabin [abstract] based and a controller configured to control disinfection by modulating power to the UV light sources [0042]. Hatti teaches wherein the controller is configured to sense the location of an occupant in a space with occupancy sensors (Fig. 1, sensors 3, occupancy understood to be a trigger event, and sensors understood to determine location of occupant using heat sensors = center point of triggering event [0037]) and deliver a UV intensity that is reduced to zero at a position closest to said occupant and gradually increased with distance from the occupant [0043].
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the sanitizing control unit as taught by Modified Ufkes with occupancy sensors and controller as taught by Hatti since Hatti teaches determining an epicenter of a triggering event with sensors and modulating UV intensity to the target area based on distance from the triggering event ([0037], [0043]).
While Hatti contemplates determining an epicenter of a triggering event with sensors and modulating UV intensity to the target area based on distance from the triggering event, Hatti does not teach wherein a higher dose of the UV light is focused on the center point and a lower dose of the UV light is further away from the center point.
However, one having ordinary skill in the art would have recognized prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention the problem of modulating UV intensity to the target area based on distance from a triggering event was contemplated in the art, and a finite number of identified and predictable potential solutions were recognized as evidenced by Hatti (i.e., concentrating low/no intensity at a target area and gradually increasing intensity as distance from the target increased vs. concentrating high intensity at a target area and gradually decreasing intensity as distance from the target increased).
While one having ordinary skill in the art would have recognized the triggering event of Modified Ufkes (Ufkes, triggering event is cough or sneeze [0063-0064]) and the triggering event of Hatti (occupancy) as having target areas requiring different intensities of UV light at their respective epicenters, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the sanitizing control unit as taught by Modified Ufkes to focus a higher dose of UV light at the center point of a triggering event and a lower dose of the UV light is further away from the center point. The results would have been predictable, and since Hatti teaches wherein the controller to sense the location of an occupant in a space with occupancy sensors (Fig. 1, sensors 3, occupancy understood to be a trigger event, and sensors understood to determine location of occupant using heat sensors = center point of triggering event [0037]) and deliver a UV intensity that is lower at a position closest to said triggering event and higher at a distance further from the triggering event [0043], one of ordinary skill in the art would have pursued the known potential solutions with a reasonable expectation of success. See MPEP 2143 (I)(E).
Claim(s) 27 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ufkes (US 20220105220) in view of Stibich (US 20130330235), Miles (US 11602574), Trapani (US 20150086420), and Khaw (US 20220185062), as applied to claim 2 above, further in view of Hatti (US 20190030195).
Regarding claim 27, Modified Ufkes discloses the system of claim 2, wherein the enclosed space being sanitized by the disinfection system is an internal cabin of a vehicle (Fig. 3, cabin 302, para 0026) but does not teach wherein the vehicle is a commercial aircraft, and wherein the sanitizing control unit is configured to control power to the UV lamps based on a phase of flight of the commercial aircraft.
Hatti teaches an aircraft cabin disinfection system including one or more UV radiation sources to disinfect the aircraft cabin [abstract], wherein the light sources (Fig. 2, 9) are configured to be mounted above seating areas in a cabin and provide sterilizing light ([0033]). Hatti further teaches a controller configured to control disinfection to the cabin depending on a phase of flight [0020] wherein the control action can include modulating power to the UV light sources [0042].
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to substitute the vehicles as disclosed by Modified Ufkes with the aircraft cabin as disclosed by since a vehicle cabin is understood to be an obvious variant of an enclosed space and this involves the substitution of elements to yield a predictable result (sanitization of a vehicle cabin) with a predictable expectation of success. See MPEP 2143(I)(B).
Claim(s) 28 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ufkes (US 20220105220) in view of Stibich (US 20130330235), Miles (US 11602574), and Trapani (US 20150086420), as applied to claim 1 above, further in view of Mathieu (US 20220188716 A1) (prior art eligible under 102(a)(2) with an effectively filed date of 12/11/2020).
Regarding claim 28, Modified Ufkes teaches the system of claim 1 comprising a resource allocation control unit (Ufkes, para 0059, controller 204) configured to generate one or more resource recommendations regarding the UV lamps for the enclosed space based on one or more of the triggering events (Ufkes, [0064], Fig. 5, routine/algorithm 500] and store data regarding triggering events include the triggering event (storage device 114 [0043] can store historical data such as sensor and emission data = understood to be triggering event [0060], [0064]). Modified Ufkes does not teach wherein the resource allocation unit is configured to generate an event map which shows the areas of the triggering events within enclosed space, wherein the event map shows frequency of the triggering events at various locations with the enclosed space.
Mathieu teaches a contamination detection system [0002] for a vehicle [0012] including a control module configured to detect the exposure risk level of an area based on at least one cleaning event, length of cleaning time, a decay function since last cleaning, and a frequency/spatial domain exposure pattern ([0019-0024], understood to record frequency of contamination events in a given space). Mathieu further teaches the control module to include an activity history log, contamination mapping data, and sanitization mapping data [0044], wherein the contamination mapping data includes levels of contamination for various surfaces overlayed onto a map [0045] which is understood to be an event map showing areas and frequencies of triggering events.
Mathieu is considered analogous to the claimed invention since both are drawn to systems for reducing and detecting contamination. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the resource allocation unit as taught by Modified Ufkes with the control module as taught by Mathieu since Mathieu teaches the control module to visualize the frequencies and areas of contamination in a space and help users determine surfaces which need to be cleaned based on the data [0044-0049] and this involves the combination of elements to yield a predictable result with a reasonable expectation of success. See MPEP 2143(I)(A) and 2143(I)(G).
Response to Arguments
In the arguments presented on page 9 of the amendment, filed 12/10/2025, the Applicant argues that Miles does not teach a resource allocation unit that generates resource recommendations which change a number of UV lamps within an environment in response to a triggering event and that the “cited portion of Miles discloses number of existing emitters to activate but not changing a number of the emitters with regards to the rejection of claims 1, 4-6, 8-11, and 21 under 35 U.S.C. 103.
This argument has been fully considered and is unpersuasive. Therefore, the rejection has been maintained. The Examiner respectfully asserts that Miles teaches the computer system (102) to change the allocation of power to each of the electromagnetic emitters (142) based on a triggering event (col 4, lines 10-30; col 5, lines 17-35), which is understood to be a resource recommendation (wherein power is the resource). Under broadest reasonable interpretation of the claim limitation “generate one or more resource recommendations which change a number and locations of the UV lamps within the enclosed space in response to the triggering event,” as recited in claim 1, one having ordinary skill in the art would consider the cessation of UV light being emitted from one of the electromagnetic emitters as changing the number of UV lamps within an enclosed space as a lamp that emits UV light has been removed from the system. One having ordinary skill in the art would also be motivated to change the number ultraviolet lamps in the space not only to improve energy efficiency, but to prevent exposing occupants in space to harmful UV radiation, which Stibich contemplates in [0076-0077] and [0131]. The combined disclosures of Ufkes, Sitbich, and Miles would yield a system that automatically changes the number of UV emitters in a space as taught by Miles, based on triggering event (such as occupancy and occupant schedules [Stibich, 0076-0077] and time of day [Miles, col 5, lines 17-35] which would ensure a safer disinfection protocol for occupants within said space.
In the arguments presented on page 9 of the amendment, filed 12/10/2025, the Applicant argues that Trapani does not teach a resource allocation unit that generates resource recommendations which change locations for UV lamps within an environment in response to a triggering event with regards to the rejection of claims 1, 4-6, 8-11, and 21 under 35 U.S.C. 103.
This argument has been fully considered and is unpersuasive. Therefore, the rejection has been maintained. The Examiner respectfully asserts that Trapani discloses that the repositioning of UV emitters within a space to be treated to improve the disinfection efficacy [0175] wherein the repositing may be automatically initiated once sensors have detected a target dosage, a shadowed area is not receiving light, or a treatment time is too long (all considered triggering events, [0175-0176]). One having ordinary skill in the art would also be motivated to reposition the ultraviolet lamps in the space not only to improve disinfection efficiency, but to prevent exposing occupants in space to harmful UV radiation, which Stibich contemplates in [0076-0077] and [0131]. The combined disclosures of Ufkes, Sitbich, and Trapani would yield a system that autonomously changes locations of UV emitters in a space as taught by Trapani based on triggering event such as occupancy ([Stibich, 0076-0077]) which would ensure a safer disinfection protocol for occupants within said space.
Conclusion
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.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to NEBYATE SEGED whose telephone number is (703)756-4611. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8-5:00 pm (EST).
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.
/N.S.S./Examiner, Art Unit 1758
/MARIS R KESSEL/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1758