DETAILED ACTION
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 Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, filed 02/12/2026, with respect to the 35 USC 101 rejections have been fully considered and are persuasive. The 35 USC 101 rejections of claims 18,19,22-27, and 29-37 has been withdrawn.
Applicant's arguments filed 02/12/2026 regarding the 35 USC 112(f) interpretation of claim 37 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. The applicant argues that the limitation “the camera unit is further configured to focus on a single user between or among multiple users” directly denotes the respective structures and that a person having ordinary skill in the art would readily know what structure is implied. While the Office concedes that automatic focusing of a camera lens and any similar function is obvious and well-known, selecting a single person out of a group and selectively focusing on them is not well-known and requires some specialized algorithm and image analysis technology.
Applicant’s arguments, filed 02/12/2026, with respect to the rejection(s) of claim(s) 18-23, 25, 27-29,36, and 39-41 under 35 USC 102 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 Therefore, the rejection has been withdrawn.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 Dumont et al (US 9880725 B2); hereinafter Dumont.
Applicant's arguments regarding the 35 USC 103 rejection of claims 30-33 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. The applicant argues that the references fail to teach that the UV exposure unit is integrally installed on a furniture unit. However, the cited reference (Honold) does teach visible and infrared light and it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of this invention that replacing visible/infrared light and UV constitutes simple substitution and based on the needs of the patient, switching out the light frequencies as the technologies are implemented in similar ways.
Additionally, a new ground(s) of rejection is made in view of Garner et al (US 20190336789 A1) for the limitation of the UV system being installed on a bathing unit as the applicant’s arguments regarding the previously used reference are persuasive.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claim(s) 18,19,21-23,25,27,29,36,and 39-41 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Scritchfield et al (US20160030766A1); hereinafter Scritchfield (cited previously) in view of Dumont et al (US 9880725 B2); hereinafter Dumont.
Regarding claims 18 and 27, Scritchfield teaches a method of performing controlled exposure of ultraviolet (UV) rays to a user, the method comprising:
capturing, by a camera unit (cameras 214), an image of the user in front of the camera unit ([0030]);
performing face recognition on the captured image, by a microcontroller ([0024] computing devices) , to identify a user profile of the user ([0036]);
obtaining, by the microcontroller, a dosage value delivered to the user of the identified user profile in a defined amount of dosage time period ([0032] memory stores exposure limiter, [0104] past usage history);
comparing, by the microcontroller, the dosage value with a threshold value ([0036] safe use standard) for the user of the identified user profile, the threshold value depending on the identified user profile ([0043] user ID can be used to link usage data with the facial data simply by assigning each usage event in the usage data to the appropriate user identifier); and
activating a UV source ([0077] activate the UV source 222), by the microcontroller, to expose the user with UV rays based on the comparison between the dosage value and the threshold value ([0059] passing a deny message if the safe limit is exceeded).
Scritchfield fails to teach that the threshold value is customizable. Dumont teaches the threshold value is a customizable value from the identified user profile ((col 10 lines 1-3)FIGS. 19A and 19B illustrate exemplary displays and a method of allowing users to select a UV threshold based on a time history of symptoms and UV exposure). It would have been obvious to modify Scritchfield with Dumont because there is some teaching, suggestion, or motivation to do so. Dumont teaches "U.S. Pat. No. 9,068,887 describes “user-programmed safe thresholds”, which means users are able to select the safe amount of UV exposure that they are open to receiving. They use skin type information to select a default threshold for each skin type. The medical literature shows, however, that every person has a unique threshold". Therefore, there is a motivation to make the thresholds customizable in order to accommodate each person's unique threshold.
Regarding claim 19, the combination of Scritchfield and Dumont teaches the method according to claim 18. Scritchfield further teaches
detecting, by the camera unit, a presence of a user in front of the camera unit to initiate the method ([0055] detecting a user positioned in front of the hand sanitizer station).
Regarding claims 21 and 29,the combination of Scritchfield and Dumont teaches the method according to claim 18 and the system according claim 27. Scritchfield further teaches the defined amount of dosage time period ([0035] predetermined amount of time) is a time period between a preset time instance and a time instance during initiation of the method.
Regarding claim 22, the combination of Scritchfield and Dumont teaches the method according to claim 18. Scritchfield further teaches wherein the exposure of the user to the UV rays from the UV source is limited to the threshold value (]0036] predefined defined exposure limit).
Regarding claim 23, the combination of Scritchfield and Dumont teaches the method according to claim 18. Scritchfield further teaches wherein the UV source is kept activated for at least a defined amount of active time period ([0035] predetermined amount of time).
Regarding claim 25, the combination of Scritchfield and Dumont teaches the method according to claim 18. Scritchfield further teaches microcontroller increments the dosage value delivered to the user and stores the incremented dosage value, after the UV source is activated for a defined amount of active time period ([0033] store the exposure limiter, [0072] updates exposure data based on information received at the exposure quantification module 430).
Regarding claim 36, the combination of Scritchfield and Dumont teaches the ultraviolet (UV) exposure system according to claim 27. Scritchfield further teaches a database configured to store information for a plurality of users ([0042] a database associated therewith to be the repository of all usage data for all of the UV sanitizer stations), including a user profile and a dosage value delivered in a defined amount of dosage time period for each user of the plurality of users ([0043] profile), wherein the microcontroller is configured, by accessing the information stored in the database, to perform the face recognition on the captured image to identify the user profile of the user in front of the camera unit (fig 6 facial recognition).
Regarding claim 39, the combination of Scritchfield and Dumont teaches the method according to claim 18. Scritchfield further teaches the UV source is activated by the microcontroller to expose the user with the UV rays when the dosage value is below the threshold value (fig. 4 exposure quantification module 430, [0077] activate the UV source 222).
Regarding claim 40, Scritchfield teaches a method of performing controlled exposure of ultraviolet (UV) rays to a user, the method comprising:
capturing, by a camera unit (cameras 214), an image of the user in front of the camera unit ([0030]);
performing face recognition on the captured image, by a microcontroller ([0024] computing devices), to identify a user profile of the user ([0036]);
obtaining, by the microcontroller, a dosage value delivered to the user of the identified user profile in a defined amount of dosage time period ([0032] memory stores exposure limiter, [0104] past usage history);
comparing, by the microcontroller, the dosage value with a threshold value ([0036] safe use standard) for the user of the identified user profile ([0043] user ID can be used to link usage data with the facial data simply by assigning each usage event in the usage data to the appropriate user identifier), the threshold value depending on the identified user profile ; and deactivating a UV source, by the microcontroller, based on the comparison between the dosage vale and the threshold value ([0059] passing a deny message if the safe limit is exceeded).
Scritchfield fails to teach that the threshold value is customizable. Dumont teaches the threshold value is a customizable value from the identified user profile ((col 10 lines 1-3)FIGS. 19A and 19B illustrate exemplary displays and a method of allowing users to select a UV threshold based on a time history of symptoms and UV exposure). It would have been obvious to modify Scritchfield with Dumont because there is some teaching, suggestion, or motivation to do so. Dumont teaches "U.S. Pat. No. 9,068,887 describes “user-programmed safe thresholds”, which means users are able to select the safe amount of UV exposure that they are open to receiving. They use skin type information to select a default threshold for each skin type. The medical literature shows, however, that every person has a unique threshold". Therefore, there is a motivation to make the thresholds customizable in order to accommodate each person's unique threshold.
Regarding claim 41, the combination of Scritchfield and Dumont teaches the method of claim 40. Scritchfield further teaches the UV source is deactivated by the microcontroller when the dosage value is above the threshold value ([0036] the exposure limiter 132, which is discussed below with reference to FIG. 4, enforces a safe use standard using facial recognition technology. In one embodiment, the exposure limiter 132 ensures that a user does not receive more exposure than a predefined defined exposure limit also referred to occasionally herein as a safe use standard).
Claim(s) 24 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Scritchfield and Dumont in view of Duncan et al (US 20110046702 A1); hereinafter Duncan. The combination of Scritchfield and Dumont teaches the system according to claim 23. The combination fails to teach a deactivation period. Duncan teaches the UV source is deactivated for at least a defined amount of halt time period ([0003] deactivate for a second time period) after performing the activation for at least the defined amount of active time period ([0003] activating for a first period of time). It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of this invention to modify the combination with Duncan because there is some teaching, suggestion, or motivation to do so. Duncan teaches that the deactivation period can be linked to the detection of a person in the treatment chamber ([0018]) allowing for energy saving benefits and limiting excessive exposure.
Claim(s) 30-33 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Scritchfield and Dumont in view of Honold et al (US12186578B2); hereinafter Honold (please note that the citations are taken from the PGPUB).
Regarding claim 30, the combination of Scritchfield and Dumont teaches the system of claim 27. The combination fails to teach that the UV exposure system is integrally installed on a furniture unit. Honold teaches the ultraviolet (UV) exposure system is integrally installed on a furniture unit ([0019]). It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of this invention to modify the combination with Honold because there is some teaching, suggestion, or motivation to do so. Honold states that integrating the light treatment into a commonly used light fixture can allow treatment without interrupting activities ([0020]). While Honold might indicate the light is visible or infrared, replacing one wavelength of light for another constitutes simple substitution.
Regarding claim 31, the combination of Scritchfield, Dumont, and Honold teaches the system of claim 30. Scritchfield further teaches the ultraviolet (UV) exposure system according to claim 31, wherein each of the camera unit, the UV source, and the microcontroller of the UV exposure system are integrally installed (fig 2a - the camera, UV disinfectant unit, and processors are all on this hand sanitizing station). Scritchfield fails to teach that the item that the UV exposure system is integrally installed on is a vanity mirror. Honold teaches the vanity mirror ([0019]). It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of this invention to modify Scritchfield with Honold because there is some teaching, suggestion, or motivation to do so. Honold states that integrating the light treatment into a commonly used light fixture can allow treatment without interrupting activities ([0020]).
Regarding claim 32, the combination of Scritchfield, Dumont, and Honold teaches the system of claim 31. Scritchfield further teaches each of the camera unit, the UV source, and the microcontroller of the UV exposure system are integrally installed (fig 2a - the camera, UV disinfectant unit, and processors are all on this hand sanitizing station). Scritchfield fails to teach a vanity mirror. Honold teaches the vanity mirror ([0019]). It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of this invention to modify Scritchfield with Honold because there is some teaching, suggestion, or motivation to do so. Honold states that integrating the light treatment into a commonly used light fixture can allow treatment without interrupting activities ([0020]).
Regarding claim 33, the combination of Scritchfield, Dumont and Honold and teaches the UV exposure system of claim 32. This combination teaches the vanity mirror with a therapeutic life source. It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of this invention to modify the combination of Scritchfield and Honold to have a plurality of light sources and that the UV exposure system comprises a plurality of UV sources because this constitutes simple duplication of parts. Additionally, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of this invention that the UV sources are disposed along the peripheral portion of the vanity mirror because this is typically where the light sources are positioned on a vanity mirror.
Claim(s) 34 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Scritchfield and Dumont in view of Garner et al (US 20190336789 A1); hereinafter Garner.
The combination of Scritchfield and Dumont teaches the system according to claim 27. the combination fails to teach the UV exposure system is on a bathing unit. Garner teaches the ultraviolet (UV) exposure system is integrally installed on a bathing unit ([0034] Lighting devices 102 may also be designed for use in other spaces such as airplanes, buses, and trains (e.g., personal lights above seats), showers and/or baths). It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of this invention to add the UV light to a bathing unit because there is some teaching, suggestion, or motivation to do so. Garner teaches "lighting devices 102 can be designed and configured for any of a variety of applications, for example, lamps positioned on a ceiling or elsewhere for illuminating a space, such as a place where an individual works or lives". Therefore, there is a motivation to include the light in the shower.
Claim(s) 37 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Scritchfield and Dumont in view of Prokoski et al (US6173068B1); hereinafter Prokoski. The combination of Scritchfield and Dumont teaches the system according claim 36. Scritchfield fails to teach focusing on a single user when multiple users are present in front of the camera. Prokoski teaches the camera unit is further configured to focus on a single user between or among the multiple users ([column 28 lines 15 -20] determines that the image includes a single face which is in focus) and captures the images of the single user when the multiple users are in front of the camera unit ([column 28 lines 15 -20]).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Dhrasti SNEHAL Dalal whose telephone number is (571)272-0780. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Thursday 8:30 am - 6:00 pm, Alternate Friday off, 8:30 am - 5:00 pm.
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, Carl Layno can be reached at (571) 272-4949. 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.
/D.S.D./Examiner, Art Unit 3796
/CARL H LAYNO/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3796