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 05/15/2026. Claims 18-35 and are being examined herein.
Status of Objections and Rejections
3. The rejection of claims 18-30 and 33 under 35 USC 112(a) is withdrawn in view of Applicant's amendment.
The rejection of claims 18-30 under 35 USC 112(b) is withdrawn in view of Applicant's amendment.
The rejection of claims 18-30 under 35 U.S.C. 101 is maintained in view of Applicant's amendment.
The rejection of claim 18 under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wabst et al. (US 20210363767 A1, cited in prior office action) in view of Scritchfield et al. (US 20160030766 A1, cited in prior office action) is maintained in view of Applicant's amendment.
The rejection of claim 31 under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wabst et al. (US 20210363767 A1) in view of Scritchfield et al. (US 20160030766 A1), further in view of Lloyd (US 20170246329 A1, cited in prior office action) is maintained in view of Applicant's amendment.
Response to Arguments
4. In the arguments presented on p.8-9 of the amendment, the Applicant argues that the amended claim 18 overcomes the 101 rejections because the instant claim recites specific hardware components having specific structural/functional relationships, such as the irradiation of a disinfection area with a first or second wavelength based on detection results and irradiation history.
The Examiner does not find this argument persuasive. While it is true the hardware components (first and second irradiation devices) are tied into a function (irradiation) based off of a specific condition, this said condition is still an abstract idea. Furthermore, the illumination/irradiation of a disinfection area with a set wavelength is a very generic application of the abstract idea and thus is not a particular practical application of said abstract idea.
In the arguments presented on p.10 of the amendment, the Applicant argues that Wabst, alone or in combination, does not teach the limitations of a controller that determines whether to irradiate the disinfection area with the second wavelength when no first person is detected, and further determines to refrain from irradiation when irradiation is unnecessary.
The Examiner does not find this argument persuasive. Under a broad interpretation of the limitation of “refrain from irradiation when irradiation is unnecessary”, when a predetermined time has elapsed from irradiation of the second wavelength, the device is stopped and is “deemed unnecessary” because the device passes the predetermined time that the irradiation happens for. See Wabst [0030], where “the modular shelter according to the invention has a timer which switches off the at least one second irradiation device after a predetermined time interval, preferably after one to four minutes, particularly preferably after 2 minutes”.
In the arguments presented on p.10 of the amendment, the Applicant argues that Wabst, alone or in combination with Lloyd, does not teach the amended claim 31 limitation of adjusting an irradiation angle by expanding a region irradiation with the invisible light in the disinfection area.
The Examiner does not find this argument persuasive. Under a broad interpretation of the instant amended limitation, the adjuster “expanding” a region of irradiation with the light in the disinfection area could be interpreted as Lloyd’s rotating disk/base assembly rotating freely and thus exposing the disinfection area to not only a stationary angle and direction within the disinfection area, but also to every part of the disinfection area. While it is true that Applicant’s argument that Lloyd’s disinfection system is directed to an occupied environment that avoids disinfecting “unsafe” regions, the modification was not the programming logic of avoiding “unsafe” areas that Lloyd uses, but rather the expansion of illumination angle and direction during an initiated disinfection cycle made possible through the rotating disk/base assembly “moving head”. Lloyd [0058] recites “the processing circuitry is configured to control at least one of the direction, intensity, and shape of a beam of germicidal radiation and emit it into the environment onto areas or surfaces determined to be “safe”… areas determined to be “safe” for exposure include areas where there are no persons located or… areas of the persons in the environment which are covered by clothing or protective equipment”, where the moving head assembly would allow for a control of a direction and shape of beam of germicidal radiation during a disinfection cycle regardless of human occupancy or vacancy.
Specification
5. The amendment filed 05/15/2026 is objected to under 35 U.S.C. 132(a) because it introduces new matter into the disclosure. 35 U.S.C. 132(a) states that no amendment shall introduce new matter into the disclosure of the invention. The added material which is not supported by the original disclosure is as follows: in the Specification filed 05/15/2026, the amendment to paragraph [0059] of “(e.g., expand the region irradiated)” cannot be reasonably or implicitly deduced based off of “driving the irradiation angle adjustment device to disinfect the entire cockpit”, and thus will not be entered.
Applicant is required to cancel the new matter in the reply to this Office Action.
Claim Objections
6. Claim 18 is objected to because of the following informalities: in line 12, “person in the disinfection area and when the detection device” should be corrected to “person in the disinfection area, and when the detection device” or any other means to separate the “and” with (i.e., semicolon). Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Interpretation
7. 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.
8. 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: “face recognition device” in claims 23-24.
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 device to recognize the face of the driver and record face data, also including 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
9. The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
10. Claims 31-34 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
Claims 31 and 34 recite the limitation “adjust(s) an irradiation angle of the irradiation device to expand a region irradiated with the invisible light in the disinfection area”. There is no mention within the specification of an adjuster that adjust(s) an irradiation angle of the irradiation device to expand a region irradiated with the invisible light in the disinfection area.
Claims 32 and 33 depend from claim 31 and fail to cure the new matter issue.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
11. 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.
12. Claims 18-30 and 34-35 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Regarding claim 18, the instant claim recites “a controller connected to the irradiation device and the memory to: determine whether to irradiate the disinfection area with the first wavelength by the irradiation device based on the history when the detection device detects a person in the disinfection area”. This limitation is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components (which is an abstract idea).
Regarding claims 18, 20-22, 25, 27, 30, and 34, this judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because after the controller makes the determination of what wavelength to use in view of the detection device output to the controller (claim 18), the irradiation that is performed (in this case, the first wavelength) is a general application of the abstract idea via the linkage of the abstract idea to a field of use (i.e., irradiation of the first wavelength), which is not a practical application (see MPEP 2106.05(f) and MPEP 2106.05(h)). Generically recited computer elements do not add a meaningful limitation to the abstract idea because they amount to simply implementing the abstract idea on a computer.
The claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more
than the judicial exception because:
Claim 18, 20, and 27 recite UV light sources each emitting different wavelengths, a controller, a CPU, a presence detector, and a memory, which is well understood, routine, and convention within the UV disinfection art (Wabst, Scritchfield).
Claim 21 recites all of claim 18, with the addition of a thermometer/temperature sensor, which is well understood, routine, and convention within the UV disinfection art (Wabst).
Claim 22 recites all of claim 18, with the addition of a communication device and a host computer, which is well understood, routine, and convention within the UV disinfection art (Wabst, Scritchfield).
Claim 25 recites all of claim 18, with the addition of a load sensor provided in a seat, which is well understood, routine, and convention within the UV disinfection art (Callahan).
Claim 30 and 34 recites all of claim 18, with the addition of an adjustment device, which is well understood, routine, and convention within the UV disinfection art (Lloyd).
Mere instructions to determine what wavelength of UV light should be used via a generic computer component cannot provide an inventive concept. These claims (18, 20-22, 25, 27, 30, and 34) are not patent eligible.
Regarding claim 19, the instant claim recites “wherein the controller determines whether irradiation with the second wavelength should be performed based on an irradiation history of the first wavelength by the irradiation device”, which, under the broadest reasonable interpretation, is a process that covers performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components (which is an abstract idea).
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because determining what wavelength should be used based off of first wavelength history is merely an indication of the status of the abstract idea (see MPEP 2106.05(h)).
The claim(s) do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly
more than the judicial exception because UV light sources each emitting different wavelengths, a controller, a CPU, a memory, a presence detector, operation unit, and a surface separate from the operation unit, are taught by Wabst, Lloyd, and Scritchfield.
Regarding claim 23, the instant claim recites “wherein the controller associates a detection result of at least one of the microphone, the acceleration sensor, or a thermometer to a detection result of the face recognition device”, which, under the broadest reasonable interpretation, is a process that covers performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components (which is an abstract idea).
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because associating the thermometer result with the face recognition device result does not amount to something being done after the association is made (see MPEP 2106.05(h)).
The claim(s) do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly
more than the judicial exception because UV light sources each emitting different wavelengths, a controller, a presence detector, a memory, a thermometer, and a face recognition device are well understood, routine, and convention within the UV disinfection art (Wabst, Scritchfield, Lloyd).
Regarding claim 24, the instant claim recites “wherein the controller determines whether irradiation by the first wavelength should be performed based on a detection result of the face recognition device”, which, under the broadest reasonable interpretation, is a process that covers performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components (which is an abstract idea).
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because determining what wavelength should be used based off of sensor output (i.e., detection result) is merely an indication of the status of the abstract idea (see MPEP 2106.05(h)).
The claim(s) do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly
more than the judicial exception because UV light sources each emitting different wavelengths, a controller, a CPU, a memory, a presence detector, a memory, and a face recognition device are well understood, routine, and convention within the UV disinfection art (Wabst, Scritchfield, Lloyd).
Regarding claim 26, the instant claim recites “the controller increases irradiation time of the operation unit by the irradiation device based on a detection result of the detection device, longer than the irradiation time of the different unit”, which, under the broadest reasonable interpretation, is a process that covers performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components (which is an abstract idea).
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because the controller increasing the irradiation time based off of sensor output (i.e., detection result) does not result in an action being done such as activating the light sources for an increased irradiation time (the controller merely just makes the calculated determination of an increased irradiation time, that signal is not practically used in the light source).
The claim(s) do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly
more than the judicial exception because UV light sources each emitting different wavelengths, a controller, a CPU, a memory, a presence detector, a memory, operation unit, and a surface separate from the operation unit are well understood, routine, and convention within the UV disinfection art (Wabst, Scritchfield, Lloyd).
Regarding claim 28, the instant claim recites “the controller increases irradiation time of the operation unit by the irradiation device based on a detection result of the detection device, longer than the irradiation time of the different unit”, which, under the broadest reasonable interpretation, is a process that covers performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components (which is an abstract idea).
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because merely irradiating the disinfection area at said first wavelength is a general application of the abstract idea via the linkage of the abstract idea to a field of use (i.e., irradiation of the first wavelength, see MPEP 2106.05(f) and MPEP 2106.05(h)).
The claim(s) do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly
more than the judicial exception because UV light sources each emitting different wavelengths, a controller, a CPU, a memory, a presence detector, a memory, operation unit, and a surface separate from the operation unit are well understood, routine, and convention within the UV disinfection art (Wabst, Scritchfield, Lloyd).
Regarding claim 29, the instant claim recites “the controller controls the irradiation device to irradiate the disinfection area with the first wavelength when a predetermined time has elapsed since a previous irradiation”, which, under the broadest reasonable interpretation, is a process that covers performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components (which is an abstract idea).
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because merely irradiating the disinfection area at said first wavelength is a general application of the abstract idea via the linkage of the abstract idea to a field of use (i.e., irradiation of the first wavelength, see MPEP 2106.05(f) and MPEP 2106.05(h)). The limitation of “when a predetermined time has elapsed” is a broad limitation that does not further limit the functionality of the controller and irradiation device (i.e., turning on/off the irradiation device would read on this limitation, because a “predetermined time” passes when being switched on from off).
The claim(s) do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly
more than the judicial exception because UV light sources each emitting different wavelengths, a controller, a CPU, a memory, a presence detector, a memory, operation unit, and a surface separate from the operation unit are well understood, routine, and convention within the UV disinfection art (Wabst, Scritchfield, Lloyd).
Regarding claim 35, the instant claim recites “wherein the controller determines that irradiation is unnecessary and refrains from irradiation when a predetermined time has not elapsed since a previous irradiation of the disinfection area by the irradiation device and when the first person has not changed”, which, under the broadest reasonable interpretation, is a process that covers performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components (which is an abstract idea).
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because determining irradiation to be unnecessary based off of satisfying detection criteria is merely an indication of the status of the abstract idea (see MPEP 2106.05(h)).
The claim(s) do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly
more than the judicial exception because UV light sources each emitting different wavelengths, a controller, a CPU, a memory, a presence detector, operation unit, and a surface separate from the operation unit, are taught by Wabst, Lloyd, and Scritchfield.
Thus, claims 19, 23-24, 26, and 28-29 are not patent eligible.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
13. The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
14. Claim(s) 18-29 and 35 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wabst et al. (US 20210363767 A1, cited in prior office action), and further in view of Scritchfield et al. (US 20160030766 A1, cited in prior office action).
Regarding claim 18, Wabst teaches a disinfection device (modular shelter 1, Fig. 1), comprising: a detection device that detects whether a first person is present in a disinfection area (presence sensor 6, Fig. 1);
an irradiation device that is configured to irradiate invisible light of a first wavelength (UV lamp 71 at 222 nm, Fig. 1) and invisible light of a second wavelength that is different from the first wavelength (UV lamp 72 at 250-290 nm, Fig. 1).
Wabst teaches a controller (control unit, [0023]) connected to the irradiation device ([0023]) to:
determine whether to irradiate the disinfection area with the first wavelength by the irradiation device based on the history when the detection device detects the first person in the disinfection area (“a first irradiation device 71 is designed as a UV LED lamp and emits UVC radiation with a wavelength of approximately 222 nm into the interior space 2 when at least one person is present in the interior space 2”, Fig. 1 and [0110]) and when the detection device detects a second person that is different from the first person in the disinfection area, irradiate the disinfection area with the first wavelength by the irradiation device (regardless of a different person or a plurality of persons in the disinfection space, Wabst’s first irradiation device 71 will still irradiate the area with the first wavelength because the condition of at least one person being detected is satisfied, [0110]); and
determine whether to irradiate the disinfection area with the second wavelength by the irradiation device when the detection device does not detect the person in the disinfection area (“a second irradiation device 72 is also designed as a UV LED lamp and emits UVC radiation with a wavelength of 250 nm to 290 nm into the interior space 2 when a person is absent from the interior space 2”, Fig. 1 and [0111]) and refrain from irradiation when irradiation is unnecessary (“the modular shelter according to the invention has a timer which switches off the at least one second irradiation device after a predetermined time interval, preferably after one to four minutes, particularly preferably after 2 minutes”, [0030]).
Wabst fails to teach or suggest a controller that includes a central processing unit (CPU).
Scritchfield teaches a hand sanitizing station (106, Fig. 2B) having a UV light source controlled by a processor (230, Fig. 2B and [0032]) taking in sensor input (sensor 226, Fig. 2B) to detect the presence of skin or an object ([0031]) before triggering a disinfection cycle (704, Fig. 7), yet also factoring in exposure time during a disinfection cycle ([0037-0038]) and facial recognition (abstract) in order to collectively not exceed a safe use standard for ultraviolet light for said user (abstract).
Wabst and Scritchfield are both considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of sensor-based triggering of disinfection cycles via control units.
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 control unit/device of Wabst by incorporating a processor (CPU) as taught by Scritchfield in order to take in other parameters such as facial recognition and exposure time (to thus not expose the user to UV radiation past a safe use standard for ultraviolet light, Scritchfield, abstract).
Modified Wabst also fails to teach memory that stores a history related to irradiation associated with the first person that is performed by the irradiation device when the first person is present in the disinfection area.
In view of Scritchfield’s hand drying apparatus (Fig. 2B), Scritchfield further teaches a memory (240, Fig. 2B) that stores a history related to irradiation of the person (exposure data from exposure limiter 132, Fig. 4 and [0033]) performed by the irradiation device (UV source 222, Fig. 2B) when the person is present in the disinfection area (704, Fig. 7 and [0031]), in order to prevent the user from receiving more exposure than a safe exposure limit ([0036]).
Modified Wabst and Scritchfield are both considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of sensor-based triggering of UV disinfection cycles.
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 controller and processor of modified Wabst by incorporating a memory and exposure limiter as taught by Scritchfield in order to store exposure data of a user (Scritchfield, [0033]) and thus prevent the user from receiving more exposure than a safe exposure limit (Scritchfield, [0036]).
In view of this modification, modified Wabst would teach the determination of whether to irradiate the disinfection area with the first wavelength by the irradiation device (Wabst, [0110]) based on the history associated with the first person (since the history includes the exposure data of UV light for a user based off of facial recognition data, Scritchfield, [0035]).
Regarding claim 19, Wabst in view of Scritchfield teaches wherein the controller (control unit, [0023]) determines whether irradiation with the second wavelength should be performed based on an irradiation history of the first wavelength by the irradiation device (Wabst, the absence of a person in the room via presence detector 6 would switch second irradiation device 72 on after an irradiation history with the first irradiation device 71, Fig. 1 and [0111], where the same determination incorporating the past irradiation history as taught by Scritchfield would be incorporated here for the same modification purposes stated in claim 18 above).
Regarding claim 20, modified Wabst teaches wherein the irradiation device irradiates a wavelength of 205 to 230 nm as the first wavelength (222 nm, [0110]) and a wavelength other than 205 to 230 nm as the second wavelength (250-290 nm, [0111]).
Regarding claim 21, modified Wabst teaches wherein the detector comprises at least one of a microphone, an acceleration sensor, or a thermometer (heat/temperature sensor, [0021-0022]).
Regarding claim 22, modified Wabst teaches a communication between its device components (control unit controls “further electronic components and which detects signals from the presence sensor”, [0023], implying there is a communication component connected to the control unit that sends the sensor outputs to the control unit) but fails to teach a communication device that communicates a detection result of the detector to a host computer.
Scritchfield teaches a communication device (250, Fig. 2B) that communicates a detection result of the detector to a host computer (remote server 122, Fig. 1 and [0040]) in order to store data including facial and usage data ([0042]).
Modified Wabst and Scritchfield are both considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of UV disinfection systems utilizing presence detection to control UV light source activation.
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 controller and processor of modified Wabst by incorporating a communication unit and remote server as taught by Scritchfield in order to in order to store data including facial and usage data (Scritchfield, [0042]).
Regarding claim 23, modified Wabst teaches a camera as a presence sensor (“the presence sensor is a… camera”, [0021]), wherein the controller associates a detection result of at least one of the microphone, the acceleration sensor, or a thermometer to a detection result of the face recognition device (“at least two of the aforementioned sensors are combined”, to which the heat sensor acting as the detector can be combined with a camera in order to detect the presence of a person, i.e., associating the two detection results), but fails to teach a facial recognition capability of the camera.
Scritchfield teaches a hand drying UV disinfection system (Fig. 2B), where the imaging system is a camera (214, Fig. 2B) and can have a facial recognition feature ([0005]) in order to correlate the facial recognition data with an exposure data to make sure the user has not exceeded a threshold of UV light exposure ([0005]).
Modified Wabst and Scritchfield are both considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of UV disinfection systems utilizing cameras in order to detect the presence of people.
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 camera presence sensor of modified Wabst by incorporating a facial recognition feature as taught by Scritchfield in order to correlate facial recognition data with respective exposure data to make sure the user has not exceeded a threshold of UV light exposure (Scritchfield, [0005]).
Regarding claim 24, modified Wabst teaches a camera as a presence sensor (Wabst, “the presence sensor is a… camera”, [0021]) and a memory (Scritchfield, 240, Fig. 2B, with the modification purposes stated in claim 18 rejection above), and wherein the controller determines whether irradiation by the first wavelength should be performed based on a detection result of the camera (Wabst, “a first irradiation device 71 is designed as a UV LED lamp and emits UVC radiation with a wavelength of approximately 222 nm into the interior space 2 when at least one person is present in the interior space 2”, Fig. 1 and [0110]), but fails to teach a facial recognition capability of the camera, wherein the memory stores a recognition result from the face recognition device.
Scritchfield teaches a hand drying UV disinfection system (Fig. 2B), where the imaging system is a camera (214, Fig. 2B) and can have a facial recognition feature ([0005]) in order to correlate the facial recognition data with an exposure data to make sure the user has not exceeded a threshold of UV light exposure ([0005]), wherein both exposure and facial recognition data are stored in the memory (240, Fig. 2B and [0032-0033]).
Modified Wabst and Scritchfield are both considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of UV disinfection systems utilizing cameras in order to detect the presence of people.
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 camera presence sensor of modified Wabst by incorporating a facial recognition feature as taught by Scritchfield in order to correlate facial recognition data with respective exposure data to make sure the user has not exceeded a threshold of UV light exposure (Scritchfield, [0005]).
Regarding claim 26, Wabst teaches wherein: the disinfection area includes an operation unit (two-room system has one or more disinfection systems as described in Fig. 1 on both sides, see Fig. 3 and [0121]) that is operated by a hand of the first person (“One room serves as a customer room and the opposite one as an administration room. The administrator can control all functions in the customer room manually”, [0121], where the administrator is fully capable to use their hands to operate the device) and surface that is separate from the operation unit (the separate surface would be whichever room is not being operated/disinfected on by the administrator), but fails to explicitly mention the controller increases irradiation time of the operation unit by the irradiation device based on a detection result of the detection device, longer than the irradiation time of the different unit.
Wabst does teach, however, the administrator being able to “manually control a function such as a timer (see [0030-0031]), which can shut off the second irradiation device (72, Fig. 1) after a predetermined time in a first room of the two-room system. In the other/second room, the detection of people would activate the 222 nm first irradiation device (71, Fig. 1) as long as a person is detected in this other room. This would read on the irradiation time being longer than the different unit (first room) of the operation unit (second room). There is no explicit mention of the control unit being programmed to execute aforementioned steps, but the administrator can.
Because the administrator is able to manually control functions of the two-room system in a situation described in the prior paragraph, it would have been obvious to modify the manual actions done by the administrator to be programmed within the control unit of the UV disinfection system of Wabst in order to automatically trigger conditions such as increasing the irradiation time of the operation unit by the irradiation device based on a detection result of the detection device, longer than the irradiation time of the different unit (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).
Regarding claim 27, Wabst teaches wherein the irradiation device increases an intensity of irradiation by the second wavelength to be stronger than an intensity of irradiation by the first wavelength (“After the person leaves the room, the room is electronically blocked for at least 2 minutes and the UVC light (with a frequency between 250 and 290 nanometers) is switched on”, [0111], to which after the 2 minute block stage (which implies no electrical access for any component within the room, including the 222 nm irradiation device and the 250-290 nm irradiation device) the intensity of the 250-290 nm irradiation device would be at a value that is greater than the intensity of the 222 nm irradiation device of 0).
Regarding claim 28, modified Wabst teaches wherein the controller (control unit, [0023]) controls the irradiation device to irradiate the disinfection area with the first wavelength when the first person has changed (“a first irradiation device 71 is designed as a UV LED lamp and emits UVC radiation with a wavelength of approximately 222 nm into the interior space 2 when at least one person is present in the interior space 2”, Fig. 1 and [0110], implying that people interchanging throughout the room will not change the occupancy detection output).
Regarding claim 29, modified Wabst teaches wherein the controller controls the irradiation device to irradiate the disinfection area with the first wavelength (“a first irradiation device 71 is designed as a UV LED lamp and emits UVC radiation with a wavelength of approximately 222 nm into the interior space 2 when at least one person is present in the interior space 2”, Fig. 1 and [0110]) and teaches a timer coupled to the control device for the second irradiation wavelength device ([0030-0031]), but is silent to the condition of irradiating the room with the first wavelength when a predetermined time has elapsed since a previous irradiation.
Wabst further teaches the administrator being able to “manually control a function such as a timer (see [0030-0031]).
It would have been obvious to further modify the timer such that the timer is operatively connected to not only the second irradiation device, but also the first irradiation device (the only difference is the room occupancy condition being different) to switch off the first irradiation device the same way the second irradiation device is turned on/off.
Because the administrator is able to manually control functions of the two-room system in a situation described in the prior paragraph, it would have been obvious to modify the manual actions done by the administrator (i.e., starting a disinfection cycle after a period of time) to be programmed within the controller and processor of the UV disinfection system of modified Wabst in order to automatically trigger a disinfection cycle after a predetermined time, which would include irradiation at the first wavelength when occupancy is detected (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).
Regarding claim 35, the Wabst/Scritchfield combination teaches wherein the controller (Wabst, control unit, [0023]) determines that irradiation is unnecessary and refrains from irradiation (Scritchfield, i.e., END irradiation step, Fig. 6) when a predetermined time has not elapsed since a previous irradiation of the disinfection area by the irradiation device (exposure limit for unsafe UV in a period of 24 hours, [0075] and Fig. 6) and when the first person has not changed (previous use step 606 and safe use limit step 608, Fig. 6), for the same modification purpose stated in the claim 18 rejection above.
15. Claim 25 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wabst et al. (US 20210363767 A1), further in view of Scritchfield et al. (US 20160030766 A1), as applied to claim 18 above, and further in view of Callahan (US 20180209613 A1).
Regarding claim 25, modified Wabst teaches a presence detector (6, Fig. 1), with various types ([0021]), but fails to teach a load sensor provided in a seat.
Callahan teaches a lighting assembly within a lavatory (Fig. 9) having UV-C sterilizing light sources (lighting assemblies 116, Fig. 9) that turns on/off based on a detection signal from the presence sensors (150, Fig. 9, where the presence sensor can be a weight sensor provided on a seat of the lavatory, [0046]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the presence sensor options of Wabst with a presence sensor option such as a weight sensor on a seat as taught by Callahan because the combination of this feature would yield the predictable result of further detecting the person in the disinfection area/enclosure.
16. Claims 30 and 34 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wabst et al. (US 20210363767 A1), further in view of Scritchfield et al. (US 20160030766 A1), as applied to claim 18 above, further in view of Lloyd (US 20170246329 A1).
Regarding claim 30, modified Wabst teaches an irradiation device (first and second irradiation device 71 and 72, Fig. 1), but fails to teach an adjustment device configured to adjust an irradiation angle of the irradiation device.
Lloyd teaches a germicidal UV disinfection system (Fig. 1) where the germicidal UV light emitter (20, Fig. 6) angles the emitted light via an adjuster (base 90 and rotating disk 91, Fig. 6) in order to control the direction of the UV radiation within the environment ([0097]) during a disinfection cycle ([0058]).
Modified Wabst and Lloyd are both considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of UV disinfection systems within enclosed environments.
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 irradiation devices and their respective controller of Wabst by incorporating a rotatable base and disk to each irradiation device in operative connection with the controller as taught by Lloyd in order to selectively control the direction of the UV radiation within the environment during a disinfection cycle (Lloyd, [0058] and [0097]).
Regarding claim 34, modified Wabst teaches an irradiation device (first and second irradiation device 71 and 72, Fig. 1), but fails to teach an adjustment device configured to adjust an irradiation angle of the irradiation device.
Lloyd teaches a germicidal UV disinfection system (Fig. 1) where the germicidal UV light emitter (20, Fig. 6) angles the emitted light via an adjuster (base 90 and rotating disk 91, Fig. 6) in order to control the direction of the UV radiation within the environment ([0097]) during a disinfection cycle ([0058]).
Modified Wabst and Lloyd are both considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of UV disinfection systems within enclosed environments.
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 irradiation devices and their respective controller of Wabst by incorporating a rotatable base and disk to each irradiation device in operative connection with the controller as taught by Lloyd in order to selectively control the direction of the UV radiation within the environment during a disinfection cycle (Lloyd, [0058] and [0097]).
In view of this modification, the limitation of the adjuster “expanding” a region of irradiation with the light in the disinfection area could be interpreted as Lloyd’s rotating disk/base assembly rotating freely and thus exposing the disinfection area to not only a stationary angle and direction within the disinfection area, but also to every part of the disinfection area. While it is true that Lloyd’s disinfection system is directed to an occupied environment that avoids disinfecting “unsafe” regions, the modification is not the programming logic of avoiding “unsafe” areas that Lloyd uses, but rather the expansion of illumination angle and direction during an initiated disinfection cycle made possible through the rotating disk/base assembly “moving head”. Lloyd [0058] recites “the processing circuitry is configured to control at least one of the direction, intensity, and shape of a beam of germicidal radiation and emit it into the environment onto areas or surfaces determined to be “safe”… areas determined to be “safe” for exposure include areas where there are no persons located or… areas of the persons in the environment which are covered by clothing or protective equipment”, where the moving head assembly would allow for a control of a direction and shape of beam of germicidal radiation during a disinfection cycle regardless of human occupancy or vacancy.
17. Claims 31-33 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wabst et al. (US 20210363767 A1), further in view of Scritchfield (US 20160030766 A1) and further in view of Lloyd (US 20170246329 A1).
Regarding claim 31, Wabst teaches a disinfection device (modular shelter 1, Fig. 1), comprising: a detection device that detects whether a person is present in a disinfection area (presence sensor 6, Fig. 1);
an irradiation device that is capable of irradiating invisible light of a first wavelength (UV lamp 71 at 222 nm, Fig. 1) and invisible light of a second wavelength that is different from the first wavelength (UV lamp 72 at 250-290 nm, Fig. 1); and
a controller (control unit, [0023]) connected to the irradiation device ([0023]) is configured to irradiate the disinfection area with the first wavelength when the detection device detects the person in the disinfection area (“a first irradiation device 71 is designed as a UV LED lamp and emits UVC radiation with a wavelength of approximately 222 nm into the interior space 2 when at least one person is present in the interior space 2”, Fig. 1 and [0110]) and
control the irradiation device to irradiate the disinfection area, including a portion touched by the person (when a person is no longer occupying the interior space 2, the portions touched by the person would still be disinfected via second irradiation device 72, Fig. 1), with the second wavelength when the detection device does not detect the person in the disinfection area (“a second irradiation device 72 is also designed as a UV LED lamp and emits UVC radiation with a wavelength of 250 nm to 290 nm into the interior space 2 when a person is absent from the interior space 2”, Fig. 1 and [0111]).
Wabst fails to teach or suggest a controller that includes a central processing unit (CPU).
Scritchfield teaches a hand sanitizing station (106, Fig. 2B) having a UV light source controlled by a processor (230, Fig. 2B and [0032]) taking in sensor input (sensor 226, Fig. 2B) to detect the presence of skin or an object ([0031]) before triggering a disinfection cycle (704, Fig. 7), yet also factoring in exposure time during a disinfection cycle ([0037-0038]) and facial recognition (abstract) in order to collectively not exceed a safe use standard for ultraviolet light for said user (abstract).
Wabst and Scritchfield are both considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of sensor-based triggering of disinfection cycles via control units.
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 control unit/device of Wabst by incorporating a processor (CPU) as taught by Scritchfield in order to take in other parameters such as facial recognition and exposure time (to thus not expose the user to UV radiation past a safe use standard for ultraviolet light, Scritchfield, abstract).
Modified Wabst also fails to teach an adjuster that adjusts an irradiation angle of the irradiation device and the controller connected to the adjuster.
Lloyd teaches a germicidal UV disinfection system (Fig. 1) where the germicidal UV light emitter (20, Fig. 6) angles the emitted light via an adjuster (base 90 and rotating disk 91, Fig. 6) in order to control the direction of the UV radiation within the environment ([0097]) during a disinfection cycle ([0058]).
Modified Wabst and Lloyd are both considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of UV disinfection systems within enclosed environments.
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 irradiation devices and their respective controller of Wabst by incorporating a rotatable base and disk to each irradiation device in operative connection with the controller as taught by Lloyd in order to selectively control the direction of the UV radiation within the environment during a disinfection cycle (Lloyd, [0058] and [0097]).
With this modification, modified Wabst in view of Lloyd teaches to adjust, by the adjuster (Lloyd, base 90 and disk 91, Fig. 6), an irradiation angle of the irradiation device (Lloyd, [0097]) to expand a region irradiated with the invisble light in the disinfection area, because Lloyd teaches a rotating disk/base assembly rotating freely and thus exposing the disinfection area to not only a stationary angle and direction within the disinfection area, but also to every part of the disinfection area. While it is true that Lloyd’s disinfection system is directed to an occupied environment that avoids disinfecting “unsafe” regions, the modification is not the programming logic of avoiding “unsafe” areas that Lloyd uses, but rather the expansion of illumination angle and direction during an initiated disinfection cycle made possible through the rotating disk/base assembly “moving head”. Lloyd [0058] recites “the processing circuitry is configured to control at least one of the direction, intensity, and shape of a beam of germicidal radiation and emit it into the environment onto areas or surfaces determined to be “safe”… areas determined to be “safe” for exposure include areas where there are no persons located or… areas of the persons in the environment which are covered by clothing or protective equipment”, where the moving head assembly would allow for a control of a direction and shape of beam of germicidal radiation during a disinfection cycle regardless of human occupancy or vacancy.
Regarding claim 32, modified Wabst in view of Lloyd teaches wherein the controller (Wabst, 805, Fig. 8) adjusts an irradiation angle of the irradiation device (71 and 72, Fig. 1) by the adjuster (Lloyd, rotating base and disk 90 and 91, Fig. 6, for the modification purposes stated in claim 31 rejection above) when the disinfection area is irradiated with the first wavelength by the irradiation device (Wabst, first irradiation device 71, Fig. 1).
Regarding claim 33, modified Wabst teaches a controller (control unit, [0023]) connected to the irradiation device ([0023], but fails to teach a memory connected to the controller, the memory being configured to store a history of irradiation associated with the person that is performed by the irradiation device.
In view of Scritchfield’s hand drying apparatus (Fig. 2B), Scritchfield further teaches a memory (240, Fig. 2B) that stores a history related to irradiation of the person (exposure data from exposure limiter 132, Fig. 4 and [0033]) performed by the irradiation device (UV source 222, Fig. 2B) when the person is present in the disinfection area (704, Fig. 7 and [0031]), in order to prevent the user from receiving more exposure than a safe exposure limit ([0036]).
Modified Wabst and Scritchfield are both considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of sensor-based triggering of UV disinfection cycles.
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 controller and processor of modified Wabst by incorporating a memory and exposure limiter as taught by Scritchfield in order to store exposure data of a user (Scritchfield, [0033]) and thus prevent the user from receiving more exposure than a safe exposure limit (Scritchfield, [0036]).
Conclusion
18. 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.
19. 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