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 03/23/2026. Claims 1-14, 16-19, and 21 are pending in the application. Claims 16-19 have been withdrawn and claims 1-14 and 21 are being examined herein.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 All rejections from the previous office action are withdrawn in view of Applicant's amendment.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 and 112(b) are necessitated by the amendments.
Response to Arguments
4. In the arguments presented on p.9-12 of the amendment, the Applicant argues that primary reference Sood does not teach the amended claim 1 and 2 limitations of the housing having common electrical connectors connected to the UV and visible light source for connection to receptacle connectors in a lighting receptacle in a vehicle. Specifically Sood is silent to electrical connectors connected to receptacle connectors.
The Applicant further argues that primary reference Sood mentions that the visible light source outputs visible light coincident with the UV light emitted from the UV source, which is different to the instant application’s claim 1 limitation of the activation of the UV light source only based only based on concurrent activation of the visible light source, much less through the common electrical connectors connected with its respective receptacle connectors.
Applicant’s arguments with respect to the rejection(s) of claim(s) 1 and 2 under 35 U.S.C. 103 have been fully considered and are persuasive. Therefore, the rejection has been withdrawn in regards to this specific limitation. However, upon further consideration, a new ground(s) of rejection is made in view of Sood et al. (US 10987440 B1), further in view of Flick (US 20030001728 A1), further in view of Kakuchi et al. (US 20220265881 A1)
Applicant also argues that secondary reference Kakuchi prevents vehicle door opening while its UV lamp is on, whereas the instant application causes/commands the door to open concurrently or prior to the UV lamp being turned on.
The Examiner does not find this argument persuasive. As the claim language stands, “controlling opening of a door” does not require the control unit to cause/command the door to open concurrently or prior to the UV lamp being turned on. For example, the control unit could output an alarm signal concurrently or prior to the UV lamp being turned on, which is a form of “controlling opening” of the door (because the control unit warns the user responsible for opening the door to stop). Furthermore, it is unclear as to how the control unit can cause opening of a door if the control unit on the lighting module itself does not automatically open or close a vehicle door as argued. The control unit merely takes in signals from its respective sensors and activates a warning device and/or the UV light element ([0057-0058]) with said signals; the control unit does not actuate the door (i.e., door hinges) itself.
In the arguments presented on p.13-14 of the amendment, the Applicant argues that a person of ordinary skill in the art would lack the motivation to modify Sood’s sensors with secondary reference Hatti’s teachings of an IR video camera for the reasons that: one, there would be no reason to replace a simple occupancy sensor with a complex video feed, and two, transitioning to Hatti’s IR video camera system would require a total overhaul of Sood’s control unit structure.
Examiner does not find this argument persuasive. Hatti teaches that an IR video camera detects a person’s body temperature, and thus, detects the presence of a person within the vehicle interior ([0017-0018]) and subsequently turn on/off the UV light source via the operative connection between its controller. Sood also teaches an IR occupancy sensor operatively connected to its controller that detects the presence of a person within the vehicle interior and subsequently turns on/off the UV light source accordingly. Because the functionalities of the two sensors operatively connected to their respective controllers are similar with respect to their respective lighting modules, one of ordinary skill would see that Hatti’s IR video camera operatively connected to its controller is a conventional structure in the art utilized for presence detection and would look to Hatti’s IR video system to detect occupancy of the vehicle interior as a functionally identical alternative (i.e., “modify the infrared sensors of Sood by incorporating an IR video camera as a sensor as taught by Hatti”).
Claim Objections
5. Claims 1 and 21 are objected to because of the following informalities: in the 7th line of claim 1, “at least one visible light element and insertable” should be grammatically corrected to “at least one visible light element are insertable”, and between the 3rd to last and 2nd to last lines of claim 21, “the” is recited twice in succession. Appropriate correction is required.
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 § 112
8. The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
9. Claims 1-14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claim 1 recites “wherein the lighting module further comprises a control unit controlling opening of a door of the vehicle concurrently with or just prior to activation of the at least one UV light element”. It is unclear as to how the control unit can cause opening of a door if the control unit on the lighting module itself does not automatically open or close a vehicle door as argued. The control unit merely takes in signals from its respective sensors and activates a warning device and/or the UV light element ([0057-0058]) with said signals; the control unit does not actuate the door (i.e., door hinges) itself.
The limitation will be interpreted as if the control unit triggers a warning signal to the user responsible for opening the door to stop and close the door during a disinfection cycle (i.e., “concurrently with activation of the at least one UV light element”, thus “controlling opening of a door”.
Claims 2-14 are rejected by failing to cure the indefiniteness issue via a dependency basis from claim 1.
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 1-9 and 11-14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sood et al. (US 10987440 B1), further in view of Flick (US 20030001728 A1), further in view of Kakuchi et al. (US 20220265881 A1).
Regarding claim 1, Sood teaches a system (disinfection system 100, Fig. 1 and 8-9) comprising: a lighting module (circuitry 128, Fig. 1) having at least one ultra-violet (UV) light element (UV source 102, Fig. 1) and at least one visible light element (visible source 126, Fig. 1),
wherein the at least one UV light element and the at least one visible light element are at least partially separately electrically actuated for the at least one visible light element to emit visible light while the at least one UV light element is off (“the controller 110 may control activation/deactivation of the UV light source 102 and/or the visible light source 126”, col. 5, lines 24-26, and “The control circuitry may include an auto-shut feature to deactivate the UV light source 102 (i.e., to switch the UV disinfection system 100 from the disinfection mode to the normal operation mode)”, col. 18, lines 32-35, Fig. 1).
Sood fails to explicitly teach the second condition where the at least one UV light element and the at least one visible light element are at least partially separately electrically actuatable for activation of the at least one UV light element only based on concurrent activation of the at least one visible light element. Sood mentions that the visible light source is to provide visual cues relating to a status of the UV disinfection system (col.20, lines 30-32), but is silent as to what the specific visual cues are.
Sood mentions in the Fig. 13 embodiment of the UV disinfection system 100 of Fig. 1 that “the visible light source 126 may output visible light 148 having a first color (e.g., red) indicating that he UV disinfection system 100 is active and output a second color (e.g., green) indicating that the target location 106 (e.g., keypad) has been disinfected and is ready for use” (col.25, lines 49-54), where the UV disinfection system being active means the UV light source is on, and when inactive/completed, the UV light source is off.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the visual cues teaching from the visible light source on the vehicular lighting module/disinfection system of the Fig. 8-9 embodiment of Sood by incorporating an emission of red visible light from the visible light source concurrent to when the UV light is active and a green visible light concurrent to when the UV light is no longer active (i.e., disinfection has completed), for the purpose of providing a visual cue to the user (col.25, lines 49-54).
Modified Sood teaches the lighting module being incorporated into a vehicle interior (Fig. 8-9), but fails to teach a plurality of common electrical connectors for connection to a plurality of corresponding receptacle connectors in a lighting receptacle of a vehicle, wherein the UV and visible light elements are each electrically connected to the plurality of common electrical connectors, and a housing accommodating the plurality of common electrical connectors, the at least one UV light element and the at least one visible light element and insertable into the lighting receptacle to connect the plurality of common electrical connectors to the plurality of corresponding receptacle connectors.
It is important to note that Sood discloses a power source (30, Fig. 1) electrically connected to the controller and the light sources, but the Fig. 8-9 embodiment is silent to the location of this power source and the electrical connection/access of the lighting module with respect to the vehicle.
Flick teaches a lighting system for a vehicle (Fig. 1 and 3) comprising a retrofit lighting module with a controller for control of the light (strobe light device 20 with control circuit 27 controlling strobe light bulb 26, Fig. 3), having a plurality of common electrical connectors (strobe connection surfaces 24, Fig. 3) for connection to a plurality of corresponding receptacle connectors (conductors 37 in wall 36 that are connected to the vehicle’s battery, Fig. 3, [0021], and [0026]) in a lighting receptacle (vehicle light bulb connectors 23, Fig. 3, where dome light bulbs are an example provided ([0021]) that are similar to Sood’s Fig. 8-9 UV disinfection housing locations) of a vehicle (10, Fig. 1), and a housing accommodating the plurality of common electrical connectors (housing of strobe light device 20, Fig. 3), the light being insertable (strobe light device 20, Fig. 3) to connect the plurality of common electrical connectors (24, Fig. 3) to the plurality of corresponding receptacle connectors (37, Fig. 3), in order to provide a retrofitting feature “without having to run additional wiring or modify existing vehicle light bulb connectors” ([0027]).
Modified Sood and Flick are both considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of overhead lighting modules with controllers incorporated into a vehicle, electrically connected to a power source.
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 module/UV disinfection system of modified Sood by incorporating a plurality of electrical connectors on the lighting module for connection to a plurality of corresponding receptacle connectors in electrical connection to the vehicle’s battery as taught by Flick in order to provide a retrofitting feature “without having to run additional wiring or modify existing vehicle light bulb connectors” (Flick, [0027]).
Modified Sood teaches a control unit (controller 110 having communications circuitry 142, Fig. 1 and 9) taking in sensor outputs from IR and motion sensors (132 and 134, Fig. 9), but fails to teach controlling opening of a door of the vehicle concurrently with or just prior to activation of the at least one UV light element. Sood teaches a speaker device operatively connected to the controller for transmitting audio signals (speaker 146, Fig. 1 and col.6, lines 31-34), but it is not necessarily present in the Fig. 8-9 implementation of Fig. 1’s system.
Sood teaches in the Fig. 11 embodiment a speaker device (146, Fig. 11) configured to output a warning sound when body temperature and/or motion is detected in a path of the UV light (104, Fig. 11) emitted by the UV light source (102, Fig. 11) in order to “deter customers and workers (e.g., shown in FIG. 10) from crossing over the UV light source” (col.23, lines 41-42).
Furthermore, Kakuchi teaches a UV disinfection system for the interior of a vehicle (Fig. 2 and 4) having a controller (20, Fig. 4) that locks the doors of the vehicle (via actuator 34, Fig. 4) while the UV lamp is turned on (lamp 84 of cleaning device 38, Fig. 4 and 6) in order to prevent a person from getting into the vehicle ([0062]), emphasizing that access to the car interior via user opening of the doors is prevented.
Modified Sood and Kakuchi are both considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of UV disinfection systems for vehicle interiors.
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 vehicle disinfection system of modified Sood by incorporating a speaker operatively connected to the controller as taught by the Fig. 11 embodiment of Sood in order to prevent users/individuals from accessing the UV light source exposure space, exemplified by Kakuchi’s emphasis on preventing user door opening to the vehicle interior space that the UV light source emits to (Kakuchi, [0062]).
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 the Sood/Flick/Kakuchi combination and the apparatus of the Sood/Flick/Kakuchi combination 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, the Sood/Flick/Kakuchi combination teaches an existing lighting module without a UV light element (Flick, retrofit strobe lighting device 20, Fig. 3) connected into a plurality of corresponding lighting receptacles (Flick conductors 37, Fig. 3) without modifications to either the receptacles or the electrical connections on the lighting module (no mention of modification required, as this is a retrofit system, see Flick [0027]).
Per MPEP 2114,II, claims cover what a device is, not what a device does. A claim containing a recitation with respect to the manner in which a claimed apparatus is intended to be employed does not differentiate the claimed apparatus from a prior art apparatus if the prior art apparatus teaches all the structural limitations of the claim.
Regarding claim 3, modified Sood teaches wherein the lighting module further comprises a communication unit (communications circuitry 142, Fig. 1) and at least one switch (“the controller 110 may control activation/deactivation of the UV light source 102 and/or the visible light source 126, col. 5, lines 24-26, Fig. 1, implying the existence of a switch within the controller 110), wherein the communication unit and the at least one switch are operably coupled to the control unit (both are built into controller 110, Fig. 1), the control unit configured to actuate the at least one switch to activate the at least one UV light element for emitting UV light responsive to receiving a designated control signal over the communication unit from an external source (controller 110 activates UV light source 102 via implied switch in response to receiving a control signal of I/O devices 138 via communication circuitry 142 from user interface/external source 136, Fig. 1).
Regarding claim 4, modified Sood teaches wherein the communications unit (communications circuitry 142, Fig. 1) comprises a wireless transceiver (“The communications circuitry 142 may include antennas, radio transceiver circuits, and signal processing hardware and/or software (e.g., hardware or software filters, A/D converters, multiplexers, amplifiers), or a combination thereof, and that may be configured to communicate over wireless communication paths via infrared (IR) wireless communication, satellite communication, broadcast radio, microwave radio, Bluetooth, Zigbee, Wifi, UHF, NFC, etc.”, col. 6, lines 1-8) configured to receive the designated control signal over a wireless communications channel from the external source, the external source including a control server at a dispatch center.
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 has been disclosed by modified Sood and the apparatus of modified Sood 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 5, modified Sood teaches wherein the control unit is configured to actuate the at least one switch (controller 110 turns on/off the UV disinfection system), specifically UV light sources for successive spaced-apart designated time periods responsive to successively receiving different codes as the designated control signal from the external source (mobile app 144 in conjunction with I/O device 138 on user interface 136, Fig. 1, allows the user to turn on/off the UV light sources via manual setting via UV activation button 314 or automatic setting via target dosage 316, both settings which are a code type to controller 110, Fig. 3A, where Fig. 3A is a mobile app display of user interface 136 and is used in a disinfection system 100 in a vehicle 800, Fig. 8, “the overhead housing assembly 804 may output the information related to operation of the UV disinfection system 100 to the mobile app 144 (e.g. shown in FIG. 3A) via communication circuitry 142”, col. 20, lines 47-50).
Regarding claim 6, modified Sood teaches wherein, during the designated time periods, the at least one UV light element is activated for emitting UV light (UV activation button 314 showing light source is on when disinfection cycle is running, Fig. 3A) and, between the designated time periods, the at least one UV light element is off (“the target dosage may be fixed, and the mobile app 144 may be configured to automatically deactivate the UV light source 102 (e.g., shown in FIG. 2) upon reaching the target dosage”, col. 9, lines 16-19, Fig. 1 and 3A), the UV light emitted by each of the at least one UV light element in each of the designated time periods individually being 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).
Regarding claim 7, modified Sood teaches wherein application of the UV light to interior surfaces of said vehicle during an aggregate of the designated time periods over a designated time horizon is sufficient to reduce microbial contamination of the interior surfaces (“The UV disinfection system 100 is configured to at least partially inactivate pathogens in the exposed air, on passenger seats 802 and/or other surfaces in the vehicle 800”, Fig. 8, where the disinfection cycle shown in Fig. 3A allows the user or the controller 110 to adjust dosage of the UV light to achieve reduction in pathogens).
Regarding claim 8, modified Sood teaches wherein the control unit (controller 110 as part of disinfection system 100 present in vehicle 800, Fig. 1 and 8) is configured to receive a sensor signal from a sensor onboard said vehicle (motion sensor 134, Fig. 8), the control unit configured to control activation of the at least one UV light element responsive to the sensor signal meeting one or more designated criteria (“based on additional data from the motion sensor and/or the UV sensor 114 which is calibrated based on the installed…, the overhead housing assembly 804 may determine that a person is not sitting within the vehicle 800 and maintain/allow operation of the UV light source 102”, col. 21, lines 21-28, Fig. 8).
Regarding claim 9, modified Sood teaches wherein the sensor signal is indicative of one or more of sound within the interior of said vehicle, movement within the interior of said vehicle, movement of said vehicle, a location of said vehicle, an acceleration of said vehicle, actuation of a door of said vehicle, a presence of one or more persons onboard said vehicle, or an absence of the one or more persons onboard said vehicle (motion sensor 134 in conjunction with infrared sensor 132 to determine whether a person is in the vehicle, see col. 21, 1st paragraph and Fig. 8).
Regarding claim 11, modified Sood teaches wherein the control unit (controller 110, Fig. 1) 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 (“The sound signal may be configured to cause the speaker device 146 to output an audio cue to provide an indication that the UV light source 102 is active”, col. 6, lines 24-27).
Regarding claim 12, modified Sood teaches wherein the control unit (controller 110, Fig. 1) is further configured to actuate the at least one switch to activate the at least one UV light element for emitting UV light (UV source 102, Fig. 1) only responsive to both receiving the designated control signal over the communication unit from the external source (target dosage button 312, where “the target dosage may be fixed, and the mobile app 144 may be configured to automatically deactivate the UV light source 102 (e.g., shown in FIG. 2) upon reaching the target dosage”, col. 9, lines 16-19) and receiving a second control signal from a user-actuated input (UV light switch 314, Fig. 3A, where the user can turn the light source on/off).
Regarding claim 13, modified Sood teaches 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 (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).
Regarding claim 14, modified Sood teaches wherein the lighting module further comprises a communication unit operably coupled to the control unit (communications circuitry 142, Fig. 1), and wherein the control unit is further configured to control the communication unit to communicate information of the UV sensor signal to an external source (“the UV sensor 114 is configured to output reflected UV light 116 data (e.g., a distance input signal) to the controller 110. Using data from the reflected UV light 116, 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”, col. 4, lines 20-23, shown on distance indicator 308, Fig. 3A).
Regarding claim 15, Sood teaches wherein the lighting module includes a housing (housing assembly 804, Fig. 9) in which the at least one UV light element and the at least one visible light element are disposed (UV source 102 and visible light source 126, Fig. 9).
12. Claim 10 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sood et al. (US 10987440 B1), further in view of Flick (US 20030001728 A1), further in view of Kakuchi et al. (US 20220265881 A1), as applied to claim 8 above, and further in view of Hatti et al. (US 20190030195 A1).
Regarding claim 10, modified Sood teaches infrared sensors for the detection of humans within said vehicle (infrared sensors 132, Fig. 8), where the control unit (controller 110, Fig. 1) is configured to communicate information of the signal to the external source for the external source to generate the control signal based at least in part on the information of the signal (“the overhead housing assembly 804 may include components configured to detect the information related to operation of the UV disinfection system 100 that is displayed via the display 140 and/or mobile app 144. For example, the overhead housing assembly 804 may include the infrared sensor 132 set forth above”, col. 20, lines 60-65, and as a result, “Based at least in part on the temperature data and/or motion data, the controller 110 may determine whether a person is disposed in a path of the UV light 104 emitted from the UV light source 102. In response to detecting a person in the path of the UV light 104, the controller 110 may output a deactivation signal to deactivate the UV light source 102”, col. 8, lines 20-26), but fails to explicitly teach a video signal recorded by the infrared sensor (i.e., IR video camera).
Hatti teaches a cabin UV disinfection system for an aircraft (Fig. 1) comprising a controller (33, Fig. 1), UV light sources (4, Fig. 1), and IR video cameras (occupancy sensors 3, Fig. 1, [0017-0018], and [0032]), to which the IR video cameras send a video signal to the controller (to which the controller is “configured to actuate the one or more UVC radiation to disinfect a selected zone of the cabin depending on whether the sensor has sensed personnel in the selected zone”, [0004], for the purpose of “to detect a person's body temperature whereby to detect the presence of a person”, [0018]).
Sood and Hatti are both considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of UV disinfection systems with sensor input signals and controller output signals to the disinfection system.
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 infrared sensors of Sood by incorporating an IR video camera as a sensor as taught by Hatti in order to detect a person’s body temperature and the presence of a person within the cabin (Hatti, [0017-0018]).
13. Claim 21 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sood et al. (US 10987440 B1), further in view of Flick (US 20030001728 A1).
Regarding claim 21, Sood teaches a system (disinfection system 100, Fig. 1) comprising: a lighting module (circuitry 128, Fig. 1) having at least one ultra-violet (UV) light element (UV source 102, Fig. 1) and at least one visible light element (visible source 126, Fig. 1), all implemented into a vehicle (Fig. 8-9).
Sood fails to teach a plurality of common electrical connectors each electrically connected to the plurality of common electrical connectors 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.
It is important to note that Sood discloses a power source (30, Fig. 1) electrically connected to the controller and the light sources, but the Fig. 8-9 embodiment is silent to the location of this power source and the electrical connection/access of the lighting module with respect to the vehicle.
Flick teaches a lighting system for a vehicle (Fig. 1 and 3) comprising a retrofit lighting module with a controller for control of the light (strobe light device 20 with control circuit 27 controlling strobe light bulb 26, Fig. 3), having a plurality of common electrical connectors (strobe connection surfaces 24, Fig. 3) for connection to a plurality of corresponding receptacle connectors (conductors 37 in wall 36 that are connected to the vehicle’s battery, Fig. 3, [0021], and [0026]) in a lighting receptacle (vehicle light bulb connectors 23, Fig. 3, where dome light bulbs are an example provided ([0021]) that are similar to Sood’s Fig. 8-9 UV disinfection housing locations) of a vehicle (10, Fig. 1), and a housing accommodating the plurality of common electrical connectors (housing of strobe light device 20, Fig. 3), the light being insertable (strobe light device 20, Fig. 3) to connect the plurality of common electrical connectors (24, Fig. 3) to the plurality of corresponding receptacle connectors (37, Fig. 3), in order to provide a retrofitting feature “without having to run additional wiring or modify existing vehicle light bulb connectors” ([0027]).
Sood and Flick are both considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of overhead lighting modules with controllers incorporated into a vehicle, electrically connected to a power source.
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 module/UV disinfection system of Sood by incorporating a plurality of electrical connectors on the lighting module for connection to a plurality of corresponding receptacle connectors in electrical connection to the vehicle’s battery as taught by Flick in order to provide a retrofitting feature “without having to run additional wiring or modify existing vehicle light bulb connectors” (Flick, [0027]).
In view of this modification, 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 the Sood/Flick combination and the apparatus of the Sood/Flick combination 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, the Sood/Flick combination teaches an existing lighting module without a UV light element (Flick, retrofit strobe lighting device 20, Fig. 3) connected into a plurality of corresponding lighting receptacles (Flick conductors 37, Fig. 3) without modifications to either the receptacles or the electrical connections on the lighting module (no mention of modification required, as this is a retrofit system, see Flick [0027]).
Conclusion
14. 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.
15. 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