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. This is an office action in response to Applicant's arguments and remarks filed on 12/09/2025. Claims 1-12, 14-17, 20, 22-23, and 25-26 are pending in the application. Claims 22 has been withdrawn and claims 1-12, 14-17, 20, 23, and 25-26 are being examined herein.
Status of Objections and Rejections
3. All rejections from the previous office action are withdrawn in view of Applicant's amendment.
New grounds of rejection under 35 U.S.C. 103 are necessitated by the amendments.
Response to Arguments
4. In the arguments presented on p.10-11 of the amendment, the Applicant argues that Gonzalez, Subramanian, or Bitra (alone or in combination) fails to teach the amended claim 1 and 23 limitations.
Applicant's arguments filed 12/09/2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. The rejection under 35 U.S.C. 103 of Gonzalez in view of Subramanian in view of Bitra is withdrawn, and upon further consideration and in light of Applicant’s amendment to claims 1 and 23, a new rejection is put forth under 35 U.S.C. 103 of Subramanian in view of Bitra.
Subramanian teaches a moveable/sliding UV disinfection device for aircraft cabins (Fig. 3) including breathing spaces above seats, where the device has two articulating arms each holding UV light sources.
Bitra teaches a UV disinfection system for objects utilizing distance sensors to gauge best distances for optimal UV disinfection.
Therefore, the combination of Subramanian and Bitra render the claims obvious. See rejections for claims 1 and 23 for further context.
Claim Objections
5. Claim 20 is objected to because of the following informalities: instead of “The disinfecting system of claim a”, Applicant is most likely intending “The disinfecting system of claim 1”. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
6. The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
7. Claims 1-4, 7-8, 10-12, 14-17, 20, 23, and 25-26 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Subramanian et al. (US 20220001051 A1), further in view of Bitra et al. (US 20220233730 A1).
Regarding claim 1, Subramanian teaches a disinfecting system for an enclosed space (100, Fig. 3), the disinfecting system comprising:
a support bar coupled to a structure above a first seat, a second seat, and a third seat within the enclosed space (rail 200 is coupled to an interior surface, e.g., a ceiling panel, [0049]):
a first articulating arm (left third arm 416, Fig. 6C) moveably coupled to the support bar within the enclosed space (rail 200 indicator arrows for lateral movement of base 300, Fig. 3);
a second articulating arm (right third arm 416, Fig. 6C) moveably coupled to the support bar within the enclosed space (rail 200 indicator arrows for lateral movement of base 300, Fig. 3);
a first ultraviolet (UV) lamp coupled to the first articulating arm (scanners 314 emit UV light on left third arm 416, Fig. 6C and [0051]), wherein the first UV lamp is configured to emit first UV light toward a first disinfection zone (UV zones of telescopic arms 428a-c, Fig. 9) including the breathing space of the first individual seated on the first seat within the enclosed space (seats 1-3, Fig. 9),
a second ultraviolet (UV) lamp coupled to the second articulating arm (scanners 314 emit UV light on right third arm 416, Fig. 6C and [0051]), wherein the second UV lamp is configured to emit second UV light toward a second disinfection zone (UV zones of telescopic arms 428d-f, Fig. 9) including the breathing space of the second individual seated on the second seat within the enclosed space (seats 5-7; and
wherein the first articulating arm allows the first UV lamp to move relative to the first disinfection zone (fourth axis of rotation 604, Fig. 8) including the breathing space of the first individual seated on the first seat (UV zones of telescopic arms 428a-c would still expose a breathing space of the first individual, where rotation along the fourth axis would increase the angle of exposure area in said UV zones, Fig. 8),
wherein the second articulating arm allows the second UV lamp to move relative to the second disinfection zone (fourth axis of rotation 604, Fig. 8) including the breathing space of the second individual seated on the second seat (UV zones of telescopic arms 428d-f would still expose a breathing space of the first individual, where rotation along the fourth axis would increase the angle of exposure area in said UV zones, Fig. 8).
Subramanian fails to teach a third articulating arm moveably coupled to the support bar within the enclosed space;
a third ultraviolet (UV) lamp coupled to the third articulating arm, wherein the third UV lamp is configured to emit third UV light toward a third disinfection zone including the breathing space of the third individual seated on the third seat within the enclosed space,
wherein the third articulating arm allows the third UV lamp to move relative to the third disinfection zone including the breathing space of the third individual seated on the third seat,
wherein the third UV lamp is configured to emit the third UV light into the third disinfection zone, including the breathing space of the third individual seated on the third seat.
Because Subramanian teaches two third arms (416, Fig. 6C) pivotally engaged with the swivel block (408, Fig. 6C), it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have duplicated another arm (thus, a, third third arm 416, Fig. 6C) to be pivotally engaged with said swivel arm (thus yielding the predictable result of emitting UV light in a third disinfection zone for increased sterilization) because “mere duplication of parts has no patentable significance unless a new and unexpected result is produced” (see MPEP 2144.04(VI)(B)).
In view of the taught features above, modified Subramanian fails to teach a distance ranging unit configured to detect an appropriate distance for the disinfecting system relative to breathing spaces of (a) a first individual seated on within the first seat within the enclosed space, (b) a second individual seated on the second seat within the enclosed space, and (c) a third individual within the third seat within the enclosed space;
Bitra teaches a UV disinfection system (phone 300 having UV LED 310, Fig. 3) having a distance ranging unit (camera 330, Fig. 3) configured to detect an appropriate distance for the disinfecting system relative to a breathing space of an individual seated within a seat within the enclosed space (“The camera 330 may employ various sensors to determine a distance of the human hand 350 from the mobile phone 300”, [0039] and see [0052], where the camera being able to detect the distance from a human hand (i.e., individual) means the camera can detect the distance of an individual’s breathing space), in order to position the object/surface to be sterilized at the safe and optimal distance ([0055-0056]),
wherein the UV lamp is configured to emit the UV light into the disinfection zone including the breathing space of the individual seated within the seat in response to receiving a signal from the distance ranging unit indicating that the UV lamp is the appropriate distance from the individual (“Once the human hand 350 is positioned at an optimal distance from the mobile phone 300, the UV LED 310 exposes the human hand 350 to the UV radiation 320”, [0039], where the camera being able to detect the distance from a human hand (i.e., individual) means the camera can detect the distance of an individual’s breathing space).
Modified Subramanian and Bitra are both considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of UV disinfection systems for objects and surfaces.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify each of the third arms of modified Subramanian by incorporating a distance ranging unit to each UV light source as taught by Bitra in order to detect an optimal and safe distance for the disinfecting system relative to an individual (Bitra, [0039 and 0052]), and subsequently emit the UV light into the disinfection zone including the individual’s hand in response to receiving a signal from the distance ranging unit indicating that the UV lamp is the appropriate distance from the individual (Bitra, [0039]).
With this modification, modified Subramanian in view of Bitra teaches wherein the first UV lamp (Subramanian, left third arm 416, Fig. 6C), the second UV lamp (Subramanian, right third arm 416, Fig. 6C), and the third UV lamp (Subramanian, third third arm 416, Fig. 6C) are configured to emit the first UV light, the second UV light, and the third UV light, respectively (Subramanian, UV light source on scanners 314, Fig. 6C), into the first disinfection zone (Subramanian, seats 1-3), the second disinfection zone (Subramanian, seats 5-7), and the third disinfection zone (Subramanian, any area that does not exactly overlap with either the first or second disinfection zone e.g., seats 3-5), respectively, including the breathing spaces of the first individual, the second individual, and the third individual seated on the first seat, the second seat, and the third seat, respectively (Subramanian, seats 1-7 inherently have a breathing space when a person sits on the seat, i.e., the volume that the seat and the individual does not occupy), in response to receiving one or more signals a signal from the distance ranging unit indicating that the first UV lamp, the second UV lamp, and the third UV lamp are the appropriate distances from the first individual, the second individual, and the third individual, respectively (Bitra, “Once the human hand 350 is positioned at an optimal distance from the mobile phone 300, the UV LED 310 exposes the human hand 350 to the UV radiation 320”, [0039], where the camera being able to detect the distance from a human hand (i.e., individual) means the camera can detect the distance of an individual’s breathing space).
Regarding claim 2, modified Subramanian teaches wherein each of the first, second, and third articulating arms comprises one or more pivot joints (“the swing-out motion 600 via the interaction of the third arm 416 with the clamp blocks” is a pivot joint, Fig. 8).
Regarding claim 3, modified Subramanian teaches one or more pivot joints (interface between clamp blocks 420 and third arm 416, Fig. 6A-6B) and a rotary actuator (424, Fig. 6B) in order to swing the third arms out (416, Fig. 6B), but fails to teach one or more dampers coupled to the one or more pivot joints.
Applicant’s specification [0038] states “the dampers 112 include or more brakes, clutches, servos, and/or the like” in order to “to control a rate of motion of the articulating arm 104”. Subramanian teaches “first actuator 404 operating at the interface between the first arm 308 and the second arm 312 (e.g., at the second joint 310). The first actuator 404 may be configured as any type of moving and controlling mechanism including but not limited to a rotary actuator or servomotor” ([0034]), implying that the third actuator (424, Fig. 6B) also can be either a rotary actuator or servomotor intended to control a rate of motion of the articulating arm it is attached to (i.e., a damper).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have substituted the third actuator being a rotary actuator with a servomotor as suggested by Subramanian’s first actuator control mechanism, because the substitution of this feature yields the predictable result of moving/controlling the third arm (MPEP 2143, Rationale B).
Regarding claim 4, modified Subramanian teaches wherein the first second, and third articulating arms (third arms 416, Fig. 6C) allows the first, second, and third UV lamps (scanners 314 having UV lamps, Fig. 9), respectively, to move between a stowed position (Fig. 3) and a deployed position (Fig. 8).
Regarding claim 7, modified Subramanian teaches wherein the enclosed space is an internal cabin of a vehicle ([0020]).
Regarding claim 8, modified Subramanian teaches wherein the structure is a spacer panel within the internal cabin (“[t]he disinfection system 100 may be attached to any components or interior surfaces of the aircraft 102, including but not limited to the aircraft floor, the one or more seats 104, the one or more luggage racks, a lavatory wall, a galley wall, and within the cockpit”, [0027]), to which a spacer panel would be part of a luggage rack/bin, or part of the galley walls, as shown in Applicant’s Fig. 6).
Regarding claim 10, modified Subramanian teaches wherein the structure is a passenger service unit (PSU) within the internal cabin (luggage bin 108, where “the passenger aircraft 100 may include one or more seats 104 and may include one or more luggage bins 108. The disinfection system 100 may be attached to any components or interior surfaces of the aircraft 102, including but not limited to the aircraft floor, the one or more seats 104, the one or more luggage racks, a lavatory wall, a galley wall, and within the cockpit”, [0027]).
Regarding claim 11, the Subramanian/Bitra combination fails to teach wherein the structure is a portion of the seat within the internal cabin.
However, Subramanian teaches in a separate embodiment wherein the structure is a portion of the seat within the internal cabin (disinfection system 1200, Fig. 12, 17A-B, where “disinfection system 1200 includes a base 1204 configured to attach (e.g., via bolts, adhesive, vacuum pods, or other attachment technology) to an interior surface, such as a passenger seat 104 or the ceiling of an aircraft 102”, [0052], seat being forward passenger seat 1702 with emission module 1224, Fig. 17A-B).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to modify the rail/UV disinfection system assembly of the Subramanian/Bitra combination by further incorporating the rail/UV disinfection system assembly also to a passenger seat as taught by Subramanian for the purposes of UV disinfection.
Regarding claim 12, modified Subramanian teaches wherein the portion of the seat is a headrest (forward passenger seat 1702 has a headrest, unlabeled, Fig. 17A, for the purposes stated in claim 11 rejection regarding the further modification of Subramanian).
Regarding claim 14, modified Subramanian teaches wherein the UV lamp (UV lamps of scanners 314, Fig. 6C) is embedded within a main body (slots on swivel block 408 for holding stowed UV scanners 314, Fig. 3 vs. 6B, to which they are embedded/mounted relative to swivel block 408), and wherein the UV lamp is configured to emit the UV light into an air stream within the main body (during deployed position Fig. 6C, the air stream occupying the slots on swivel block 408 are exposed to UV radiation).
Regarding claim 15, modified Subramanian teaches wherein each of the first, second, and third articulating arms (third arms 416, Fig. 6C) comprises a plurality of arm segments (each third arm 416 has three scanners 314, Fig. 6C) that are configured to move relative to one another (arrows, Fig. 6C).
Regarding claim 16, modified Subramanian teaches a plurality of pivot joints between the plurality of arm segments (each scanner 314 is part of a telescopic arm 428, and with three in Fig. 6C, the inherent nature of telescopic arms allows for free rotation of one telescopic arm with respect to another telescopic arm, see step 1128 of Fig. 11, thus each scanner having a pivot joint).
Regarding claim 17, modified Subramanian teaches wherein the first, second, and third UV lamps (UV lamps in third arms 416, Fig. 8) are lamp is moveable in relation to the first, second, and third articulating arms (scanners 314 containing UV lamps are moveable via telescoping action relative to their respective third arms 416, Fig. 6C).
Regarding claim 20, modified Subramanian teaches wherein the support bar (rail 200, Fig. 2) is moveably coupled to the structure (attachment surface 204, Fig. 2, to which “the attachment surface may be configured as an adhesive strip that bonds the rails 200 to the interior surface of an aircraft cabin”, [0049], meaning the rail can also be detached and is thus “moveably coupled” to the aircraft cabin interior).
Regarding claim 23, Subramanian teaches an enclosed space (aircraft 102, Fig. 1), comprising: a structure (aircraft cabin interior, Fig. 1); and a disinfecting system moveably coupled to the structure (disinfection system 100, Fig. 3, with arrows denoting movement to rail 200 that is attached to the aircraft interior, Fig. 3), wherein the disinfecting system comprises:
a support bar coupled to a structure above a first seat, a second seat, and a third seat within the enclosed space (rail 200 is coupled to an interior surface, e.g., a ceiling panel, [0049]):
a first articulating arm (left third arm 416, Fig. 6C) moveably coupled to the support bar within the enclosed space (rail 200 indicator arrows for lateral movement of base 300, Fig. 3);
a second articulating arm (right third arm 416, Fig. 6C) moveably coupled to the support bar within the enclosed space (rail 200 indicator arrows for lateral movement of base 300, Fig. 3);
a first ultraviolet (UV) lamp coupled to the first articulating arm (scanners 314 emit UV light on left third arm 416, Fig. 6C and [0051]), wherein the first UV lamp is configured to emit first UV light toward a first disinfection zone (UV zones of telescopic arms 428a-c, Fig. 9) including the breathing space of the first individual seated on the first seat within the enclosed space (seats 1-3, Fig. 9),
a second ultraviolet (UV) lamp coupled to the second articulating arm (scanners 314 emit UV light on right third arm 416, Fig. 6C and [0051]), wherein the second UV lamp is configured to emit second UV light toward a second disinfection zone (UV zones of telescopic arms 428d-f, Fig. 9) including the breathing space of the second individual seated on the second seat within the enclosed space (seats 5-7; and
wherein the first articulating arm allows the first UV lamp to move relative to the first disinfection zone (fourth axis of rotation 604, Fig. 8) including the breathing space of the first individual seated on the first seat (UV zones of telescopic arms 428a-c would still expose a breathing space of the first individual, where rotation along the fourth axis would increase the angle of exposure area in said UV zones, Fig. 8),
wherein the second articulating arm allows the second UV lamp to move relative to the second disinfection zone (fourth axis of rotation 604, Fig. 8) including the breathing space of the second individual seated on the second seat (UV zones of telescopic arms 428d-f would still expose a breathing space of the first individual, where rotation along the fourth axis would increase the angle of exposure area in said UV zones, Fig. 8).
Subramanian fails to teach a third articulating arm moveably coupled to the support bar within the enclosed space;
a third ultraviolet (UV) lamp coupled to the third articulating arm, wherein the third UV lamp is configured to emit third UV light toward a third disinfection zone including the breathing space of the third individual seated on the third seat within the enclosed space,
wherein the third articulating arm allows the third UV lamp to move relative to the third disinfection zone including the breathing space of the third individual seated on the third seat,
wherein the third UV lamp is configured to emit the third UV light into the third disinfection zone, including the breathing space of the third individual seated on the third seat.
Because Subramanian teaches two third arms (416, Fig. 6C) pivotally engaged with the swivel block (408, Fig. 6C), it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have duplicated another arm (thus, a, third third arm 416, Fig. 6C) to be pivotally engaged with said swivel arm (thus yielding the predictable result of emitting UV light in a third disinfection zone for increased sterilization) because “mere duplication of parts has no patentable significance unless a new and unexpected result is produced” (see MPEP 2144.04(VI)(B)).
In view of the taught features above, modified Subramanian fails to teach a distance ranging unit configured to detect an appropriate distance for the disinfecting system relative to breathing spaces of (a) a first individual seated on within the first seat within the enclosed space, (b) a second individual seated on the second seat within the enclosed space, and (c) a third individual within the third seat within the enclosed space;
Bitra teaches a UV disinfection system (phone 300 having UV LED 310, Fig. 3) having a distance ranging unit (camera 330, Fig. 3) configured to detect an appropriate distance for the disinfecting system relative to a breathing space of an individual seated within a seat within the enclosed space (“The camera 330 may employ various sensors to determine a distance of the human hand 350 from the mobile phone 300”, [0039] and see [0052], where the camera being able to detect the distance from a human hand (i.e., individual) means the camera can detect the distance of an individual’s breathing space), in order to position the object/surface to be sterilized at the safe and optimal distance ([0055-0056]),
wherein the UV lamp is configured to emit the UV light into the disinfection zone including the breathing space of the individual seated within the seat in response to receiving a signal from the distance ranging unit indicating that the UV lamp is the appropriate distance from the individual (“Once the human hand 350 is positioned at an optimal distance from the mobile phone 300, the UV LED 310 exposes the human hand 350 to the UV radiation 320”, [0039], where the camera being able to detect the distance from a human hand (i.e., individual) means the camera can detect the distance of an individual’s breathing space).
Modified Subramanian and Bitra are both considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of UV disinfection systems for objects and surfaces.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify each of the third arms of modified Subramanian by incorporating a distance ranging unit to each UV light source as taught by Bitra in order to detect an optimal and safe distance for the disinfecting system relative to an individual (Bitra, [0039 and 0052]), and subsequently emit the UV light into the disinfection zone including the individual’s hand in response to receiving a signal from the distance ranging unit indicating that the UV lamp is the appropriate distance from the individual (Bitra, [0039]).
With this modification, modified Subramanian in view of Bitra teaches wherein the first UV lamp (Subramanian, left third arm 416, Fig. 6C), the second UV lamp (Subramanian, right third arm 416, Fig. 6C), and the third UV lamp (Subramanian, third third arm 416, Fig. 6C) are configured to emit the first UV light, the second UV light, and the third UV light, respectively (Subramanian, UV light source on scanners 314, Fig. 6C), into the first disinfection zone (Subramanian, seats 1-3), the second disinfection zone (Subramanian, seats 5-7), and the third disinfection zone (Subramanian, any area that does not exactly overlap with either the first or second disinfection zone e.g., seats 3-5), respectively, including the breathing spaces of the first individual, the second individual, and the third individual seated on the first seat, the second seat, and the third seat, respectively (Subramanian, seats 1-7 inherently have a breathing space when a person sits on the seat, i.e., the volume that the seat and the individual does not occupy), in response to receiving one or more signals a signal from the distance ranging unit indicating that the first UV lamp, the second UV lamp, and the third UV lamp are the appropriate distances from the first individual, the second individual, and the third individual, respectively (Bitra, “Once the human hand 350 is positioned at an optimal distance from the mobile phone 300, the UV LED 310 exposes the human hand 350 to the UV radiation 320”, [0039], where the camera being able to detect the distance from a human hand (i.e., individual) means the camera can detect the distance of an individual’s breathing space).
Regarding claim 25, modified Subramanian teaches wherein the enclosed space is an internal cabin of a vehicle ([0020]), wherein the structure is a passenger service unit (PSU) within the internal cabin (luggage bin 108, where “the passenger aircraft 100 may include one or more seats 104 and may include one or more luggage bins 108. The disinfection system 100 may be attached to any components or interior surfaces of the aircraft 102, including but not limited to the aircraft floor, the one or more seats 104, the one or more luggage racks, a lavatory wall, a galley wall, and within the cockpit”, [0027]).
Regarding claim 26, the Subramanian/Bitra combination fails to teach wherein the structure is a portion of the seat.
However, Subramanian teaches in a separate embodiment wherein the structure is a portion of the seat within the internal cabin (disinfection system 1200, Fig. 12, 17A-B, where “disinfection system 1200 includes a base 1204 configured to attach (e.g., via bolts, adhesive, vacuum pods, or other attachment technology) to an interior surface, such as a passenger seat 104 or the ceiling of an aircraft 102”, [0052], seat being forward passenger seat 1702 with emission module 1224, Fig. 17A-B).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to modify the rail/UV disinfection system assembly of the Subramanian/Bitra combination by further incorporating the rail/UV disinfection system assembly also to a passenger seat as taught by Subramanian for the purposes of UV disinfection.
8. Claims 5-6, and 9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Subramanian et al. (US 20220001051 A1), further in view of Bitra et al. (US 20220233730 A1), as applied to claims 1 and 8 above, further in view of Beilner et al. (DE 102019213094 A1).
Regarding claim 5, modified Subramanian teaches a structure (aircraft interior, Fig. 9) and an articulating arm (third arms 416, Fig. 6C) for the disinfection system (100, Fig. 3 or 8), where the articulating arm holds a UV light emitter (scanners 314 having UV lamps, Fig. 6C), but fails to teach a latch coupled to the structure and one or more of the first, second, or third articulating arms, wherein the latch is selectively moveable between a locked position and an unlocked position.
Beilner teaches a UV disinfection system for interior systems within vehicles such as motor vehicles with the use of an articulating arm holding a UV light emitter to disinfect a selected area.
Beilner teaches a UV disinfection system comprising an articulating arm (arm 18 with UV light emitter 17 in vehicle interior 2, Fig. 1), and a removable cover acting as a lock/latch for the articulating arm (reversibly moveable cover 12, Fig. 1, where “there are also further first disinfection devices 9 under a headliner 11 which emit UV radiation into the vehicle interior via their UV light sources. The disinfection facilities 9 are in the non-operating position over corresponding covers, e.g. movable covers using electric motors 12th , which are postponed here, covered invisibly. The covers 12th are only opened when a disinfection operation is to take place”, see Fig. 1 and p. 5, 2nd to last paragraph of English translation, where the covers in a closed state mean a locked, non-operating position, and an open state mean an unlocked, operating position).
Modified Subramanian and Beilner are analogous references, directed towards a UV disinfection system for interior systems within vehicles carrying passengers with the use of articulating arms holding a UV light emitter to disinfect a selected area.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the UV disinfection system of modified Subramanian by incorporating a moveable cover being a part of the UV disinfection system as taught by Beilner to allow the UV emitters to operate when in an open/unlocked position and not operate when in a closed/locked position.
Regarding claim 6, modified Subramanian teaches an activation member (controller 520 with communication interface 1008, Fig. 10, where “the communication interface 1008 can be operatively configured to communicate with components of the disinfection system 100”, [0045]), but fails to teach wherein the activation member is configured to control the latch.
Beilner teaches a control device (central control device 20, Fig. 1), where the control device controls the operation of the disinfection system, wherein “the operation of all disinfection facilities 9 , 17th is via a central control device 20th controlled with the disinfection equipment 9 , 17th communicates accordingly and can control this, for example, with regard to the duration of the operation, the radiation intensity or the movement according to a predetermined sequence”, see p.6, 3rd paragraph of English translation. The disinfection operation cannot be achieved unless the moveable covers are open, implying that the control device 20 (Fig. 1) has control over the moveable covers 12 (Fig. 1) as a result of the disinfection operation being triggered.
Modified Subramanian and Beilner are analogous references, directed towards a UV disinfection system for interior systems within vehicles carrying passengers with the use of articulating arms holding a UV light emitter to disinfect a selected area.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the UV disinfection system having a controller of modified Subramanian by incorporating a controller that controls the moveable covers via the activation of the UV disinfection system as taught by Beilner to disinfect the vehicle only when the disinfection operation is triggered.
Regarding claim 9, modified Subramanian teaches a spacer panel (part of a luggage rack/bin, or part of the galley walls, mapped in claim 8 rejection above) within the internal cabin of the aircraft (102, Fig. 1), but fails to teach wherein the spacer panel comprises a cavity, and wherein at least a portion of the articulating is within the cavity in a stowed position.
Beilner teaches a spacer panel (headliner 11, Fig. 1) comprising a cavity (space within headliner 11, Fig. 1), and wherein at least a portion of the articulating is within the cavity in a stowed position (dotted line near arm 18 showing a stowed/inactive position within the headliner 11, and arm 18 having UV emitters 17 in a disinfecting/active position, Fig. 1).
Modified Subramanian and Beilner are analogous references, directed towards a UV disinfection system for interior systems within vehicles carrying passengers with the use of articulating arms holding a UV light emitter to disinfect a selected area.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the UV disinfection system having an attachment surface between the rail and aircraft interior of modified Subramanian by incorporating a cavity within the attachment space as taught by Beilner to store the arm containing the UV emitter when the disinfection operation is not active.
Conclusion
9. The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure: Hatti et al. (US 20190030195 A1), directed to a sensor-based UVC aircraft cabin sterilization system.
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.
10. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Aham Lee whose telephone number is (703)756-5622. The examiner can normally be reached Monday to Thursday, 10:00 AM - 8:00 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 R. 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.
/Aham Lee/Examiner, Art Unit 1758
/MARIS R KESSEL/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1758
Prosecution Insights