DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Amendment
This action is in response to the Amendment filed on 6/15/2026.
Claims 18, 19, 21-23, 25, 27, 29-34, 36, 37 and 39-41 are pending.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments with respect to claims 18, 19, 21-23, 25, 27, 29-34, 36, 37 and 39-41 have been considered but are not persuasive.
Interpretation under 35 U.S.C. § 112(f)
Applicant's arguments 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 that the claim features of "the camera unit is further configured to focus on a single user between or among the multiple users" strongly imply or directly denote the respective structures and that a person having ordinary skill in the art would readily recognize the structures. 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.
Even though the claim limitation does not use the word “means,” it is nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation uses a generic placeholder ( i.e. “unit”) 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.
Because this claim limitation is being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it is being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant does not intend to have this limitation 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 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 recites sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
As discussed above, the selection of 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.
Therefore, the Applicant's arguments regarding the 35 USC 112(f) interpretation of claim 37 are not persuasive.
Claim Rejections under 35 U.S.C. §103 - U.S. Patent Publication No. 2016/0030766 ("Scritchfield") in view of U.S. Patent No. 9,880,725 ("Dumont").
Independent claim 18 has been amended herein to include the features of dependent claim 24 and as now amended, recites "deactivating the UV source for at least a defined halt time period after the UV light source is activated for a defined active time period."
Applicant argues that Scritchfield, Dumont, and Duncan, alone or in combination fail to teach or suggest this feature.
They state that in Duncan, IR radiation is provided to a treatment area, causing the widening of blood vessels (vasodilation), and the IR radiation is subsequently stopped causing blood vessels to narrow (vasoconstriction) (e.g. [0033]). The activation and deactivation of the infrared radiation causes a pumping effect in which lymph fluid and other waste materials are pumped out of the blood vessels. They further argue that Duncan describes an infrared (IR) therapeutic chamber and is completely silent as to an ultraviolet (UV) light source or UV light generally and the deactivation period as described in Duncan is for causing a pumping effect in which vasodilation and subsequent vasoconstriction are used to remove lymph fluid and other waste from a blood vessel, and that it would not have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to combine the references as proposed, because the deactivation of an IR source as described in Duncan is performed to create a pumping effect unique to the infrared therapeutic chamber of Duncan and is not related to controlling exposure.
Further they state that a teaching that the deactivation period is linked to detection of a person in the chamber or that the deactivation period allows for energy saving benefits and/or limiting excessive exposure could not be found in paragraph [0018] of Duncan.
Applicant’s arguments have been carefully considered and are not persuasive for the following reasons. Duncan, in the same field of endeavor of phototherapy devices, teaches a control module that is configured to deactivate a light source for 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). Therefore, 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 teachings of Scritchfield in view of Dumont with Duncan so that the microcontroller is configured to deactivate the UV light source of Scritchfield in view of Dumont for a defined halt time after an activation time period as taught by Duncan in order to provide the predictable results of providing a more controlled therapy to the user.
Furthermore, Duncan teaches deactivation of the light source based on the detection of a person in the treatment chamber ([0024]: the presence of the subject inside the chamber is optionally detected. This is useful in scenarios where the subject is alone and the chamber is set to activate upon detecting presence or entry, motion detector turns on the appropriate heater zones, a direct energy savings is realized.) allowing for energy saving benefits and limiting excessive exposure.
The examiner had relied on Duncan for the teaching of deactivation of a light therapy source for a predefined halt time after an activation period and was not bodily incorporating the teachings of Duncan. Therefore, the rejection is maintained.
Claim rejections under 35 U.S.C. § 103- U.S. Patent Publication No. 2016/0030766 ("Scritchfield") in view of U.S. Patent No. 9,880,725 ("Dumont") and U.S. Patent No. 12,186,578 ("Honold").
Applicant’s arguments with regards to claim 33 have been considered but are not persuasive for the following reasons. The examiner had rejected claim 33 under the legal rationale of duplication of parts (In re Harza, 274 F.2d 669, 124 USPQ 378 (CCPA 1960). Further the examiner suggested arranging the UV sources on the vanity mirror of Honold since vanity mirrors typically have a plurality of lights (as is evidenced by Sosniak et al (US Patent Application Publication Number: US 20030030063, hereinafter “Sosniak”) that teaches a vanity mirror (e.g. claim1) with a plurality of lights on a periphery (e.g. Fig.1) OR Burns (US Patent Number: US 9450432, hereinafter Burns) that also teaches a plurality of lights on a periphery of a mirror. Therefore, the rejection is maintained.
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.
Claims 18,19,21-23, 25, 27, 29,36 and 39 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Scritchfield et al (US20160030766A1); hereinafter Scritchfield (PREVIOUSLY CITED) in view of Dumont et al (US 9880725 B2); hereinafter Dumont (PREVIOUSLY CITED) and further in view of Duncan et al (US 20110046702 A1); hereinafter Duncan (PREVIOUSLY CITED).
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.
Further while the combination of Scritchfield and Dumont teaches the claimed system as discussed above, they fail to teach that the UV source is deactivated for at least a defined halt time period after the UV source is activated for a defined active time period. In a similar field of endeavor, Duncan teaches a therapeutic light source that 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 ([0024]) allowing for energy saving benefits and limiting excessive exposure. (Please note the response to arguments provide above).
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, Dumont and Duncan teach 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, Dumont and Duncan teach 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, Dumont and Duncan teach 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, Dumont and Duncan teach 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, Dumont and Duncan teach 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, Dumont and Duncan teach 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).
Claims 30-33 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Scritchfield and Dumont and Duncan et al (US 20110046702 A1); hereinafter Duncan (PREVIOUSLY CITED) and further 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, Dumont and Duncan teach 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, Duncan 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, Duncan 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 Duncan 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. (Please see the response to arguments section discussed above for further explanation)
Claim 34 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Scritchfield and Dumont and Duncan in view of Garner et al (US 20190336789 A1); hereinafter Garner (PREVIOUSLY CITED).
Regarding claim 34, the combination of Scritchfield, Dumont and Duncan teach 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 37 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Scritchfield and Dumont and Duncan in view of Prokoski et al (US6173068B1); hereinafter Prokoski (PREVIOUSLY CITED).
Regarding claim 37, the combination of Scritchfield, Dumont and Duncan teach 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]).
Claims 40 and 41 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Scritchfield et al (US20160030766A1); hereinafter Scritchfield (PREVIOUSLY CITED) in view of Dumont et al (US 9880725 B2); hereinafter Dumont (PREVIOUSLY CITED) and in view of Duncan et al (US 20110046702 A1); hereinafter Duncan (PREVIOUSLY CITED) and further in view of Moffat et al (US 2020/0376292 A1); hereinafter Moffat.
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
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.
While the combination of Scritchfield and Dumont teach the claimed system as discussed above, they fail to teach that the UV source is deactivated for at least a defined halt time period after the UV source is activated for a defined active time period. In a similar field of endeavor, Duncan teaches a therapeutic light source that 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 ([0024]) allowing for energy saving benefits and limiting excessive exposure. (Please note the response to arguments provide above).
Further while the combination of Scritchfield and Dumont and Duncan teach the claimed system as discussed above, they fail to teach incrementing the dosage value delivered to the user and storing the incremented dosage value, after the UV source is activated for the defined active time period.
In a similar field of endeavor, Moffat teaches a dynamic dosing UV therapy system and method (e.g. Abstract) and further teaches dose parameters that can be stored and used by the dynamic dosing system 105 to determine the user's skin type category, MED estimate, starting or initial dose, treatment frequency, dose increases, dose decreases, long-term treatment pattern, and/or other information relevant to phototherapy treatments (e.g. [0055]) and therefore they teach incrementing a dosage value delivered to a user and storing the incremented dosage value, after the UV source is activated for the defined active time period. 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 Dumont and Duncan in order to provide the predictable results of providing a more customized phototherapy treatment regimen.
Regarding claim 41, the combination of Scritchfield, Dumont, Duncan and Moffat teach 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).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Hendrix et al (U.S. Patent Number: US 8486124, hereinafter “Hendrix”) teaches a UV phototherapy treatment (e.g. Col. 10 lines 4-12) device that provides therapeutic light emissions treatments. The device provides additional means for controlling a patient's exposure to those treatments through a controlled protocol time and the controlled protocol timer can provide for incremental exposure increases; monitors patient compliance with a treatment regimen.
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new grounds 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.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MALLIKA DIPAYAN FAIRCHILD whose telephone number is (571)270-7043. The examiner can normally be reached Monday- Friday 8 am-5pm 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, BENJAMIN KLEIN can be reached at 571-270-5213. 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.
/MALLIKA D FAIRCHILD/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3792
Prosecution Insights