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 .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
2. A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 15 April 2026 has been entered.
Response to Amendment
3. The amendment filed 15 April 2026 has been received and considered for examination. Claims 1-4 and 6-18 are presently pending, with claims 12-16 withdrawn from consideration and claims 1-4, 6-11, and 17-18 being examined herein.
4. All grounds of rejection under 35 U.S.C. 112(b), 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1), and 35 U.S.C. 103, are withdrawn in view of Applicant’s amendment.
5. New grounds of rejection under 35 U.S.C. 103 are necessitated by the amendment, as detailed below.
Claim Interpretation
6. The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
7. The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
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: “ventilation assembly” in claim 1, interpreted herein as an electronically controlled fan (pg 6 lines 20-25).
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.
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.
9. Regarding the interpretation of a “cab” of the vehicle, Examiner acknowledges Applicant’s argued definition of a cab as the space within a vehicle designated for a driver. This is considered to narrow the scope of what constitutes a “cab” from the broadest reasonable interpretation of any passenger area or cabin within a vehicle to a more limited space including a driver seat and optionally a connected passenger area within the same plurality of walls.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
10. 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.
11. Claims 1, 3, 7-11, and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Brown et al (US 20150246151 A1) in view of Rudhard (DE 102017206232 A1, references herein made to English Machine Translation).
12. Regarding claim 1, Brown discloses a vehicle (par 0006, FIG. 4A) comprising
a plurality of walls defining a housing (FIG. 4A; interior walls of the vehicle, par 0032),
a sanitization system (decontamination system 10, pars 0022-0023 and 0027-0029, FIGS. 1-4) for said housing (to decontaminate an interior space of the vehicle, par 0022) comprising:
a sanitizing fluid source (reservoir 12 in which a disinfectant solution is stored, par 0022, FIGS. 1-3) integrated within at least one of the plurality of interior walls (FIGS. 4A-4B, reservoir 12 supported on support structure 18 inside compartment 21 in an interior space of a vehicle 23, par 0026),
a diffuser (nozzles to atomize the disinfectant solution, par 0025), said diffuser comprising at least one nozzle coupled to a corresponding at least one nebulization point (nozzle assembly 22 is depicted in FIG. 5 and may be mounted to the vehicle in the interior space of the vehicle to be decontaminated, par 0033) fluidically connected to the sanitizing fluid source (nozzles in fluid communication with the reservoir 12, par 0034),
a ventilation assembly (HVAC/supplemental exhaust blower responsive to controller signals i.e. electronically controlled, par 0051) and
a controller (FIG. 7, controller 26 connected to vehicle communication system and may be operated remotely by input device such as a smartphone, pars 0025 and 0047) configured to control a passage of said sanitizing fluid from said source to said diffuser (controller to control the activation and deactivation of the air compressors 20 and pumps 24 to deliver the disinfectant solution to the nozzles, pars 0028 and 0035-0036), wherein
said diffuser is carried by a same or different at least one of the plurality of interior walls (nozzle may be mounted to the support structure 18 or positioned elsewhere in the interior space to be decontaminated, par 0034) and nebulizes said sanitizing fluid inside said housing (nozzle or nozzles atomize the solution in order to uniformly disperse the solution throughout the interior space, par 0034),
said controller being configured to activate said ventilation assembly (controller 26 transmitting one or more signals to activate the vehicle HVAC system/supplemental exhaust blower, par 0051) to allow an airing of said housing (aeration mode, par 0051) following said diffuser nebulizing said sanitizing fluid inside said housing (after the injection mode has been completed, par 0051).
Though the primary embodiment of Brown is directed toward use in an ambulance, Brown further teaches that the system may be deployed in other vehicles that are frequently exposed to viruses/bacteria such as police vehicles and buses (par 0006). However, Brown taken as a whole does not teach that the plurality of walls would define a cab of said vehicle as defined by Applicant or specifically that the diffuser would be carried by the wall(s) in an elevated position.
Rudhard teaches an analogous cleaning system for atomizing/nebulizing a disinfectant (pars 0006-0007 and 0025-0026) wherein the nozzles 1031-1034 are positioned in various elevated positions around a cab of a vehicle (FIG. 2) to distribute the disinfectant cleaning medium to desired locations in the vehicle (par 0024).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to orient the system of Brown in the housing of a cab of a vehicle such that the nozzles are carried by the cab in an elevated position as taught by Rudhard, because this would predictably provide the passenger space with nebulized disinfectant to sanitize the cab and involves combining prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results. See MPEP 2143(I)(A).
13. Regarding claim 3, Brown as modified by Rudhard teaches the vehicle according to claim 1, comprising a pump (one or more pumps 24, Brown Abstract and pars 0027-0028; system powered by 24 VDC, Brown par 0031) fluidly interposed between said sanitizing fluid source and said diffuser (one or more pumps in fluid communication with reservoir and nozzle assembly, Brown par 0027) and configured to control the passage of said sanitizing fluid from said sanitizing fluid source to said diffuser (one or more pumps deliver the disinfection solution on demand from the reservoir to the nozzle assembly, Brown pars 0027-0028).
14. Regarding claim 7, Brown as modified by Rudhard teaches the vehicle according to claim 1, wherein said diffuser comprises a plurality of nebulization points (one or more nozzles secured on-board the vehicle wherein the solution is dispersed in atomized form, Brown par 0007; Rudhard FIG. 2, first nozzle 1031, a second nozzle 1032, as well
as further nozzles in interior of vehicle, par 0024), each of said nebulization points being fluidly connected to said sanitizing fluid source (nozzles in fluid communication with the reservoir, Brown par 0007).
15. Regarding claim 8, Brown as modified by Rudhard teaches the vehicle according to claim 7, wherein said nebulization points each comprise a nozzle (nozzle assembly 22 comprises a nozzle 32, Brown par 0034) that can be selectively mounted in the respective nebulization point (nozzle assembly may be mounted to the vehicle in the interior space, Brown par 0033; nozzles 1031,1032 are arranged at suitable locations in the vehicle, Rudhard par 0026, FIG. 2).
16. Regarding claim 9, Brown as modified by Rudhard teaches the vehicle according to claim 7, wherein each nebulization point can be oriented (nozzles may or may not be mounted on housing 30, may be mounted to support structure 18 or positioned elsewhere in the interior space to be decontaminated, Brown par 0034; arranged at suitable locations in the vehicle, Rudhard par 0026).
17. Regarding claim 10, Brown as modified by Rudhard teaches the vehicle according to claim 1, wherein said controller comprises a processor (controller includes RAM and ROM modules, programmable logic control, Brown par 0028; controller 26 may be programmed to process the raw data to determine the level of the disinfectant, Brown par 0045) configured to modulate a quantity of sanitizing fluid to be sprayed inside said housing (controller configured to deliver controlled amount of solution, Brown pars 0035-0036) according to a type of sanitizing fluid (preferred embodiment uses either 0.2% wt aqueous chlorine dioxide solution or an 8% vol aqueous hydrogen peroxide solution, Brown par 0035) and dimensions of said housing (controller can programmed to control delivery of the disinfectant solution depending on the volume of a room or interior of a vehicle to be decontaminated, Brown par 0005), said values being stored or insertable in said controller (dose amount or injection time may be input to the controller, Brown pars 0035-0036).
It is not clear that the processor of Brown would specifically calculate the quantity of sanitizing fluid to be sprayed, although Brown does provide this exact calculation according to the type of sanitizing fluid and dimensions of said housing (par 0035) to be input i.e., stored or insertable in said controller. However, the processor of Brown is known to be capable of executing this level of calculation (capable of processing raw data, par 0045), and the provision of an automatic means to replace a manual activity to accomplish the same result is not sufficient to distinguish over the prior art. See MPEP 2144.04(III).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to further configure the processor of modified Brown to calculate the quantity of sanitizing fluid to be sprayed as taught in Brown par 0035 because this would predictably provide a sufficient and repeatable dose of the fluid to sanitize the volume of the space. By simply automating a manual activity that the system of Brown requires to be operable, this involves applying a known technique (automation) to a known device ready for improvement to yield predictable results. See MPEP 2144.04(III) and MPEP 2143(I)(D).
18. Regarding claim 11, Brown as modified by Rudhard teaches the vehicle according to claim 1, wherein said controller comprises a telecommunication device configured to allow remote control of said controller (communications module 46 enables communication between controller 26 and remote input device such as a smart phone, Brown par 0047; input device to enter parameter data associated with a disinfectant operation, Brown par 0047).
19. Regarding claim 18, Brown as modified by Rudhard teaches the vehicle according to claim 1, wherein said diffuser is carried above a driver seat in the cab of the vehicle (Rudhard FIG. 2, 1031). The combination above does not teach that the diffuser would be carried by the same at least one of the plurality of interior walls because Rudhard does not establish a firm location for the main sanitization system body 101 within the vehicle (Rudhard FIGS. 1-2).
However, rearrangement of parts is not a patentable advance when directed toward an obvious matter of design choice. See In re Kuhle, 526 F.2d 553, 188 USPQ 7 (CCPA 1975), In re Japikse, 181 F.2d 1019, 86 USPQ 70 (CCPA 1950), MPEP 2144.04(VI)(C). Positioning the disinfectant reservoir and the disinfectant outlet nozzle within the same wall would be an obvious matter of design choice, as moving the position of the disinfectant reservoir within various walls of the vehicle would not be expected to modify the operation of the device. In fact, Brown already does support the nozzle and the tank within the same wall compartment as shown in FIG. 4B (nozzles may be mounted to the support structure 18, par 0034), showing the feasibility of this collocation within the same wall in an analogous vehicle system.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to position the sanitizing fluid source of modified Brown such that the diffuser is carried by the same at least one of the plurality of interior walls above a driver seat in the cab of the vehicle as taught by Rudhard because this would predictably provide the same effective supply of disinfectant fluid without modifying the operation of the device, i.e., a simple substitution of one known position for another to obtain predictable results. See MPEP 2143(I)(B).
20. Claim 2 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Brown et al (US 20150246151 A1) and Rudhard (DE 102017206232 A1) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Ricciardi et al (US 20080233001 A1).
Regarding claim 2, Brown as modified by Rudhard teaches the vehicle according to claim 1 wherein said sanitizing fluid source comprises a tank (Brown FIGS. 1-3, reservoir 12 in which a disinfectant solution is stored, Brown par 0022). Although Brown teaches a fluid flow meter to monitor the amount of sanitizing liquid delivered from the tank to the nozzles (Brown par 0036), the combination does not teach the specific structure wherein the tank is provided with a fluid sensor configured to detect a level of sanitizing fluid in said tank.
Ricciardi teaches an analogous sanitizing aerosol generator (Title, Abstract) using aerosolized hydrogen peroxide or other liquid agents to sanitize a space (pars 0029-0030, 0108-0109) wherein the tank includes a float switch or other liquid level sensor (par 0162) to shut down or enter an error mode when the liquid level drops below a certain depth that is ineffective or unsafe (par 0162).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to include within the tank of modified Brown a fluid level sensor as taught by Ricciardi because this would predictably provide the same protection against low level fault conditions and enable communication of tank fluid level as taught by Ricciardi (Ricciardi par 0170) and this involves combining prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results. See MPEP 2143(I)(A).
21. Claim 4 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Brown et al (US 20150246151 A1) and Rudhard (DE 102017206232 A1) as applied to claim 3 above, and further in view of Ricciardi et al (US 20080233001 A1).
Regarding claim 4, Brown as modified by Rudhard teaches the vehicle according to claim 3 but does not teach a heating device fluidly interposed between said pump and said diffuser.
Ricciardi teaches an improved aerosol generator (Title, Abstract) wherein a sanitizing fluid of hydrogen peroxide or other liquid disinfecting agent is heated while nebulizing (pars 0014 and 0016) because heated H202 is more efficacious as a sterilization agent than room temperature H202 (par 0016). This heating can be achieved by a cartridge heater or a heat exchange circulation loop (pars 0165, 0167, 0168), which read upon the electric heater and heat exchanger of the present disclosure, the heat exchanger fluidly interposed between the tank and the outlet (pars 0039, 0147).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to install within the vehicle system of modify Brown a heating element fluidly interposed between the pump and the diffuser as taught by Ricciardi because this would predictably provide the disinfectant to the nozzle at an ideal, controllable temperature for nebulization, as Ricciardi teaches the benefit of temperature control for maximizing disinfection capability while protecting the diffuser from degradation (Ricciardi pars 0014, 0016, 0039). As such, this involves combining prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results, see MPEP 2143(I)(A).
22. Claim 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Brown et al (US 20150246151 A1) and Rudhard (DE 102017206232 A1) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Dumur et al (WO 2015177437 A1).
Regarding claim 6, Brown as modified by Rudhard teaches the vehicle according to claim 1, comprising one or more sensors (motion detector 40, Brown par 0039), the one or more sensors being configured to detect the presence of a living being inside said housing (motion detector for detecting presence of personnel in the interior space i.e. volume, Brown par 0008), and the controller is configured to prevent said nebulizing of said sanitizing fluid (controller 26 may be programmed such that a decontamination operation is initiated only if no movement is detected for a preset time, par 0039) and the activation of said ventilation means (aeration mode activated only when injection mode is completed, par 0051; injection mode not initiated if motion is detected, pars 0049-0050) if a living being is identified inside said housing (if motion is detected, the controller 26 will not initiate the operations, par 0049).
The combination does not specifically teach that these sensors would be disposed above and oriented towards a driver seat in the cab of the vehicle. However, Brown further teaches that motion detector 40 can be mounted as a component of the nozzle assembly 22 or may be positioned at some other location of the interior space of the vehicle (Brown par 0039) for detecting presence of personnel in the interior space (Brown par 0008). As modified, the nozzles are disposed above and oriented towards the seats of the vehicle (Rudhard FIG. 2), so collocating the motion detector with each nozzle would achieve the stated purpose of detecting presence of personnel in the interior space and read upon the claimed orientation.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to dispose the motion detector of modified Brown above and oriented towards a driver seat in the cab of the vehicle as taught by Rudhard with regard to nozzle location, because this would predictably provide the same presence detection capability without modifying the operation of the device, i.e., a simple substitution of one known position for another to obtain predictable results. See MPEP 2143(I)(B) and MPEP 2144.04(VI)(C).
The combination also fails to teach that the sensing of a living being by the motion detector would interrupt said nebulizing during the step of execute a continuous check, as the occupant detectors of Brown and Rudhard are deployed mainly to ensure there are no occupants prior to initiating the nebulization process (Brown par 0049, Rudhard par 0006).
Dumur teaches an analogous air sanitization system (pars 0015-0023) using nebulization of a treatment liquid (pars 0038-0040) in a passenger enclosure of a vehicle (pars 0026-0027) wherein if during a sanitation phase the control means are informed of the entry of a person into the enclosure, the control means immediately interrupt the sanitation phase for safety reasons (par 0055).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to configure the controller of modified Brown to execute a continuous check and interrupt the nebulization process if a living being is sensed as taught by Dumur, because this would predictably prevent human exposure to the sanitizing aerosol for improved safety and involves applying a known technique to a known device ready for improvement to yield predictable results. See MPEP 2143(I)(D).
23. Claim 17 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Brown et al (US 20150246151 A1) and Rudhard (DE 102017206232 A1) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of McKnew (US 11,318,960 B1).
Regarding claim 17, Brown as modified by Rudhard teaches the vehicle according to claim 1, and Brown further teaches that sensors may be mounted with the nozzle assembly (Brown pars 0037 and 0039). The combination does not specifically teach one or more sensors disposed above and oriented towards a driver seat in the cab of the vehicle, the one or more sensors being adapted to detect a body temperature of at least one occupant of said housing, wherein said controller sets a time interval for said passage of sanitizing fluid, said nebulizing, and said activating of said ventilation assembly based on the body temperature detected by the one or more sensors.
McKnew teaches an analogous vehicle interior sanitization system (Abstract, col 9 line 41 to col 10 line 6) equipped with one or more thermal sensors, such as a thermographic camera or an infrared thermometer to determine a passenger’s body temperature and identify if this temperature exceeds a fever threshold (col 6 lines 14-42) under which condition a disinfecting mist will be sprayed in the interior compartment and/or external surfaces after the conclusion or close of the ride of a symptomatic passenger (col 9 line 41 to col 10 line 6). McKnew further teaches that the system can set a duration for disinfection that kills or inactivates one or more types of pathogens (col 9 line 41 to col 10 line 18) and track the time intervals of exposure of symptomatic users in the vehicle (col 18 lines 38-67).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to include within the vehicle system of modified Brown one or more sensors to detect a body temperature as taught by McKnew and to further configure the controller of Brown to set a time interval for disinfectant treatment (including said passage of sanitizing fluid, said nebulizing, and said activating of said ventilation assembly) based on detected body temperature as taught by McKnew, because these modifications would predictably ensure sufficient cleaning of the vehicle compartment when a passenger having a fever is detected with the body temperature sensor, preventing the spread of disease between passengers as advantageously taught by McKnew (col 5 lines 35-61). This involves applying a known technique to a known device ready for improvement to yield predictable results, see MPEP 2143(I)(D).
Further, McKnew teaches an elevated location of the thermal sensor (McKnew FIG. 3, thermal sensor 320) such that the sensor is directed at head level to capture a passenger’s body temperature (McKnew col 9 lines 3-33). As modified above by Rudhard, the nozzle assemblies of modified Brown are disposed above and oriented towards the seats of the vehicle (Rudhard FIG. 2), so collocating the thermal sensor with each nozzle would achieve the stated purpose of detecting body temperature of personnel in the interior space and read upon the claimed orientation.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to position the thermal sensor in modified Brown above and oriented towards a driver seat in the cab of the vehicle as suggested by the references in combination because collocating the thermal sensor with the nozzle would predictably provide an elevated position to effectively capture a body temperature of personnel in the space to similarly mitigate disease transfer (McKnew col 5 lines 35-61 and col 9 lines 3-33). See MPEP 2143(I)(B) and MPEP 2143(I)(G).
Response to Arguments
24. Applicant's arguments, see Remarks filed 15 April 2026, with respect to the rejections of claims 1-4, 6-11, and 17 under 35 U.S.C. 102 and 35 U.S.C. 103 have been fully considered and are persuasive. Therefore, the rejection has been withdrawn. However, upon further consideration, a new ground(s) of rejection under 35 U.S.C. 103 is made in view of Rudhard to address the newly recited limitations requiring that the diffuser is carried in an elevated position and the plurality of walls define a cab of a vehicle. Applicant’s definition of cab as the enclosed space within a vehicle designated for a driver is noted, and Examiner searched specifically for prior art that focuses on this narrower definition of a cab.
25. In response to applicant's arguments that Brown and McKnew teach away from applying a sanitization system in a cab of a vehicle, Examiner finds this line of reasoning unpersuasive. Though the primary embodiment of Brown is applied in a passenger area of an ambulance, Brown describes the invention as useful for sterilizing or decontaminating spaces and surfaces of vehicles that are frequently exposed to harmful viruses, bacteria, chemicals, etc. in police vehicles, buses, trains and aircraft (par 0006), to which at least application in police vehicles or buses reads as open to the decontamination of a “cab”. Further, the fact that McKnew applies the sanitizing system to autonomous vehicles does not negate the usefulness of such a device in a primary passenger area of a vehicle, as Examiner notes that autonomous vehicles are often used as “cabs”. The analogous vehicle systems of Brown and McKnew experience similar need for sanitization between users as the problem of disease transmission is not unique to trucks (McKnew Abstract, Brown par 0006), and these alleged deficiencies are clearly cured anyway by Rudhard who teaches an analogous sanitizing system particularly applied to preventing disease transmission in shared motor vehicles such as cars and/or trucks (pars 0001-0002).
Conclusion
26. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Eric Talbert whose telephone number is (703)756-5538. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri 8:00-5:00 Eastern Time.
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 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.
/ERIC TALBERT/.Examiner, Art Unit 1758
/MARIS R KESSEL/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1758
Prosecution Insights