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 05/04/2026. Claims 1-2, 9-15, and 17-21 are pending in the application. Claims 18-20 have been withdrawn and claims 1-2, 9-15, 17, and 21 are being examined herein.
Status of Objections and Rejections
3. All objections and rejections from the previous office action are withdrawn in view of Applicant's amendment.
New grounds of rejection under 35 U.S.C. 103 are necessitated by the amendments.
Response to Arguments
4. In the arguments presented on p.10-16 of the amendment, the Applicant argues that primary reference Kobayashi, alone or in combination, fails to teach the amended claim 1 limitations.
Specifically, Kobayashi does not disclose directional control (i.e., first barrier) achieved independently of base movement, a two-part cooperative system (reflector + enclosure), nor an active adjustment of the first and second barrier via the controller.
Applicant’s arguments with respect to the rejection(s) of claim(s) 1 under 35 USC 102(a)(1) have been fully considered and are persuasive. Therefore, the rejection has been withdrawn. However, upon further consideration, a new ground(s) of rejection is made in view of Kobayashi, further in view of Kim et al. (US 20150064064 A1).
In the arguments presented on p.16 of the amendment, the Applicant argues that claim 21’s claim language of “optimal trajectory” as an optimized parameter is not clear and provides an interpretation to this limitation.
However, there is no mention in the previous office action from the Examiner’s end that deemed “optimal trajectory” unclear. It is rather the claim language that renders the limitation an intended use of the device.
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.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
5. The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
6. Claims 1, 9, 11-12, 14, and 21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kobayashi et al. (US 6897460 B2, cited in prior office action), further in view of Kim et al. (US 20150064064 A1).
Regarding claim 1, Kobayashi teaches a disinfection apparatus (ultraviolet pasteurizer 1, Fig. 1-4) comprising: a germicidal light source (ultraviolet lamps 3, Fig. 1-4);
a controller for controlling emission of germicidal light from the germicidal light source (“the main case 5 also houses therein a controller 15 for controlling operating conditions for the ultraviolet pasteurizer 1”, col.4, lines 61-63); and a moveable support to which the germicidal light source is attached (base 4, Fig. 1-4) which is moveable across a surface (wheels 10, Fig. 1),
a germicidal light blocker (light shield doors 2a, 2b, 2c, Fig. 3); and
a control system (“the controller 15 detects the full opening of the light shield doors 2b, 2c… when an operation switch (not shown) on the control panel 14 is turned on with the light shield doors 2a, 2b, 2c being fully open, an operation start timer is actuated”, col.5, lines 3-11, and “the door closing detecting switches 12 are turned on, allowing the controller 15 to detect the fully closure of the light shield doors 2b, 2c, col.5, lines 29-33) so as to selectively block light emitted from the germicidal light source in selected directions (doors 2b and 2c being closed/partially open/fully open in Fig. 1-4 selectively blocks light emitted in selected directions).
wherein the germicidal light blocker comprises a first barrier (doors 2b and 2c, Fig. 3) which is fixed in position with respect to the germicidal light source (the light source 3 mounted to doors 2b and 2c move as one, Fig. 3) which moves with the germicidal light source and has a reflecting surface (col.4, 2nd paragraph) which reflects germicidal light in a direction to and out from a second side of the germicidal light source (col.4, 2nd paragraph), the germicidal light source and first barrier being rotatable relative to the moveable support (second barrier being door 2a, which is fixed to the base 4, and doors 2b and 2c being rotatable with respect to base 4, Fig. 3) so as to direct germicidal light in any selected direction (Fig. 2-4 showing different configurations of the doors 2a-c) without requiring movement of the moveable support (base 4 does not move when the first barriers are moved, Fig. 2-4);
the second barrier which is fixed relative to the moveable support (second barrier being door 2a, which is fixed to the base 4, Fig. 3) the second barrier comprising an enclosure (wall of door 2a, Fig. 3) positioned on the movable support (base 4, Fig. 3) and configured to cooperate with the first barrier (different configurations of doors 2a-c, Fig. 2-4),
wherein the second barrier provides an area fixed relative to the moveable support (second barrier door 2a is fixed to base 4 and does not move, Fig. 3) around the disinfection apparatus which is blocked from the germicidal light (area behind door 2a of Fig. 3) during operation of the disinfection apparatus (Fig. 2-3),
wherein the first barrier and the second barrier (doors 2a-c, Fig. 3) are controlled by the control system (open/close switches 11 and 12, Fig. 1-4) such that the germicidal light source can be partially or completely encapsulated with respect to its surrounding environment (closed configuration of Fig. 2), by reducing or eliminating the amount of the germicidal light emitted from the disinfection apparatus (closed doors 2a-c eliminates the angle/direction of emitted germicidal radiation in the door configurations of Fig. 3 or 4) by controlling a relative position of the first barrier and the second barrier (all three doors 2a-c working in conjunction to provide a specific angle/direction of emitted germicidal radiation, Fig. 2-4).
While Kobayashi teaches wherein the germicidal light is directed into the surrounding environment (Fig. 2-4) in a direction determined by the relative position of the first barrier and the second barrier (all three doors 2a-c working in conjunction to provide a specific angle/direction of emitted germicidal radiation, Fig. 2-4), Kobayashi fails to specifically teach wherein the control system is configured to adjust the relative position of the first barrier with respect to the movable support to change a direction in which the germicidal light is emitted without requiring movement of the moveable support.
Kim teaches a mobile disinfection apparatus (200, Fig. 3-5) utilizing a set of doors (210a-b, Fig. 4-5) having UV light sources (230a-c, Fig. 3-5) similar to Kobayashi’s light shield door and UV light source assembly, where the “cover is coupled to the case such that an angle between the cover and case is adjusted and an irradiation angle of light emitted to the outside from the LED units is controlled” ([0006]).
Kobayashi and Kim are both considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of mobile UV disinfection devices utilizing door/barrier-based UV light angle control.
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 light shield doors of Kobayashi by incorporating an adjustment of the door angle to select an irradiation angle of the emitted UV light as taught by Kim ([0006]) via a controller in operative connection with the doors because in doing so would provide a control system feature of automating the doors to selectively adjust the UV light angle, and “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 9, modified Kobayashi teaches a communication interface (control panel 14, Fig. 1) mounted on the second barrier (mounted to door 2a, Fig. 1 and 2) at a rear of the disinfection apparatus (behind door 2a, Fig. 2) in a radiation shielded region such that an operator can stand in the RSR to operate a user interface without being exposed to radiation (when the doors 2a-c are partially open as shown in Fig. 3, there exists a radiation shielded region such that an operator can stand and operate a user interface without being exposed to radiation).
Regarding claim 11, modified Kobayashi teaches wherein the germicidal light source comprises a plurality of fixed light sources (UV lamps 3, Fig. 3) positioned on a support column (unlabeled bracket holding UV lamps 3, Fig. 3) and facing in multiple directions (doors 2a-c, Fig. 3).
Regarding claim 12, modified Kobayashi teaches a robotic system (“the control panel 14 is turned on with the light shield doors 2a, 2b, 2c being fully open, an operation start timer is actuated, and the ultraviolet lamps 3 are then energized after elapse of 5 minutes”, Fig. 1-4 and col. 5, 2nd paragraph).
Regarding claim 14, modified Kobayashi teaches wherein the moveable support comprises a moveable base (base 4 is moveable through wheels 10, Fig. 1).
Regarding claim 21, the limitation of “wherein software is used to compute an optimal trajectory through a space in which the disinfection apparatus operates and where it will stop for periods of time, irradiating surfaces from different perspectives as appropriate to disinfect the space” is directed to the manner of operating the apparatus. All the structural limitations of the claim has been disclosed by Kobayashi and the apparatus of Kobayashi is capable of utilizing software to compute an optimal trajectory through a space and stopping durations. 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, wherein said software is used and implemented on the controller of Kobayashi’s device, the apparatus is fully capable of computing an optimal trajectory, where it will stop for periods of time, and irradiating surfaces from different perspectives as appropriate to disinfect the space.
7. Claims 2, 10, 13, 15, and 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kobayashi (US 6897460 B2), further in view of Kim et al. (US 20150064064 A1), as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Lloyd (US 20170246329 A1, cited in prior office action).
Regarding claim 2, modified Kobayashi teaches a controller (14 and 15, Fig. 1), but fails to teach wherein the controller further comprises a detector which detects a presence of one or more of an object and a person in a vicinity of the disinfection apparatus, wherein the controller controls a direction of said germicidal light from the germicidal light source in response to the presence of said object and said person that is detected.
Lloyd teaches a UV disinfection system (Fig. 1), wherein the controller (processing circuitry 51, Fig. 5B) further comprises a detector (sensor 30, which is an imaging system, [0060]) which detects a presence of one or more of an object and a person in a vicinity of the disinfection apparatus (“where a person in the environment 100 is located and/or where the unprotected skin and head of a person in the environment is located”, [0060] and “objects in an environment that are not exposed to germicidal radiation at one point in time may be exposed to germicidal radiation at other times as a result of changing inputs and computer analyses”, [0059]), wherein the controller controls a direction of said germicidal light from the germicidal light source in response to the presence of said object and said person that is detected (“rapidly scan and decontaminate the “safe” areas with one or more of a direction, intensity, and shape controlled beam of germicidal radiation”, [0034]).
Modified Kobayashi and Lloyd are both considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of automatic disinfection systems via germicidal UV radiation.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the UV disinfection apparatus of modified Kobayashi by incorporating an imaging system as taught by Lloyd in order to detect an object and person within the room (Lloyd, [0059-0060]), and thus control a direction of emitted germicidal light to designated “safe” areas ([Lloyd, 0034]).
Regarding claim 10, modified Kobayashi teaches wherein the germicidal light source comprises a plurality of UV lamps arranged on a support surface (two UV lamps 3 on a support bracket on doors 2a-c, Fig. 3), wherein the controller comprises a switch which controls operation of the plurality of lamps (operation switch, col. 5, 2nd paragraph), but fails to teach LEDs as the UV lamp.
Lloyd teaches a UV disinfection system (Fig. 1) having a germicidal radiation emitter (Fig. 4B) having UV LEDs (emitter 20, Fig. 4B and [0069]) and mounting the germicidal radiation emitter to a robot for movement to various places within the environment ([0085]).
Modified Kobayashi and Lloyd are both considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of automatic disinfection systems via germicidal UV radiation.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to substitute the UV lamps of modified Kobayashi with UV LEDs as taught by Lloyd because the selection of a known material based on its suitability for its intended use supports a prima facie obviousness determination. MPEP 2144.07.
Regarding claim 13, modified Kobayashi teaches UV radiation emission to sterilize microorganisms in the environment (col.2, 1st paragraph) via lamps (UV lamps 3, Fig. 3), but fails to teach wherein the germicidal light source is UV light in a range of 200-300 nm.
Lloyd teaches a UV disinfection system (Fig. 1) having a germicidal radiation emitter (Fig. 4B) having UV LEDs (emitter 20, Fig. 4B and [0069]) producing “253.7 nm radiation” ([0069]).
Modified Kobayashi and Lloyd are both considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of automatic disinfection systems via germicidal UV radiation.
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 lamps of modified Kobayashi by incorporating a feature of 253.7 nm UV radiation as the peak wavelength in order to provide “particularly effective germicidal disinfection” (Lloyd, [0069]).
Regarding claim 15, modified Kobayashi fails to teach wherein the disinfection apparatus further comprises navigation sensors which detect presence of objects in a pathway of the disinfection apparatus.
Lloyd teaches a UV disinfection system (Fig. 1) having a germicidal radiation emitter (20, Fig. 4B) mounted to a robotic vehicle (60, Fig. 4B), wherein the disinfection apparatus further comprises navigation sensors (imaging system 30, Fig. 4B) which detect presence of objects in a pathway of the disinfection apparatus (“The floor plan could be programmed into the movement device 60, or it could have sensors that allow it to determine where in the room the obstacles are, technology similar to that employed in commercially available robotic floor cleaners”, [0085]).
Modified Kobayashi and Lloyd are both considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of automatic disinfection systems via germicidal UV radiation.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the UV disinfection apparatus of modified Kobayashi by incorporating an imaging system as taught by Lloyd in order to detect presence of objects in a pathway of the apparatus (Lloyd, [0085]).
Regarding claim 17, modified Kobayashi teaches a germicidal light source (UV lamps 3, Fig. 3), but fails to explicitly teach wherein the germicidal light source comprises one or more of: a fluorescent lamp, LED or Xenon lamp.
Lloyd teaches a UV disinfection system (Fig. 1) having a germicidal radiation emitter (Fig. 10) having UV LEDs (emitter 20, Fig. 4B and [0069]) and mounting the germicidal radiation emitter to a robot for movement to various places within the environment ([0085]).
Modified Kobayashi and Lloyd are both considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of automatic disinfection systems via germicidal UV radiation.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to substitute the UV lamps of modified Kobayashi with UV LEDs as taught by Lloyd because the selection of a known material based on its suitability for its intended use supports a prima facie obviousness determination. MPEP 2144.07.
Conclusion
8. 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.
9. 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