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
1. The amendment filed 15 September 2025 has been received and considered for examination. Claims 1-5,10,12,16,18-19,21,26,32-34,37,40-41 and 45 are presently pending and being examined herein.
2. The rejection of all claims under 35 U.S.C. 101 and the objection to claim 32 are maintained.
3. All other rejections and objections from the previous Office action are withdrawn in view of Applicant’s amendment.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 amendments, as detailed below.
Information Disclosure Statement
5. The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 19 May 2025 is being considered by the examiner.
Claim Objections
6. Claim 1 is objected to because of the following informalities: in line 13, “portable self-adjusting sanitizer or disinfectant” should read --portable self-adjusting sanitizer or disinfectant sprayer--.
7. Claim 32 is objected to because of the following informalities: “a pressure settings” should read “a pressure setting”.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
8. 35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
9. Claims 1-5, 10, 12, 16, 18, 19, 21, 26, 32-34, 37, 40, 41, and 45 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to abstract idea without significantly more. The claims recite a logic stored on the memory to change a fluid dispensing property “as a function of data received from the one or more feedback sensors”. The abstract idea of this “as a function of” phrasing with regard to the data (or signals, for claims 33 and 40 and their dependent claims) received does not fit neatly into one of the four statutory categories and is analyzed for patent eligibility as follows.
10. In accordance with MPEP 2106, the claims are found to recite statutory subject matter outside of the limitations in question (Step 1: Yes) and are analyzed to determine if the claims recite any concepts that equate to an abstract idea, law of nature, or natural phenomenon (Step 2A: Prong 1). In the instant application, “as a function of data received” likely refers to a mathematical concept, treated equally under the judicial exception to an abstract idea. See MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(I). In the alternative, the limitation “as a function of data received” may refer to a mental process, if the function is intended figuratively as in “in response to data received”, also treated equally under the judicial exception to an abstract idea. See MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(III). The limitations reciting “data” similarly qualify for the judicial exception because a product claim to an intangible collection of information, data per se or signals per se, even if created by human effort, does not fall within any statutory category. See MPEP 2106.03(I). Accordingly, the claims recite abstract ideas (Step 2A, Prong 1: Yes). For the purposes of analysis, these two instances of a judicial exception are treated together in accordance with MPEP 2106.04(II)(B).
11. This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because the claims do not recite any additional elements that reflect an improvement to technology or apply the judicial exception in some other meaningful way (Step 2A, Prong 2: No). The “function” is stated with a high degree of generality, i.e., does not specifically state how the property would be increased, decreased, or otherwise changed (or even, what the fluid property would represent) and would be considered generally linking the abstract idea to the field of endeavor and not a particular practical application. See MPEP 2106.05(h). Even with a recitation of the fluid property being changed, as in claim 32, fails to overcome the judicial exception, as the function is still general thus generally links the abstract idea to the field of endeavor. Other claims introduce some extra-solution activity (e.g., “for preventing operation of the sprayer” in claim 10, “for stopping the fluid flow” in claim 12, “for calculating apparent swipe velocity” in claim 16, “for adjusting a fluid delivery rate” in claim 18) that does not resolve the problems discussed above with regard to the abstract “function”.
12. The claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because all elements within the disinfectant sprayer appear well-understood, routine, and conventional within the respective art. (Step 2B: No). See MPEP 2106.05(d). The feedback sensors appear to be selected from an off-the-shelf flow meter, accelerometer, gyroscopic sensor, magnetometer sensor, velocimeter sensor, time-of-flight sensor, camera, and distance sensor (Specification pars 0057-0058). The pump, motor, and motor controller all appear to be conventional. The processor and memory are understood as conventional controller hardware, and the implementation of the method is not described as anything more than could be accomplished using known control logic. Ultimately, the lack of definition in independent claims 1, 33, and 40 regarding the function by which the fluid dispensing property depends on the sensor data prevents the claims and their dependent claims from amounting to significantly more than the abstract idea. Therefore, the claims do not amount to significantly more than the judicial exception itself and, as such, are not patent eligible.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
13. 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.
14. Claims 1-3, 5, 10, 19, 21, 26, 32-34, 37, 40, 41, and 45 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wilson et al (US 2022/0193287 A1) in view of Field (US 2010/0147701 A1).
15. Regarding claim 1, Wilson teaches a hand-held (handheld sprayer, par 0005) portable (handheld version would be portable, par 0005, FIG. 1) self-adjusting (sprayer could…automatically adjust the parameters, par 0124) sanitizer or disinfectant sprayer (sprayer…sprays sanitizer particles, par 0123) comprising:
a tank (tank 131, FIG. 1) for holding sanitizer or disinfectant (fills tank with disinfectant, par 0114);
one or more batteries (batteries 101, par 0109);
a motor (pump motor, par 0105);
a motor controller (control system of FIG. 7 can alter pump current set point, par 0144);
a pump (pump, par 0105);
a processor (integral microprocessor, par 0059);
memory (storage machine may include memory devices, par 0146);
a dispensing wand (“spray wand”, par 0026; FIG. 1, wand 110, par 0105);
a trigger (trigger 155, FIG. 1, pars 0105-0106) for causing the portable self-adjusting sanitizer or disinfectant sprayer to turn on and off (operator begins spraying by pressing the wand trigger, par 0052; trigger can be mechanical release i.e. would turn off when not depressed, par 0106);
one or more feedback sensors (data sensors, pars 0007, 0070-0075, and 0094), wherein the one or more feedback sensors provide data indicative of one or more of: movement, distance, fluid flow, acceleration, magnetic fields, and an image (sensors can capture movement data, pars 0094; sensors to communicate flow rate, par 0007; accelerometer, par 0074; camera captures images such as QR, barcode, and physical tags, par 0073); and
logic stored on the memory (storage machine holds machine readable instructions executable by a logic machine, par 0146);
wherein the logic stored on the memory causes the processor (executable by a processor to provide, implement, perform, or enact the above described methods, par 0146) to change a fluid dispensing property (set spraying function to ON or OFF, par 0061).
The limitation wherein the fluid flow is greater than zero describes an operational condition, i.e., an intended use of the device, which imparts no patentable weight. See MPEP 2114(II). Examiner notes that Wilson does teach that fluid flow is greater than zero during operation (par 0105).
Wilson teaches that an abundance of sensor data is made available to the processor for displaying to a user or master controller (pars 0003, 0044, 0144) to ensure that sanitizing is conducted properly (par 0104), but does not specifically teach that changing this fluid dispensing property occurs as a function of data received from the one or more feedback sensors.
Field teaches an apparatus for cleaning and/or disinfecting (par 0012) having a tank, a pump, an outlet nozzle, a battery, and a control circuit (FIG. 1, par 0012) used to spray a sanitizing fluid (par 0044). The apparatus has a sensor to sense a variety of inputs (par 0052) then actuate a switch to energize the pump (par 0051), thus changing the fluid dispensing property of flow as a function of data received from one or more feedback sensors.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to activate/deactivate the pump in the invention of Wilson as a function of feedback from sensors as taught by Field. Doing so would predictably enable the data available from the myriad sensors (listed in Wilson par 0094) to automatically control the flow from the sprayer, for example, shutting the pump off when sanitizing is complete or a clog is detected.
Further, Wilson teaches that the pump is the driving force to move disinfecting fluid (par 0105) along the fluid flow path between the tank and the nozzle (par 0101) but does not specifically teach the pump having a pump inlet in fluid communication with an interior of the tank or the pump having a pump outlet.
Field teaches that pump 24 draws liquid from reservoir 12 through tube 20 (par 0051, FIG. 1) i.e., a pump inlet in fluid communication with an interior of the tank and forces the liquid out tube 22 i.e., a pump outlet and nozzle 14 (par 0051, 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 position the pump in fluid communication with the tank and the nozzle as taught by Field in the sanitizer sprayer of Wilson. Doing so would predictably provide the ability to pump disinfecting fluid to the nozzle, enabling the controlled spray application of disinfectant to the target surfaces.
16. Regarding claim 2, Wilson as modified by Field teaches the hand-held portable self-adjusting sanitizer or disinfectant sprayer of claim 1 wherein the one or more feedback sensors comprises a flow sensor (flow sensor, Wilson par 0101).
17. Regarding claim 3, Wilson as modified by Field teaches the hand-held portable self-adjusting sanitizer or disinfectant sprayer of claim 1 wherein the one or more feedback sensors comprises a distance sensor (distance ranging guide, Wilson pars 0096-0097).
18. Regarding claim 5, Wilson as modified by Field teaches the hand-held portable self-adjusting sanitizer or disinfectant sprayer of claim 1 wherein the one or more feedback sensors comprises an image sensor (camera captures picture of area being sanitized, Wilson pars 0137-0139).
19. Regarding claim 10, Wilson as modified by Field teaches the hand-held portable self-adjusting sanitizer or disinfectant sprayer of claim 1 further comprising logic stored on the memory (storage machine holds machine-readable instructions executable by a logic machine, Wilson par 0146) for capturing data about battery capacity and voltage (Wilson par 0134), even issuing a low battery level alert (Wilson par 0125). Wilson does not teach that this logic would be itself actionable for preventing operation of the self-adjusting sprayer if the battery voltage falls below a selected voltage.
Field teaches that a switch, described above as any sensor to sense input, including for example capacitive, resistive plastic, thermal, inductive, mechanical, non-mechanical, electro-mechanical, or other sensor (par 0052), may selectively disable control electronics to lengthen battery life or charge state when a small power supply is used (par 0256), disabling control electronics shutting off output voltages to the pump (par 0254).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to shut off the power to the pump as taught by Field in response to a low voltage reading in the device of Wilson. Doing so would predictably provide the same benefit of prolonging battery life by not running the battery at low voltage.
20. Regarding claim 19, Wilson as modified by Field teaches the hand-held portable self-adjusting sanitizer or disinfectant sprayer of claim 1 further comprising one or more indicators (indicator light, Wilson par 0101) providing feedback to a user (which will inform the operator of the condition, Wilson par 0101).
21. Regarding claim 21, Wilson as modified by Field teaches the hand-held portable self-adjusting sanitizer or disinfectant sprayer of claim 1 wherein the one or more sensors comprise a voltage sensor (voltage measurement means can be a volt meter, Wilson par 0105) and if the voltage drops below a selected threshold, the processor may provide a low battery level alert (Wilson par 0125). Wilson does not teach that the processor prevents operation of the self-adjusting sprayer.
Field teaches that a switch, described above as any sensor to sense input, including for example capacitive, resistive, thermal, inductive, mechanical, non-mechanical, electro-mechanical, or other sensor (par 0052), may selectively disable control electronics to lengthen battery life or charge state when a small power supply is used (par 0256), disabling control electronics shutting off output voltages to the pump (par 0254).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to, in response to a low voltage reading in the device of Wilson, shut off the power to the pump as taught by Field. Doing so would predictably prevent operation of the sprayer in a similar manner, providing the same benefit of prolonging battery life by not running the battery at low voltage.
22. Regarding claim 26, Wilson as modified by Field teaches the hand-held portable self-adjusting sanitizer or disinfectant sprayer of claim 1 wherein the sensor senses a parameter indicative of the capacity of the battery (battery capacity and voltage sensors, Wilson par 0134) and if the capacity of the battery drops below a selected threshold, the processor may provide a low battery level alert (Wilson par 0125). Wilson does not teach in this scenario that the processor prevents operation of the self-adjusting sprayer.
Field teaches that a switch, described above as any sensor to sense input, including for example capacitive, resistive, thermal, inductive, mechanical, non-mechanical, electro-mechanical, or other sensor (par 0052), may selectively disable control electronics to lengthen battery life or charge state when a small power supply is used (par 0256), disabling control electronics shutting off output voltages to the pump (par 0254).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to shut off the power to the pump as taught by Field in response to a low voltage reading in the device of Wilson. Doing so would predictably prevent operation of the sprayer, providing the same benefit of prolonging battery life by not running the battery at low capacity.
23. Regarding claim 32, Wilson as modified by Field teaches the hand-held portable self-adjusting sanitizer or disinfectant sprayer of claim 1 wherein the fluid dispensing property is one of a fluid flow rate, a droplet size, a nozzle setting, a pressure settings, and a spray pattern (set spraying function to ON or OFF, Wilson par 0061).
24. Regarding claim 33, Wilson teaches a hand-held (handheld sprayer, par 0005) portable (handheld version would be portable, par 0005, FIG. 1) self-adjusting (sprayer could…automatically adjust the parameters, par 0124) sanitizer or disinfectant sprayer (sprayer…sprays sanitizer particles, par 0123) comprising:
a tank (tank 131, FIG. 1) for holding sanitizer or disinfectant (fills tank with disinfectant, par 0114);
one or more batteries (batteries 101, par 0109);
a motor (pump motor, par 0105);
a motor controller (control system of FIG. 7 can alter pump current set point, par 0144);
a pump (pump, par 0105);
a processor (integral microprocessor, par 0059);
a trigger (trigger 155, FIG. 1, pars 0105-0106) for turning the sprayer on and off (operator begins spraying by pressing the wand trigger, par 0052; trigger can be mechanical release i.e. would turn off when not depressed, par 0106);
a dispensing wand (“spray wand”, par 0026; FIG. 1, wand 110, par 0105), the dispensing wand having a dispensing wand inlet in fluid communication with the tank outlet (FIG. 1, line connecting wand 110 and tank 100);
and a flow sensor (dispensing sensor 150 equipped to monitor and measure the flow of sanitizer, par 0105, FIG. 1);
wherein the flow sensor is in circuit communication with the processor (embedded sensors that capture and communicate using a suitable wireless or wired connection, par 0134, FIG. 5);
wherein the processor is in circuit communication with the motor controller (sprayer monitors the pump current, par 0144); and
wherein the processor provides input to the motor controller (Set/Get spraying function to ON or OFF, par 0061; pump current in milliamperes, par 0064) as a function of a signal indicative of the flow rate received from the flow sensor (monitor the flow rate and pump current in real time and can determine between a priming sequence and a real time nozzle clog, par 0101).
The limitation wherein the speed of the motor that drives the pump is greater than zero describes an operational condition, i.e., an intended use of the device, which imparts no patentable weight. See MPEP 2114(II). Examiner notes that Wilson does teach that the pump motor would have a monitorable voltage and amperage and cause sanitizer to flow, thus operating with a speed greater than zero (par 0105).
Wilson does not teach that the signal indicative of the flow rate is used by the processor for controlling the speed of the motor that drives the pump.
Field teaches an apparatus for cleaning and/or disinfecting (par 0012) having a tank, a pump, an outlet nozzle, a battery, and a control circuit (FIG. 1, par 0012) used to spray a sanitizing fluid (par 0044). The apparatus has a sensor to sense a variety of inputs (par 0052) including pump current (par 0255) then actuate a switch to energize the pump (par 0051), thus changing the speed of the motor that drives the pump from zero to on as a function of a signal indicative of the flow rate.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to activate/deactivate the pump in the invention of Wilson as a function of feedback from a sensor indicating flow rate as taught by Field. Doing so would predictably enable the data available from the myriad sensors (listed in Wilson par 0094) to automatically control the flow from the sprayer, for example, shutting the pump off when sanitizing is complete or a clog is detected.
Further, Wilson teaches that the pump is the driving force to move disinfecting fluid (par 0105) along the fluid flow path between the tank and the nozzle (par 0101), thus the position of the sensors 140 and 150 measures the pressurized side of the pumped fluid medium, i.e., a pump outlet. Wilson does not specifically teach the pump having a pump inlet in fluid communication with an interior of the tank or the pump having a pump outlet.
Field teaches that pump 24 draws liquid from reservoir 12 through tube 20 (par 0051, FIG. 1) i.e., a pump inlet in fluid communication with an interior of the tank and forces the liquid out tube 22 i.e., a pump outlet and nozzle 14 (par 0051, 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 position the pump in fluid communication with the tank and the nozzle as taught by Field in the sanitizer sprayer of Wilson. Doing so would predictably provide the ability to pump disinfecting fluid to the nozzle, enabling the controlled spray application of disinfectant to the target surfaces.
25. Regarding claim 34, Wilson as modified by Field teaches the hand-held portable sanitizer/disinfectant sprayer of claim 33 wherein the flow sensor is an in-line flow sensor (flow measurement means can be a flow meter, Wilson par 0105; Wilson FIG. 1, flow sensor 150 located in the line connecting to dispensing wand) that directly monitors the flow through the fluid conduit.
26. Regarding claim 37, Wilson as modified by Field teaches the hand-held portable sanitizer/disinfectant sprayer of claim 33 further comprising circuitry (wired communication, Wilson par 0125) for capturing data about battery capacity and voltage (Wilson par 0134), even issuing a low battery level alert (Wilson par 0125). The low battery level is not specifically taught as 2 volts, but this is a result-effective variable i.e., a variable which achieves a recognized result, where the determination of the optimum or workable ranges of said variable might be characterized as routine experimentation. See MPEP 2144.05(II). Wilson teaches that the circuitry is capable of setting the spraying function to off (Wilson par 0061) but does not teach that the circuitry would be used for stopping the dispenser when the voltage reaches this low battery level.
Field teaches that a switch, described above as any sensor to sense input, including for example capacitive, resistive plastic, thermal, inductive, mechanical, non-mechanical, electro-mechanical, or other sensor (par 0052), may selectively disable control electronics to lengthen battery life or charge state when a small power supply is used (par 0256), disabling control electronics shutting off output voltages to the pump (par 0254).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to shut off the power to the pump as taught by Field in response to a low voltage reading of less than 2 volts in the device of Wilson. Doing so would predictably provide the same benefit of prolonging battery life by not running the battery at this predetermined low voltage level.
27. Regarding claim 40, Wilson teaches a hand-held (handheld sprayer, par 0005) portable (handheld version would be portable, par 0005, FIG. 1) self-adjusting (sprayer could…automatically adjust the parameters, par 0124) sanitizer or disinfectant sprayer (sprayer…sprays sanitizer particles, par 0123) comprising:
a tank (tank 131, FIG. 1) for holding sanitizer or disinfectant (fills tank with disinfectant, par 0114);
one or more batteries (batteries 101, par 0109);
a motor (pump motor, par 0105);
a motor controller (control system of FIG. 7 can alter pump current set point, par 0144);
a pump (pump, par 0105);
a processor (integral microprocessor, par 0059);
a trigger (trigger 155, FIG. 1, pars 0105-0106) for turning the sprayer on and off (operator begins spraying by pressing the wand trigger, par 0052; trigger can be mechanical release i.e. would turn off when not depressed, par 0106);
a dispensing wand (“spray wand”, par 0026; FIG. 1, wand 110, par 0105), the dispensing wand having a dispensing wand inlet in fluid communication with the tank outlet (FIG. 1, line connecting wand 110 and tank 100);
and a distance sensor (distance ranging guide, Wilson pars 0096-0097);
wherein the distance sensor is in circuit communication with the processor (embedded sensors that capture and communicate using a suitable wireless or wired connection, par 0134, FIG. 5);
wherein the processor is in circuit communication with the motor controller (sprayer monitors the pump current, par 0144); and
wherein the processor provides input to the motor controller (Set/Get spraying function to ON or OFF, par 0061; pump current in milliamperes, par 0064) as a function of a signal indicative of the flow rate received from the flow sensor (monitor the flow rate and pump current in real time and can determine between a priming sequence and a real time nozzle clog, par 0101).
The limitation wherein the speed of the motor that drives the pump is greater than zero describes an operational condition, i.e., an intended use of the device, which imparts no patentable weight. See MPEP 2114(II). Examiner notes that Wilson does teach that the pump motor would have a monitorable voltage and amperage and cause sanitizer to flow, thus operating with a speed greater than zero (par 0105).
Wilson does not teach that the signal indicative of the flow rate is used by the processor for controlling the speed of the motor that drives the pump.
Field teaches an apparatus for cleaning and/or disinfecting (par 0012) having a tank, a pump, an outlet nozzle, a battery, and a control circuit (FIG. 1, par 0012) used to spray a sanitizing fluid (par 0044). The apparatus has a sensor to sense a variety of inputs (par 0052) including pump current (par 0255) then actuate a switch to energize the pump (par 0051), thus changing the speed of the motor that drives the pump from zero to on as a function of a signal indicative of the flow rate.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to activate/deactivate the pump in the invention of Wilson as a function of feedback from a sensor indicating flow rate as taught by Field. Doing so would predictably enable the data available from the myriad sensors (listed in Wilson par 0094) to automatically control the flow from the sprayer, for example, shutting the pump off when sanitizing is complete or a clog is detected.
Further, Wilson teaches that the pump is the driving force to move disinfecting fluid (par 0105) along the fluid flow path between the tank and the nozzle (par 0101), thus the position of the sensors 140 and 150 measures the pressurized side of the pumped fluid medium, i.e., a pump outlet. Wilson does not specifically teach the pump having a pump inlet in fluid communication with an interior of the tank or the pump having a pump outlet.
Field teaches that pump 24 draws liquid from reservoir 12 through tube 20 (par 0051, FIG. 1) i.e., a pump inlet in fluid communication with an interior of the tank and forces the liquid out tube 22 i.e., a pump outlet and nozzle 14 (par 0051, 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 position the pump in fluid communication with the tank and the nozzle as taught by Field in the sanitizer sprayer of Wilson. Doing so would predictably provide the ability to pump disinfecting fluid to the nozzle, enabling the controlled spray application of disinfectant to the target surfaces.
28. Regarding claim 41, Wilson as modified by Field teaches the hand-held portable sanitizer/disinfectant sprayer of claim 40 wherein the distance sensor is located on the dispensing wand (spray wand 110 has laser diode 165, Wilson par 0108, Wilson FIG. 1; laser aiming guide can also have a distance ranging guide, Wilson par 0096).
29. Regarding claim 45, Wilson as modified by Field teaches the hand-held portable sanitizer/disinfectant sprayer of claim 33 further comprising circuitry (embedded sensors to capture information and transfer the information either through a wireless or wired communication method, par 0125) for capturing data about battery capacity and voltage (par 0134), even issuing a low battery level alert (par 0125). The low battery level is not specifically taught as 2 volts, but this is a result-effective variable i.e. a variable which achieves a recognized result, where the determination of the optimum or workable ranges of said variable might be characterized as routine experimentation. See MPEP 2144.05(II). Wilson does not teach that the circuitry would be used for stopping the dispenser when the voltage reaches this low battery level of 2 volts.
Field teaches that a switch, described above as any sensor to sense input, including for example capacitive, resistive plastic, thermal, inductive, mechanical, non-mechanical, electro-mechanical, or other sensor (par 0052), may selectively disable control electronics to lengthen battery life or charge state when a small power supply is used (par 0256), disabling control electronics shutting off output voltages to the pump (par 0254).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to shut off the power to the pump as taught by Field in response to a low voltage reading of less than 2 volts in the device of Wilson. Doing so would predictably provide the same benefit of prolonging battery life by not running the battery at this predetermined low voltage level.
30. Claim 4 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wilson and Field as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Olsen et al (US 2019/0117812 A1).
Regarding claim 4, Wilson as modified by Field teaches the hand-held portable self-adjusting sanitizer or disinfectant sprayer of claim 1 wherein the one or more feedback sensors comprises a distance ranging guide, described as an LED or laser diode equipped to inform the operator when they are the correct distance from the target surface (Wilson pars 0096-0097). The combination does not specifically teach a time-of-flight sensor.
Olsen teaches a sensing system for collecting activity data for analogously disinfecting a room (par 0017) employing a time-of-flight depth sensor (par 0032) useful in generating a contamination map and/or real-time feedback to the operator (par 0032).
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 time-of-flight sensor to detect distance as taught by Olsen for the range system in the sprayer of modified Wilson. Doing so would predictably provide similar distance detection capability and communicate the same information to help the operator maintain the wand at an appropriate spray distance.
31. Claim 12 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wilson and Field as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Alpert (US 2017/0273534 A1).
Regarding claim 12, Wilson as modified by Field teaches the hand-held portable self-adjusting sanitizer or disinfectant sprayer of claim 1 further comprising logic stored on the memory for stopping the fluid flow out of the dispensing wand (Set/Get spraying function to ON or OFF, Wilson par 0061). The combination does not teach that this would occur if the dispensing wand passes the edge of a surface.
Alpert teaches a washing and/or sterilization apparatus (Abstract) wherein at least one robot arm includes at least one cleaning apparatus such as a nozzle configured to direct the spray of at least one washing fluid to an object (par 0008). The controller orients and moves the at least one robot arm based on the dimensions and/or shape determined by the at least one sensor (par 0009), the sensors configured to identify the edges of the object (pars 0072 and 0080). As part of an algorithm to sterilize the object based on shape (pars 0071-0072), the flow may be turned off during step 72 such that the pump of the water plenum 44 does not continue to pump at least one fluid toward the nozzle (par 0079, FIG. 2A) to save fluids, resources, and time (par 0079).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to stop the fluid flow through the nozzle of modified Wilson when the nozzle arm/wand passes the edge of a surface as taught by Alpert. Doing so would predictably save disinfection fluid similarly to the apparatus of Alpert, as Alpert teaches the value of spraying disinfectant according to the object shape in order to reduce fluid waste.
32. Claim 16 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wilson and Field as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Childress (US 2022/0023478 A1).
Regarding claim 16, Wilson as modified by Field teaches the hand-held portable self-adjusting sanitizer or disinfectant sprayer of claim 1 but does not teach logic stored on the memory for calculating apparent swipe velocity.
Childress teaches a wand assembly of a sanitizing system (Title, Abstract) wherein a control unit calculates a speed of the wand assembly by integrating the location of the sanitizing head relative to the fixed location (par 0056) and determines whether or not the speed of the wand assembly is sufficient to sanitize the surface based on a comparison of the speed of the wand assembly and pacing data stored in memory (par 0008).
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 the distance sensor and wand assembly of modified Wilson to calculate apparent swipe velocity as taught by Childress. Doing so would predictably provide the same stated advantage of ensuring that the spray duration is sufficient to sanitize the target surface or environment.
33. Claim 18 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wilson and Field as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Markesbery et al (US 2020/0306399 A1).
Regarding claim 18, Wilson as modified by Field teaches the hand-held portable self-adjusting sanitizer or disinfectant sprayer of claim 1 further comprising logic stored on the memory adjusting a fluid delivery rate between off and on settings (Wilson par 0061). Neither Wilson nor Field teach that the fluid delivery rate would be adjusted to a first delivery rate or to a second fluid delivery rate. The limitations for dispensing sanitizer/disinfectant over a broad projection and for dispensing sanitizer/disinfectant on a targeted object describe an intended use of the apparatus and thus are not given patentable weight. See MPEP 2114(II).
Markesbery teaches a method for disinfecting surfaces (Abstract) wherein a programmable logic controller or computer (par 0263) can be used to control a sprayer to utilize any desired flow rate (par 0249). Markesbery further teaches selectable settings of low, medium, and high flow rates (par 0249), which is advantageous because precise control of the flow rate a composition is dispersed can avoid application of excess volumes of the liquid composition and ensure that the composition has contacted all of the intended surfaces (par 0274).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to include controller logic to adjust sprayer flow to a first flow rate and a second flow rate as taught by Markesbery within the sprayer of modified Wilson. Doing so would predictably provide the same advantages while enabling these flow settings to be used for dispensing over a broad projection and dispensing to a targeted object as desired.
34. Claim 43 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wilson and Field as applied to claim 40 above, and further in view of Karren et al (US 2019/0263691 A1).
Regarding claim 43, Wilson as modified by Field teaches the hand-held portable sanitizer/disinfectant sprayer of claim 40 further comprising a flow sensor (flow sensor, Wilson par 0101) located in the flow conduit connecting the pump/tank to the wand (FIG. 1, sensor 150). The combination does not teach that the flow sensor would be located in the dispensing wand.
Karren teaches a system for cleaning materials and surfaces (par 0002; used to sanitize a surface, par 0156) having a wand configured to spray fluids (par 0026) that includes one or more sensors that determine how much fluid has been applied (par 0221), citing the purpose of these sensors to automatically increase, decrease, start, stop, and/or otherwise control the amount of fluid that is sprayed (par 0221).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to locate the flow sensor in the wand as taught by Karren within the sprayer of modified Wilson. Doing so would predictably provide the same feedback information/flow control capability as the original location in the conduit upstream of the wand.
Response to Arguments
35. Applicant’s arguments, see Remarks filed 19 March 2025, with respect to the rejections of claims 1-5,10,12,16,18-19,21,26,32-34,37,40-41 and 45 under 35 U.S.C. 101 and 35 U.S.C. 103 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
36. Regarding the rejections under 35 U.S.C. 101 (Remarks pages 13-14), Applicant asserts that for independent claims 1, 33, and 42, each claim taken as a whole directs toward a machine and thus would be granted an automatic pass through the Alice/Mayo test for abstract ideas recited therein. Examiner respectfully disagrees, as the abstract idea of changing a fluid property “as a function of data received”, described above as a mental process or mathematical function, is clearly recited, set forth, or described (emphasis added) to answer “YES” on Prong One of the Alice/Mayo test, see MPEP 2106.04(II)(A)(1). Examiner recommends integrating the judicial exception into a particular practical application (emphasis added) per the guidance in MPEP 2106.04(d) and, if possible, further ensuring that the claim itself reflects a disclosed improvement as outlined in MPEP 2106.04(d)(1). A specific recitation of wherein the logic causes the processor to adjust a spray velocity as a function of sensed distance to ensure that the sanitizing spray reaches the target would clearly integrate the decision-making function into a particular practical application. But as currently recited, changing a fluid dispensing property “as a function of” (or “based on”, or “in response to”, or equivalent) data received directs toward a black box decision-making process and thus reflects a drafting effort designed to monopolize the judicial exception per MPEP 2106.04(d).
Examiner further notes that claim 16 recites the limitation “for calculating apparent swipe velocity”, which, if revised to carry patentable weight by not referring to an intended use per MPEP 2114(II), would be subject to the same treatment under 35 U.S.C. 101 as a mathematical concept. To overcome this, the calculation should be similarly applied in a way that rises to a particular practical application, or simply changed to “for sensing apparent swipe velocity” as such a recitation does not evoke a mathematical concept. Applicant is encouraged to contact the Examiner if there are outstanding questions about how 35 U.S.C. 101 has been applied.
37. Regarding the rejections under 35 U.S.C. 103 (Remarks pages 14-15), Applicant asserts that Field does not teach feedback sensors, merely sensors that can turn on and off the sprayer, thus does not cure the deficiencies of Wilson. Applicant further asserts that there is no motivation to modify Wilson with the teachings of Field as Wilson already has a trigger that is pressed to begin spraying. Examiner respectfully disagrees with both arguments, clarifying that “any sensor to sense input” applied to actuating a switch on and off (Field pars 0051-0052) reads upon a feedback sensor as recited. While Wilson has a trigger to begin spraying, Field teaches that the spray can be activated/deactivated by any sensor input. Wilson has a number of sensor inputs that can warn the user with the intent of activating/deactivating the system (pars 0137-0144, FIG. 7) but the sensor feedback does not change a fluid dispensing property. Thus, the Field teaching represents an improvement, such that in combination, the references render obvious the limitation “change a fluid dispensing property as a function of data received from the one or more feedback sensors”, the phrase “as a function of data received from” interpreted broadly herein to include “in response to”.
38. Revisions to the foregoing rejections in this Office action were all necessitated by the amendments.
Conclusion
39. 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.
40. 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