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 .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
2. A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 06/15/2026 has been entered.
Response to Amendment
3. This is an office action in response to Applicant's arguments and remarks filed on 03/23/2026. Claims 1-14 and 21 are pending in the application and are being examined herein.
Status of Objections and Rejections
4. All rejections from the previous office action are withdrawn in view of Applicant's amendment.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
5. In the arguments presented on p.8-9 of the amendment, the Applicant argues that primary reference Sood, alone or in combination, does not teach the amended claim 1 and 21 limitations.
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 1 and 21 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
Claim Interpretation
6. 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.
7. 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) is/are: “control unit” in claims 1, 3-5, 8, and 10-12.
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
The corresponding structure appears to be a controller electrically connected to a communication device ([0006]), and equivalents thereof.
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
8. The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
9. Claim 21 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Avery (US 20210400786 A1).
Regarding claim 21, Avery teaches a system (Fig. 10), comprising:
a lighting module (50B, Fig. 10) comprising a plurality of common electrical connectors (power source 30 with terminals 12A and B, Fig. 10), at least one ultra-violet light element (42 with respective driver 32A, Fig. 10) and at least one visible light element (40 with respective driver 32, Fig. 10) each electrically connected to the plurality of common electrical connectors (they are in electrical connection to the power source 30 with terminals 12A and B, Fig. 10),
wherein the at least one visible light element being directly electrically connected to the plurality of common electrical connectors (directly connected to power source 30 with terminals 12A and B, Fig. 10) and the at least one UV light element being connected to the plurality of common electrical connectors through at least one switch (54, Fig. 10), such that activation of the at least one UV light element upon actuation of the switch is conditioned upon activation of the at least one visible light element via electrical power supply to the plurality of common electrical connectors ([0038]).
The limitation of “wherein the lighting module is insertable into a lighting receptacle in a vehicle for a replacement of an existing lighting module in the lighting receptacle in a retrofit mating configuration by connection of the plurality of common electrical connectors to a plurality of corresponding receptacle connectors in the lighting receptacle without modifying the lighting receptacle or the plurality of common electrical connectors” is directed to the function of the apparatus and/or the manner of operating the apparatus. All the structural limitations of the claim has been disclosed by Avery and the lighting system of Avery is capable of replacing an existing lighting module in a lighting receptacle of a vehicle in a retrofit mating configuration by connection of the plurality of common electrical connectors to a plurality of corresponding receptacle connectors in the lighting receptacle without modifications to either the connectors or the receptacle. As such, it is deemed that the claimed apparatus is not differentiated from the applicant' s invention (see MPEP §2114).
NOTE: this is a recitation of intended use / functional language, and so long as the prior art structure reads on the instant claimed structure, this limitation would be met because the same structure would be capable of the same function; in this case, Avery’s lighting system is designed as a replacement for existing lighting fixtures to provide a visible and a sanitizing light (abstract), thus replacement to an existing lighting fixture such as a lighting receptacle in a vehicle without any modification is completely feasible.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
10. The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
11. Claims 1-3, 5, and 11-12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Avery (US 20210400786 A1), further in view of Kyle et al. (US 20210394590 A1) and Manka et al. (US 20210346556 A1).
Regarding claim 1, Avery teaches a system (Fig. 10) for replacement of lighting fixtures in homes ([0006] and [0009]), comprising:
a lighting module (50B, Fig. 10) comprising a plurality of common electrical connectors (power source 30 with terminals 12A and B, Fig. 10), at least one ultra-violet light element (42 with respective driver 32A, Fig. 10) and at least one visible light element (40 with respective driver 32, Fig. 10) each electrically connected to the plurality of common electrical connectors (they are in electrical connection to the power source 30 with terminals 12A and B, Fig. 10), and a housing accommodating the plurality of common electrical connectors (walls of 50B, Fig. 10),
wherein the at least one UV light element and the at least one visible light element are at least partially separately electrically actuatable (UV LEDs 42 are separately actuatable when compared to the visible light LEDs 40 due to the switch 54, Fig. 10), the at least one visible light element being directly electrically connected to the plurality of common electrical connectors (directly connected to power source 30 with terminals 12A and B, Fig. 10) and the at least one UV light element being connected to the plurality of common electrical connectors through at least one switch (54, Fig. 10), such that activation of the at least one UV light element upon actuation of the switch is conditioned upon activation of the at least one visible light element via electrical power supply to the plurality of common electrical connectors ([0038]).
The limitations of “a plurality of common electrical connectors for connection to a plurality of corresponding receptacle connectors in a lighting receptacle of a vehicle” and “the at least one UV light element and the at least one visible light element are insertable into the lighting receptacle to connect the plurality of common electrical connectors to the plurality of corresponding receptacle connectors” are directed to the function of the apparatus and/or the manner of operating the apparatus. All the structural limitations of the claim has been disclosed by Avery and the lighting system of Avery is capable of being inserted into a lighting receptacle to connect to a plurality of receptacle connectors in a lighting receptacle of a vehicle. As such, it is deemed that the claimed apparatus is not differentiated from the applicant' s invention (see MPEP §2114).
NOTE: this is a recitation of intended use / functional language, and so long as the prior art structure reads on the instant claimed structure, this limitation would be met because the same structure would be capable of the same function; in this case, Avery’s lighting system is designed as a replacement for existing lighting fixtures to provide a visible and a sanitizing light (abstract), thus replacement to an existing lighting fixture such as a lighting receptacle in a vehicle is completely feasible.
Avery teaches wherein the lighting module further comprises a control unit configured to transmit a signal (remote control 8, Fig. 16), but fails to teach wherein the lighting module further comprises a control unit configured to transmit a signal to cause a door of the vehicle to open concurrently with or just prior to activation of the at least one UV light element.
Kyle teaches a vehicle disinfection system (vehicle 402, Fig. 4) utilizing UV light in a vehicle lighting receptacle (404, Fig. 4) to disinfect the vehicle interior cabin (412, Fig. 4), where the UV disinfection process does not start until the passenger door (410, Fig. 4) is open via door position sensors (121, Fig. 1, and see [0042], meaning a concurrent activation of the UV light when the door is open).
Avery and Kyle are both considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of UV disinfection systems for interior spaces.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to substitute the UV lighting module within the vehicle of Kyle with the replacement lighting system of Avery, because the substitution of this feature yields the predictable result of providing a sanitizing light within the interior space and the additional benefit of visible light (Avery, [0038]) with a reasonable expectation of success.
With Avery’s lighting module now in Kyle’s vehicle, 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 controller of modified Avery by incorporating the door position sensor feedback mechanism with the control unit as taught by Kyle, because doing so would only allow the UV light sources (i.e., Avery’s lighting system) to be concurrently activated when the vehicle door is open (Kyle, [0042]).
However, the instant combination still fails to teach wherein the signal actively causes a door of the vehicle to open (whereas the instant combination teaches a passive recording of a door already being open).
Manka teaches a vehicle UV disinfection system (Fig. 4-5, cleaning system 550), reciting that the opening of the vehicle doors (460 and 462, Fig. 4) can be controlled automatically via the controller (“the computing devices 110 may send a signal to a controller for automatically opening and closing doors of the vehicle”, [0095]).
The Avery/Kyle combination and Manka are both considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of controller-based operation of UV disinfection cycles within a vehicle.
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 vehicle door of the Avery/Kyle combination by incorporating an automated controller feature of opening the vehicle door responsive to a door opening signal as taught by Manka, because “providing an automatic or mechanical means to replace a manual activity which accomplished the same result is not sufficient to distinguish over the prior art” (see MPEP 2144.04,III). Manka mentions that door opening/closing via controller automation is possible, and given the condition in which a sterilization cycle is initiated (i.e., when the door is detected to be open as shown in Kyle), a door being manually opened via a person to achieve the “open” state could be also be achieved through automatic means.
Regarding claim 2, the limitations of “wherein the lighting module is configured to be insertable into the lighting receptacle for a replacement of an existing lighting module that has no UV light element and is connected to the plurality of corresponding receptacle connectors without modifying the lighting receptacle or the plurality of common electrical connectors” are directed to the function of the apparatus and/or the manner of operating the apparatus. All the structural limitations of the claim has been disclosed by modified Avery and the lighting system of modified Avery is capable of being insertable into a lighting receptacle that has no UV light element without modifying the lighting receptacle or the electrical connectors. As such, it is deemed that the claimed apparatus is not differentiated from the applicant' s invention (see MPEP §2114).
NOTE: this is a recitation of intended use / functional language, and so long as the prior art structure reads on the instant claimed structure, this limitation would be met because the same structure would be capable of the same function; in this case, Avery’s lighting system is designed as a replacement for existing lighting fixtures to provide a visible and a sanitizing light (abstract) within homes ([0006] and [0009]), thus replacement to an existing lighting fixture without a UV light element such as an already existing lighting receptacle without modification in a home is completely feasible.
Regarding claim 3, modified Avery teaches wherein the lighting module further comprises a communication unit (receiver 70, Fig. 16), wherein the communication unit (70, Fig. 16) and the at least one switch (54, Fig. 16) are operably coupled to the control unit (remote control 8, Fig. 16), the control unit configured to actuate the at least one switch (54, Fig. 10) to activate the at least one UV light element for emitting UV light responsive to receiving a designated control signal over the communication unit (control switches 9, Fig. 16 and [0054]) from an external source (human input, [0054]).
Regarding claim 5, modified Avery teaches wherein the control unit (8, Fig. 16) is configured to actuate the at least one switch (UV button 9 transmitting control signals for the switch 54, Fig. 10, 16, and [0054]) for successive spaced-apart designated time periods responsive to successively receiving different codes as the designated control signal from the external source (the user can operate the remote control 8 with successive disinfection cycles via UV button 9, Fig. 16, and the switch 54 selectively disables power based on occupancy detection, both of which have successive spaced-apart time periods, Fig. 10 and [0038), where the external source is human input or human presence).
Regarding claim 11, the instant combination teaches wherein the control unit (Avery, remote control 8, Fig. 16) is further configured to activate at least one visible light source (Avery, 40, Fig. 10) in the interior of said vehicle (Kyle, vehicle 402, Fig. 4) concurrently with or just prior to activation of the at least one UV light element (Avery, 42, Fig. 10 and [0038]), but fails to teach wherein the control unit is further configured to activate at least one warning device in the interior of said vehicle concurrently with or just prior to activation of the at least one UV light element.
Avery in a separate embodiment, teaches a warning light (42A, Fig. 12) that is directly connected to the same driver that the UV light sources are connected to (32A, Fig. 12) in order to indicate to any person in the vicinity that UV light is being emitted ([0045]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the lighting system of modified Avery by incorporating a warning light (42A, Fig. 12) that is directly connected to the same driver that the UV light sources are connected to (32A, Fig. 12) as taught by the Fig. 12 embodiment of Avery, because doing so would indicate to any person in the vicinity that UV light is being emitted (Avery, [0045]) with a reasonable expectation of success.
Regarding claim 12, modified Avery teaches wherein the control unit (remote control 8, Fig. 16) is further configured to actuate the at least one switch (54, Fig. 10) to activate the at least one UV light element for emitting UV light (42, Fig. 10) only responsive to both receiving the designated control signal (UV button 9 signal, Fig. 16) over the communication unit (receiver 70, Fig. 16) from the external source (human input) and receiving a second control signal (pressing the UV button 9 again, Fig. 16) from a user-actuated input (human input again).
12. Claims 4, 6-7, and 13-14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Avery (US 20210400786 A1), further in view of Kyle et al. (US 20210394590 A1), further in view of Manka et al. (US 20210346556 A1), as applied to claims 1, 3, and 5, further in view of Sood et al. (US 10987440 B1, cited in prior office action).
Regarding claim 4, modified Avery teaches a communication unit (receiver 70, Fig. 16) configured to receive the designated control signal over a wireless communications channel from the external source (human input on UV button 9 of remote control 8 communicating with receiver 70, Fig. 16), but fails to teach wherein the communications unit comprises a wireless transceiver.
Sood teaches a UV disinfection system (100, Fig. 1 and Fig. 8 depicting the system of 100 in a vehicle 800) wherein the communications unit (communications circuitry 142, Fig. 1) comprises a wireless transceiver (“The communications circuitry 142 may include antennas, radio transceiver circuits,”, col. 6, line 1) in order to communicate data to a mobile app (144, Fig. 1) displaying data that the user can access through a display (140, Fig. 1 and col. 5, line 58).
Modified Avery and Sood are both considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of UV disinfection systems for vehicles utilizing controller communication to control aspects of the disinfection process.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to, one, modify the receiver of modified Avery with a transceiver as taught by Sood, and two, modify the remote control of Avery to include a display as taught by Sood, because doing so would, one, allow transmission of data back to the remote control/mobile app (Sood, col.6, 1st paragraph), and two, display the received data to the user (Sood, col.5-6) with a reasonable expectation of success.
Regarding the limitation of “the external source including a control server at a dispatch center”, this limitation is directed to the function of the apparatus and/or the manner of operating the apparatus. All the structural limitations of the claim have been disclosed by the instant combination and the apparatus of the instant combination is capable of receiving a control signal over a wireless communications channel from an external source such as a dispatch center. As such, it is deemed that the claimed apparatus is not differentiated from the applicant’s invention (see MPEP §2114).
NOTE: this is a recitation of intended use, and so long as the prior art structure reads on the instant claimed structure, this limitation would be met because the same structure would be capable of the same function; in this case, anyone or any place that has a wireless communication path mentioned in the above paragraph has the ability to access and provide user input to the UV disinfection system (Sood provides an example being a mobile app 144 on a mobile device being able to communicate with the controller 110, Fig. 1).
Regarding claim 6, modified Avery teaches wherein, during the designated time periods (as designated by the user with the UV button 9, Fig. 16) , the at least one UV light element is activated for emitting UV light (42, Fig. 10) and, between the designated time periods, the at least one UV light element is off (UV lights 42 can be turned off by another press of the UV button 9, Fig. 16), but fails to teach wherein the UV light emitted by each of the at least one UV light element in each of the designated time periods individually is less than a designated threshold for safe exposure of humans to the UV light, relative to a closest distance between the at least one UV light element and designated positions of humans as passengers in the interior of said vehicle.
Sood teaches a UV disinfection system (100, Fig. 1 and Fig. 8 depicting the system of 100 in a vehicle 800) having a user interface (136, Fig. 1) having a mobile app (144, Fig. 1) in data communication with the controller of the disinfection system (110, Fig. 1) via communication circuitry (142, Fig. 1), wherein the UV light emitted by each of the at least one UV light element in each of the designated time periods individually is less than a designated threshold for safe exposure of humans to the UV light (“the target dosage may include a range of 1-20 millijoule/cm-2--”, col. 3, lines 57-58, where Applicant’s specification [0048] mentions “if a designated maximum safe level of UV-C light exposure for humans is 6mJ/cm2/day (which is a typical value), the designated time period 76 may be selected so that UV light generated during the time period in the vehicle is from 0.5mJ/cm2 to 2mJ/cm2, e.g., 1mJ/cm2”; the range as claimed by Sood (1-20 mJ/cm2) is more broad than the value of 1 mJ/cm2 of the applicant – however, the user can adjust target dosage via target dosage button 312, Fig. 3A, allowing the user to set a specific value of 1 mJ/cm2 for any disinfection cycle; thus there is sufficient specificity to anticipate the limitation), relative to a closest distance between the at least one UV light element and designated positions of humans as passengers in the interior of the vehicle (“the controller 110 may be configured to calculate, via an algorithm, the distance 108 between the target location 106 and the UV light source 102. The distance 108 may be calculated in real-time such that the controller 110 may monitor the actual dosage in real-time”, col. 4, lines 20-24).
Modified Avery and Sood are both considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of UV disinfection systems for vehicles utilizing controller communication to control aspects of the disinfection process.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the remote control of Avery to include a display as taught by Sood because doing so would display the disinfection parameters that the user can set such as a target dosage for the disinfection cycle to the user (Sood, Fig. 3A) with a reasonable expectation of success.
Regarding claim 7, the instant combination teaches wherein application of the UV light (Avery, 42, Fig. 10) to interior surfaces of said vehicle (Kyle, vehicle 402, Fig. 4) during an aggregate of the designated time periods over a designated time horizon (user-selected UV button 9 activation to initiate a disinfection cycle or the occupancy detection via detector 52 automatically shutting on/off the UV light sources, Fig. 10) is sufficient to reduce microbial contamination of the interior surfaces (Avery, [0008]).
Regarding claim 13, modified Avery teaches UV light emission (42, Fig. 10) and a processor to control the UV light emission (60, Fig. 10) via the switch (54, Fig. 10) , but fails to teach wherein the lighting module further comprises at least one UV sensor configured to generate a UV sensor signal indicative of UV light emitted by the at least one UV light element.
Sood teaches a UV disinfection system (100, Fig. 1 and Fig. 8 depicting the system of 100 in a vehicle 800), wherein the system further comprises at least one UV sensor in operative communication with the controller (110, Fig. 1), wherein the sensor is configured to generate a UV sensor signal indicative of UV light emitted by the at least one UV light element (UV sensor 114, Fig. 1 and 8, where “the UV disinfection system 100 may include a UV sensor 114 (e.g., distance sensor) configured to detect UV light 116 reflected from the target location 106 (e.g., target surface)”, col. 4, lines 14-16) in order to monitor the dosage of UV light (col.4, line 24) and subsequently turn off the UV light source when a target is reached (col.4, lines 40-45).
Modified Avery and Sood are both considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of UV disinfection systems for vehicles utilizing controller communication to control aspects of the disinfection process.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the lighting system of modified Avery to include a UV sensor in operative communication with the controller as taught by Sood because doing so would allow the controller to monitor the dosage of UV light (Sood, col.4, line 24) and subsequently turn off the UV light source when a target is reached (Sood, col.4, lines 40-45) with a reasonable expectation of success.
Regarding claim 14, modified Avery teaches wherein the lighting module further comprises a communication unit (receiver 70, Fig. 16) operably coupled to the control unit (remote control 8, Fig. 16), but fails to teach wherein the control unit is further configured to control the communication unit to communicate information of the UV sensor signal to an external source.
Sood further teaches wherein the communications unit (communications circuitry 142, Fig. 1) comprises a wireless transceiver (“The communications circuitry 142 may include antennas, radio transceiver circuits,”, col. 6, line 1) in order to communicate data to a mobile app (144, Fig. 1 and 3A) displaying data that the user can access through a display (140, Fig. 1, 3A, and col. 5, line 58), data of which includes the calculated UV dosage (308, Fig. 3A).
Modified Avery and Sood are both considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of UV disinfection systems for vehicles utilizing controller communication to control aspects of the disinfection process.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to, one, modify the receiver of modified Avery with a transceiver as taught by Sood, and two, modify the remote control of Avery to include a display as taught by Sood, because doing so would, one, allow transmission of data back to the remote control/mobile app (Sood, col.6, 1st paragraph), and two, display the received data to the user/external source (Sood, col.5-6) such as the calculated UV dosage (Sood, 308, Fig. 3A) with a reasonable expectation of success.
13. Claims 1, 3, 5, and 8-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kyle et al. (US 20210394590 A1), further in view of Manka et al. (US 20210346556 A1), further in view of Avery (US 20210400786 A1).
Kyle teaches a vehicle disinfection system (vehicle 402, Fig. 4) utilizing UV light in a vehicle lighting receptacle (404, Fig. 4) to disinfect the vehicle interior cabin (412, Fig. 4), where the UV disinfection process does not start until the passenger door (410, Fig. 4) is open via door position sensors (121, Fig. 1, and see [0042], meaning a concurrent activation of the UV light when the door is open).
However, Kyle fails to teach wherein the signal actively causes a door of the vehicle to open (whereas Kyle teaches a passive recording of a door already being open).
Manka teaches a vehicle UV disinfection system (Fig. 4-5, cleaning system 550), reciting that the opening of the vehicle doors (460 and 462, Fig. 4) can be controlled automatically via the controller (“the computing devices 110 may send a signal to a controller for automatically opening and closing doors of the vehicle”, [0095]).
Kyle and Manka are both considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of controller-based operation of UV disinfection cycles within a vehicle.
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 vehicle door/controller system of Kyle by incorporating an automated controller feature of opening the vehicle door responsive to a door opening signal as taught by Manka, because “providing an automatic or mechanical means to replace a manual activity which accomplished the same result is not sufficient to distinguish over the prior art” (see MPEP 2144.04,III). Manka mentions that door opening/closing via controller automation is possible, and given the condition in which a sterilization cycle is initiated (i.e., when the door is detected to be open as shown in Kyle), a door being manually opened via a person to achieve the “open” state could be also be achieved through automatic means.
The instant combination fails to teach the remainder of claim 1.
Avery teaches a system (Fig. 10) for replacement of lighting fixtures in homes ([0006] and [0009]), comprising:
a lighting module (50B, Fig. 10) comprising a plurality of common electrical connectors (power source 30 with terminals 12A and B, Fig. 10), at least one ultra-violet light element (42 with respective driver 32A, Fig. 10) and at least one visible light element (40 with respective driver 32, Fig. 10) each electrically connected to the plurality of common electrical connectors (they are in electrical connection to the power source 30 with terminals 12A and B, Fig. 10), and a housing accommodating the plurality of common electrical connectors (walls of 50B, Fig. 10),
wherein the at least one UV light element and the at least one visible light element are at least partially separately electrically actuatable (UV LEDs 42 are separately actuatable when compared to the visible light LEDs 40 due to the switch 54, Fig. 10), the at least one visible light element being directly electrically connected to the plurality of common electrical connectors (directly connected to power source 30 with terminals 12A and B, Fig. 10) and the at least one UV light element being connected to the plurality of common electrical connectors through at least one switch (54, Fig. 10), such that activation of the at least one UV light element upon actuation of the switch is conditioned upon activation of the at least one visible light element via electrical power supply to the plurality of common electrical connectors ([0038]).
The added benefit of this lighting system replacement is that the replacement lighting can emit visible light for people to be able to see and emit ultraviolet light to kill pathogens ([0009]).
Modified Kyle and Avery are both considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of UV disinfection systems for interior spaces.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to substitute the UV lighting module within the vehicle of Kyle with the replacement lighting system of Avery, because the substitution of this feature yields the predictable result of providing a sanitizing light within the interior space and the additional benefit of visible light (Avery, [0038]) with a reasonable expectation of success.
Avery further teaches a processor (60, Fig. 16) to control operation of the lighting elements.
With Avery’s lighting module now in Kyle’s vehicle, 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 processor of Avery to be linked to the door position sensor feedback mechanism with the vehicle’s control unit as taught by Kyle, because doing so would only allow the UV light sources (i.e., Avery’s lighting system) to be concurrently activated when the vehicle door is open (Kyle, [0042]).
Thus, with this modification, the Kyle/Manka/Avery combination teaches wherein the lighting module (Avery, 50B, Fig. 10) further comprises a control unit (processor 60, Fig. 10) configured to transmit a signal (Kyle, Fig. 1, linkage between UV lighting module 137 and processor 110 and door 140, to which Avery’s motion detector 52 of Fig. 10 would trigger signals to Kyle’s vehicle processor 110) to cause a door of the vehicle to open (Manka, automated opening of Kyle’s door 140/410 of Fig. 1/4) concurrently with or just prior to activation of the at least one UV light element (Kyle, [0042]), further teaching:
a plurality of common electrical connectors (Avery, power source 30 connected to terminals 12A and 12B, Fig. 10) for connection to a plurality of corresponding receptacle connectors in a lighting receptacle of a vehicle (Kyle, ultraviolet light source 404/137 receptacle of Fig. 4/1),
wherein the at least one UV light element and the at least one visible light element (Avery, 42 and 40, Fig. 10) are insertable into the lighting receptacle to connect the plurality of common electrical connectors to the plurality of corresponding receptacle connectors (see instant paragraphs above).
Regarding claim 3, the instant combination teaches wherein the lighting module further comprises a communication unit (Kyle, processor 110, Fig. 1), wherein the communication unit and the at least one switch (Avery, 54, Fig. 16) are operably coupled to the control unit (Avery, processor 60, Fig. 16), the control unit configured to actuate the at least one switch (54, Fig. 10) to activate the at least one UV light element for emitting UV light (Avery, 42, Fig. 10) responsive to receiving a designated control signal over the communication unit (signal from processor 110, Fig. 1) from an external source (Kyle, e.g., human input, door sensor open signal from sensor 121, Fig. 1).
Regarding claim 5, the instant combination teaches wherein the control unit (Avery, processor 60, Fig. 10) is configured to actuate the at least one switch (Avery, 54, Fig. 10) for successive spaced-apart designated time periods responsive to successively receiving different codes (Kyle, door 140/410 being opened/closed, Fig. 1/4) as the designated control signal from the external source (Kyle, processor 110, Fig. 1).
Regarding claim 8, the instant combination teaches wherein the control unit (Avery, 60, Fig. 10) is configured to receive a sensor signal from a sensor onboard said vehicle (Avery, motion detector 52, Fig. 10), and to control activation of the at least one UV light element responsive to the sensor signal meeting one or more designated criteria (if there is no one present, UV light 42 is activated, and if someone is present, UV light 42 is deactivated, Fig. 10 and [0038]).
Regarding claim 9, the instant combination teaches wherein the sensor signal is indicative of a presence of one or more persons onboard said vehicle, or an absence of the one or more persons onboard said vehicle (Avery, motion detector 52, Fig. 10 and [0038]).
Regarding claim 10, the instant combination teaches wherein the sensor signal comprises a video signal of the interior of said vehicle (Kyle, camera 127 communicating with processor 110, Fig. 1), and the control unit (Avery’s processor 60 of Fig. 1 is in operative connection with processor 110 of Kyle Fig. 1) is configured to change a number of the successive spaced-apart designated time periods the at least one UV light is activated (if the door is open, the total number of successive time periods increase because the disinfection cycle will start).
Conclusion
14. 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