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 .
FINAL ACTION
Response to Amendment
The amendment filed on 10/08/2025 has been received and claims 4-13 and 15-20 are pending.
Election/Restrictions
Claims 18-20 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b), as being drawn to a nonelected group, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Applicant timely traversed the restriction (election) requirement in the reply filed on 7/02/2025.
Claim Interpretation
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.
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.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
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: “air flow generation device” in claim 11.
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.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claims 6-9 and 15-17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention. Specifically, as to Claims 6 and 7, there is no written description support for the limitation that the “processor is configured by a stored program” within the Specification, where it is merely indicated that one or more algorithms may be executed on one or more processors. In addition, there is no written description support for the limitation “a neural network model” (of claim 7) within the Specification. Moreover, there is no written description for the limitation that “the processor is further configured with control circuit to perform…” within the Specification.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 6-9 and 15-17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
In Claims 6 and 7, it is not clear how “the processor” can be “configured by a stored program”.
In Claim 10, it is not clear what additional type of structure the limitation “control circuitry” is attempting to set forth as a processor intrinsically includes control circuitry.
In Claim 16, it is not clear whether “a temperature, a humidity” in lines 3-4 of the claim is referring to the “temperature data” and “humidity data” or to a new temperature and humidity data.
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) 4-13 and 15-17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lloyd (20170246331) in view of Gilling (20220331473).
As to Claim 4, Lloyd (‘331) discloses a system (10) for reducing pathogenic bioburden in an environment (100) (see Figures 1-2 and 9B) comprising:
a light emitting device (20) comprising one or more light sources emitting light flux with a wavelength within a range of 100 nanometers to 280 nanometers (see entire document, particularly p. 5 [0055]-[0057] and [0059], p. 6 [0069], pp. 6-7 [0071]), the one or more light sources comprise a first light source (20) with a first peak wavelength between 220 nanometers and 225 nanometers (i.e. KrCl laser - see entire document, particularly p. 5 [0059] – lines 4-5);
wherein the one or more light source is positioned in the light emitting device (20) capable to emit light downward and to emit light upwards when the light emitting device (20) is suspended in a room or the environment (see entire document, particularly Figure 9B, pp. 13-14 [0131]); and
two or more sensors (30, 40), each sensor generating environmental data (see entire document, particularly p. 7 [0074], pp. 7-8 [0077], p. 12 [0121], p. 14 [0133] and [0136]); and
a processor (50, 51) communicatively coupled to the two or more sensors and the light emitting device, the processor performing an analysis on the environmental data from each sensor of the two or more sensors (30, 40) and adjusting the light flux emitted from the light emitting device (20) based at least in part on the environmental data from the two or more sensors (30, 40) (see entire document, particularly Figures 5A-7 and 10, p. 6 [0061], p. 9 [0090], pp. 9-10 [0095], p. 11 [0113], pp. 11-12 [0115], p. 12 [0117]).
While Lloyd (‘331) teaches at least one light source may be positioned to emit light upward and downward (see pp. 14 [0131] – lines 6-17), Lloyd (‘331) does not specifically teach that the one or more light sources further comprises a second light source with a second peak wavelength at 254 nanometers or that the first light source is positioned in the light emitting device to emit light downward and the second light source is positioned to emit light upwards when the light emitting device is suspended in a room or the environment.
It was known in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide one or more light sources which comprises a light source with a peak wavelength at 254 nanometers along with another light source where one light source is positioned in the light emitting device to emit light downward and the other light source is positioned to emit light upwards in a system for reducing pathogenic bioburden in an environment. Gilling (‘473) discloses a system (20) for reducing pathogenic bioburden in an environment comprising:
two or more sensors (36, 38, 45, 47, 40, 51), each sensor (36, 38, 45, 47, 40, 51) generating environmental data (see entire document, particularly pp. 2-3 [0026]);
a light emitting device comprising one or more light sources (22) emitting light flux with a wavelength within a range of 100 nanometers to 280 nanometers (see entire document, particularly p. 2 [0025], p. 3 [0027]), wherein the one or more light sources (22) comprises a first light source (22) with a first peak wavelength between 220 nanometers and 225 nanometers (i.e. 222 nm) (see entire document, particularly p. 2 [0025], p. 3 [0027]) and a second light source with a second peak wavelength at 254 nanometers (see entire document, particularly p. 2 [0025], p. 3 [0027]),
wherein the first light source (22) is/capable of being positioned in the light emitting device (22) to emit light downward (i.e. when “free standing on a support” or “positioned on a mobile cart” – see p. 3 [0027] – 4th – 7th lines from the bottom) and the second light source (22) is/capable of being positioned to emit light upwards when the light emitting device (22) (i.e. when “free standing on a support” or “positioned on a mobile cart” – see p. 3 [0027] – 4th – 7th lines from the bottom) is suspended in a room or the environment (see entire document, particularly p. 3 [0027] – 4th – 7th lines from the bottom); and
a processor (30, 100, 102) communicatively coupled to the two or more sensors (36, 38, 45, 47, 40, 51) and the light emitting device (22), the processor (30, 100, 102) performing an analysis on the environmental data from each sensor of the two or more sensors (36, 38, 45, 47, 40, 51) and adjusting the light flux emitted from the light emitting device (22) based at least in part on the environmental data from the two or more sensors (36, 38, 45, 47, 40, 51) (entire document, particularly Figure 1, pp. 2-3 [0025]-[0026], p. 3 [0028] and [0030]),
in order to eliminate bacteria or viruses (see entire document, particularly p. 1 [0005]-[0007], p. 2 [0025], p. 3 [0027]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in this art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide at least one light source with a peak wavelength at 254 nanometers in addition to the light source with a peak wavelength at 222 nm wherein one light source is positioned in the light emitting device to emit light downward and the other light source is positioned to emit light upwards when the light emitting device is suspended in a room or the environment in the system of Lloyd in order to eliminate pathogens as shown by Gilling.
As to Claim 5, Lloyd (‘331) discloses that the two or more sensors (30, 40) include at least one temperature sensor generating temperature data of the environment (see entire document, particularly p. 7 [0074] – line 5, p. 12 [0121] – line 7, p. 14 [0136], p. 16 [0154] – lines 1-2, p. 17 [0165]) and at last one humidity sensor generating humidity data of the environment (see entire document, particularly p. 16 [0154] – lines 1-2).
As to Claim 6, Lloyd (‘331) discloses that the processor (50, 51) is configured by a stored program (54 in 52) to adjust the light flux emitted from the light emitting device (20) to inactivate and/or reduce pathogenic bioburden in the environment based at least in part on the temperature data and the humidity data (see entire document, particularly Figures 5A-7 and 10, p. 6 [0061], p. 9 [0090], pp. 9-10 [0095], p. 11 [0113], pp. 11-12 [0115], p. 12 [0117]).
As to Claim 7, Lloyd (‘331) discloses a system (10) for reducing pathogenic bioburden in an environment (100) (see Figures 1-2) comprising:
a light emitting device (20) comprising one or more light sources emitting light flux with a wavelength within a range of 100 nanometers to 280 nanometers (see entire document, particularly p. 5 [0055]-[0057] and [0059], p. 6 [0069], pp. 6-7 [0071]);
two or more sensors (30, 40), each sensor generating environmental data (see entire document, particularly p. 7 [0074], pp. 7-8 [0077], p. 12 [0121], p. 14 [0133] and [0136]); and
a processor (50, 51) communicatively coupled to the two or more sensors (30, 40) and the light emitting device (20), the processor (50, 51) performing an analysis on the environmental data from each sensor of the two or more sensors (30, 40) and adjusting the light flux emitted from the light emitting device (20) based at least in part on the environmental data from the two or more sensors (30, 40) (see entire document, particularly Figures 5A-7 and 10, p. 6 [0061], p. 9 [0090], pp. 9-10 [0095], p. 11 [0113], pp. 11-12 [0115], p. 12 [0117]),
wherein the two or more sensors (30, 40) include at least one temperature sensor generating temperature data of the environment (see entire document, particularly p. 7 [0074] – line 5, p. 12 [0121] – line 7, p. 14 [0136], p. 16 [0154] – lines 1-2, p. 17 [0165]) and at last one humidity sensor generating humidity data of the environment (see entire document, particularly p. 16 [0154] – lines 1-2), and
wherein the processor (50, 51) is configured by a stored program (54 in 52) to adjust the light flux emitted from the light emitting device (20) to inactivate and/or reduce pathogenic bioburden in the environment based at least in part on the temperature data and the humidity data (see entire document, particularly Figures 5A-7 and 10, p. 6 [0061], p. 9 [0090], pp. 9-10 [0095], p. 11 [0113], pp. 11-12 [0115], p. 12 [0117]) and capable to execute a neural network model for the analysis on at least the environmental data from the two or more sensors (30, 40).
As to Claim 8, Gilling (‘473) discloses that the two or more sensors (36, 38, 45, 47, 40, 51) includes at least one suspended particulate sensor (45) generating particulate concentration data for the environment (see entire document, particularly pp. 2-3 [0026]), and the analysis is capable of being based at least on the temperature data, the humidity data, and an estimated air flow rate determined at least in part by the at least one suspended particulate sensor (45).
As to Claims 9 and 16, Lloyd (‘331) discloses that the two or more sensors (30, 40) include at least one motion sensor (30) or occupancy sensor (30) providing data for the environment (100) (see entire document, particularly pp. 7-8 [0077]), wherein the light flux emitted from the one or more light emitting devices (20) is adjusted to inactivate and/or reduce pathogenic bioburden in the environment (100) based at least on the temperature data, the humidity data, and an occupancy of the environment (100) sensed by the two or more sensors (30, 40) (see entire document, particularly p. 4 [0046]-[0047] and [0050]-[0051], p. 5 [0055]).
As to Claims 10 and 17, Lloyd (‘331) discloses that the processor (50, 51) is further configured with control circuitry (see entire document, particularly Figures 5A-5B, p. 9 [0090] and [0095]) capable to perform at least two adjustments selected from a group: total light flux output, duration of light flux output, and frequency of light flux output (i.e. steps 304, 305, 314, 315, 326, 327, 334, 336, 338, 339 - see entire document, particularly Figures 6-7 and 10, p. 7 [0071], p. 12 [0119]).
As to Claim 11, Gilling (‘473) discloses that the system (20) further comprises an air flow generation device (44) wherein air flow from the air flow generation device (44) is adjusted based at least in part on the environmental data from the one or more sensors (36, 38, 45, 47, 40, 51) (see entire document, particularly p. 3 [0029]).
As to Claim 12, Gilling (‘473) discloses that the two or more sensors (36, 38, 45, 47, 40, 51) includes at least one of at least one spot meter or an imager (38) capable of being sensitive to light with a wavelength within the range of 100 nanometers to 280 nanometers (see entire document, particularly pp. 2-3 [0026], p. 3 [0030]).
As to Claims 13 and 15, Lloyd (‘331) discloses that the system (10) further comprises one or more/a plurality of additional light emitting devices (20), each additional light emitting device comprising one or more light sources (20) emitting light flux with a wavelength within a range of 100 nanometers to 280 nanometers (see entire document, particularly p. 5 [0055]-[0057] and [0059], p. 6 [0069], pp. 6-7 [0071]), wherein the light emitting device (20) and the one or more/plurality of additional light emitting devices (20) are located within a building and the processor (50) is remote from the building (see entire document, particularly Figure 2, pp. 4-5 [0052]).
Thus, Claims 4-13 and 15-17 would have been obvious within the meaning of 35 U.S.C. 103 over the combined teachings of Lloyd (‘331), Gilling (‘473).
In the event that the combined teaching of Lloyd and Gilling is not adequate to meet the limitation of claim 4 with respect to “the first light source positioned in the light emitting device to emit light downward and the second light source is positioned to emit light upwards”, the following rejection will apply.
Claim(s) 4-6 and 8-14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lloyd (20170246331) in view of Gilling (20220331473) and Park (WO2022071619).
As to Claim 4, Lloyd (‘331) discloses a system (10) for reducing pathogenic bioburden in an environment (100) (see Figures 1-2 and 9B) comprising:
a light emitting device (20) comprising one or more light sources emitting light flux with a wavelength within a range of 100 nanometers to 280 nanometers (see entire document, particularly p. 5 [0055]-[0057] and [0059], p. 6 [0069], pp. 6-7 [0071]), the one or more light sources comprise a first light source (20) with a first peak wavelength between 220 nanometers and 225 nanometers (i.e. KrCl laser - see entire document, particularly p. 5 [0059] – lines 4-5);
wherein the one or more light source is positioned in the light emitting device (20) capable to emit light downward and to emit light upwards when the light emitting device (20) is suspended in a room or the environment (see entire document, particularly Figure 9B, pp. 13-14 [0131]); and
two or more sensors (30, 40), each sensor generating environmental data (see entire document, particularly p. 7 [0074], pp. 7-8 [0077], p. 12 [0121], p. 14 [0133] and [0136]); and
a processor (50, 51) communicatively coupled to the two or more sensors and the light emitting device, the processor performing an analysis on the environmental data from each sensor of the two or more sensors (30, 40) and adjusting the light flux emitted from the light emitting device (20) based at least in part on the environmental data from the two or more sensors (30, 40) (see entire document, particularly Figures 5A-7 and 10, p. 6 [0061], p. 9 [0090], pp. 9-10 [0095], p. 11 [0113], pp. 11-12 [0115], p. 12 [0117]).
While Lloyd (‘331) teaches at least one light source may be positioned to emit light upward and downward (see pp. 14 [0131] – lines 6-17), Lloyd (‘331) does not specifically teach that the one or more light sources further comprises a second light source with a second peak wavelength at 254 nanometers or that the first light source is positioned in the light emitting device to emit light downward and the second light source is positioned to emit light upwards when the light emitting device is suspended in a room or the environment.
It was known in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide one or more light sources which comprises a light source with a peak wavelength at 254 nanometers along with another light source where one light source is positioned in the light emitting device to emit light downward and the other light source is positioned to emit light upwards in a system for reducing pathogenic bioburden in an environment. Gilling (‘473) discloses a system (20) for reducing pathogenic bioburden in an environment comprising:
two or more sensors (36, 38, 45, 47, 40, 51), each sensor (36, 38, 45, 47, 40, 51) generating environmental data (see entire document, particularly pp. 2-3 [0026]);
a light emitting device comprising one or more light sources (22) emitting light flux with a wavelength within a range of 100 nanometers to 280 nanometers (see entire document, particularly p. 2 [0025], p. 3 [0027]), wherein the one or more light sources (22) comprises a first light source (22) with a first peak wavelength between 220 nanometers and 225 nanometers (i.e. 222 nm) (see entire document, particularly p. 2 [0025], p. 3 [0027]) and a second light source with a second peak wavelength at 254 nanometers (see entire document, particularly p. 2 [0025], p. 3 [0027]),
wherein the first light source (22) is/capable of being positioned in the light emitting device (22) to emit light downward (i.e. when “free standing on a support” or “positioned on a mobile cart” – see p. 3 [0027] – 4th – 7th lines from the bottom) and the second light source (22) is positioned to emit light upwards when the light emitting device (22) (i.e. when “free standing on a support” or “positioned on a mobile cart” – see p. 3 [0027] – 4th – 7th lines from the bottom) is suspended in a room or the environment (see entire document, particularly p. 3 [0027] – 4th – 7th lines from the bottom); and
a processor (30, 100, 102) communicatively coupled to the two or more sensors (36, 38, 45, 47, 40, 51) and the light emitting device (22), the processor (30, 100, 102) performing an analysis on the environmental data from each sensor of the two or more sensors (36, 38, 45, 47, 40, 51) and adjusting the light flux emitted from the light emitting device (22) based at least in part on the environmental data from the two or more sensors (36, 38, 45, 47, 40, 51) (entire document, particularly Figure 1, pp. 2-3 [0025]-[0026], p. 3 [0028] and [0030]),
in order to eliminate bacteria or viruses (see entire document, particularly p. 1 [0005]-[0007], p. 2 [0025], p. 3 [0027]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in this art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide at least one light source with a peak wavelength at 254 nanometers in addition to the light source with a peak wavelength at 222 nm wherein one light source is positioned in the light emitting device to emit light downward and the other light source is positioned to emit light upwards when the light emitting device is suspended in a room or the environment in the system of Lloyd in order to eliminate pathogens as shown by Gilling.
While neither Lloyd (‘331) nor Gilling (‘473) appears to specifically teach that the first light source is positioned in the light emitting device to emit light downward and the second light source is positioned to emit light upwards when the light emitting device is suspended in a room or the environment, it was known in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to position a first light source of a light emitting device to emit light downward and a second light source of the light emitting device to emit light upward when the light emitting device is suspended in a room or an environment. Park (‘619) discloses a light emitting device (10) (see Figures 1-9) comprised of a first light source (200, 220) positioned in the light emitting device to emit light downward (towards 31 - see Figure 2; English translation, p. 5 – 6th – 14th lines from the bottom) and a second light source (400, 420) positioned in the light emitting device to emit light upward (towards ceiling 32 - see Figure 1; English translation, p. 7 lines 7-9) in order to sterilize all areas within a room/environment simultaneously, efficiently in a short time and to avoid damage to human/users/occupants (see Figures 1-9; English translation, p. 4 – lines 3-5 and 9-12). It would have been obvious to and well within the purview of one of ordinary skill in the art to provide one light source positioned in the light emitting device to emit light downward and while another light source is positioned to emit light upwards in a system for reducing pathogenic bioburden in an environment such as that of Lloyd as modified by Gilling as a known alternate configuration in order to provide effective simultaneous sterilization of a plurality of surfaces so as to provide an efficient/short time sterilization process and to provide safety to occupants nearby to the system as shown by Park.
As to Claim 5, Lloyd (‘331) discloses that the two or more sensors (30, 40) include at least one temperature sensor generating temperature data of the environment (see entire document, particularly p. 7 [0074] – line 5, p. 12 [0121] – line 7, p. 14 [0136], p. 16 [0154] – lines 1-2, p. 17 [0165]) and at last one humidity sensor generating humidity data of the environment (see entire document, particularly p. 16 [0154] – lines 1-2).
As to Claim 6, Lloyd (‘331) discloses that the processor (50, 51) is configured by a stored program (54 in 52) to adjust the light flux emitted from the light emitting device (20) to inactivate and/or reduce pathogenic bioburden in the environment based at least in part on the temperature data and the humidity data (see entire document, particularly Figures 5A-7 and 10, p. 6 [0061], p. 9 [0090], pp. 9-10 [0095], p. 11 [0113], pp. 11-12 [0115], p. 12 [0117]).
As to Claim 8, Gilling (‘473) discloses that the two or more sensors (36, 38, 45, 47, 40, 51) includes at least one suspended particulate sensor (45) generating particulate concentration data for the environment (see entire document, particularly pp. 2-3 [0026]), and the analysis is capable of being based at least on the temperature data, the humidity data, and an estimated air flow rate determined at least in part by the at least one suspended particulate sensor (45).
As to Claim 9, Lloyd (‘331) discloses that the two or more sensors (30, 40) include at least one motion sensor (30) or occupancy sensor (30) providing data for the environment (100) (see entire document, particularly pp. 7-8 [0077]), wherein the light flux emitted from the one or more light emitting devices (20) is adjusted to inactivate and/or reduce pathogenic bioburden in the environment (100) based at least on the temperature data, the humidity data, and an occupancy of the environment (100) sensed by the two or more sensors (30, 40) (see entire document, particularly p. 4 [0046]-[0047] and [0050]-[0051], p. 5 [0055]).
As to Claim 10, Lloyd (‘331) discloses that the processor (50, 51) is further configured with control circuitry (see entire document, particularly Figures 5A-5B, p. 9 [0090] and [0095]) capable to perform at least two adjustments selected from a group: total light flux output, duration of light flux output, and frequency of light flux output (i.e. steps 304, 305, 314, 315, 326, 327, 334, 336, 338, 339 - see entire document, particularly Figures 6-7 and 10, p. 7 [0071], p. 12 [0119]).
As to Claim 11, Gilling (‘473) discloses that the system (20) further comprises an air flow generation device (44) wherein air flow from the air flow generation device (44) is adjusted based at least in part on the environmental data from the one or more sensors (36, 38, 45, 47, 40, 51) (see entire document, particularly p. 3 [0029]).
As to Claim 12, Gilling (‘473) discloses that the two or more sensors (36, 38, 45, 47, 40, 51) includes at least one of at least one spot meter or an imager (38) capable of being sensitive to light with a wavelength within the range of 100 nanometers to 280 nanometers (see entire document, particularly pp. 2-3 [0026], p. 3 [0030]).
As to Claim 13, Lloyd (‘331) discloses that the system (10) further comprises one or more/a plurality of additional light emitting devices (20), each additional light emitting device comprising one or more light sources (20) emitting light flux with a wavelength within a range of 100 nanometers to 280 nanometers (see entire document, particularly p. 5 [0055]-[0057] and [0059], p. 6 [0069], pp. 6-7 [0071]), wherein the light emitting device (20) and the one or more/plurality of additional light emitting devices (20) are located within a building and the processor (50) is remote from the building (see entire document, particularly Figure 2, pp. 4-5 [0052]).
Thus, Claims 4-6 and 8-13 would have been obvious within the meaning of 35 U.S.C. 103 over the combined teachings of Lloyd (‘331), Gilling (‘473), and Park (‘619).
In the event that the combined teaching of Lloyd and Gilling is not adequate to meet the limitation of claim 7 with respect to a neural network model, the following rejection will apply.
Claim(s) 7 and 15-17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lloyd (20170246331) in view of Wang (CN111150862) or Dombrowsky (20210077643).
As to Claim 7, Lloyd (‘331) discloses a system (10) for reducing pathogenic bioburden in an environment (100) (see Figures 1-2) comprising:
a light emitting device (20) comprising one or more light sources emitting light flux with a wavelength within a range of 100 nanometers to 280 nanometers (see entire document, particularly p. 5 [0055]-[0057] and [0059], p. 6 [0069], pp. 6-7 [0071]), the one or more light sources comprise a first light source (20) with a first peak wavelength between 220 nanometers and 225 nanometers (i.e. KrCl laser - see entire document, particularly p. 5 [0059] – lines 4-5);
two or more sensors (30, 40), each sensor generating environmental data (see entire document, particularly p. 7 [0074], pp. 7-8 [0077], p. 12 [0121], p. 14 [0133] and [0136]); and
a processor (50, 51) communicatively coupled to the two or more sensors and the light emitting device, the processor performing an analysis on the environmental data from each sensor of the two or more sensors (30, 40) and adjusting the light flux emitted from the light emitting device (20) based at least in part on the environmental data from the two or more sensors (30, 40) (see entire document, particularly Figures 5A-7 and 10, p. 6 [0061], p. 9 [0090], pp. 9-10 [0095], p. 11 [0113], pp. 11-12 [0115], p. 12 [0117]).
Lloyd (‘331) does not specifically teach that the processor is configured by a stored program to execute a neural network model for the analysis on at least environmental data from sensors.
It was known in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide a processor that executes a neural network model in a system for reducing pathogenic bioburden in an environment. Wang (‘862) discloses a system (see entire document, particularly Figure 1, English translation, Abstract) for reducing pathogenic bioburden in an environment comprising:
a light emitting device (see Figure 2) comprising one or more light sources (3) emitting light flux with a wavelength within a range of 100 nanometers to 280 nanometers (see entire English translation, particularly p. 3 – lines 4-6);
two or more sensors (i.e. temperature and humidity sensor, living being detection unit and/or motion sensor - see entire English translation, particularly p. 3 line 12, p. 8 line 14, p. 8 line 35), each of the two or more sensors generating environmental data (see entire English translation, particularly p. 3 lines 4-19, p. 8 lines 9-19); and
a processor (see entire English translation, particularly p. 3 – lines 4-5) communicatively coupled to the two or more sensors and the light emitting device (see entire English translation, particularly p. 3 lines 4-19, p. 9 lines 27-36), the processor performing an analysis on the environmental data from each sensor of the two or more sensors (see entire English translation, particularly p. 8 last 2 lines to p. 9 line 36);
wherein the processor (see entire English translation, particularly p. 3 – lines 4-5) is configured by a stored program to execute a neural network model for the analysis on at least the environmental data from the one or more sensors (see entire English translation, particularly p. 8 lines 9-19),
in order to calculate and apply more accurate sterilization parameter by using real-time environmental data so as to avoid excess sterilization and to schedule a convenient sterilization period during a day (see entire English translation, particularly p. 8 – 2nd full paragraph/lines 20-26 and 37-47, p. 10 - 2nd – 8th lines from the bottom, p. 11 lines 8-16).
Dombrowsky (‘643) discloses a system (100; 200) for reducing pathogenic bioburden in an environment (see entire document, particularly Figures 1A-, Abstract, p. 1 [0002] and [0004]) comprising:
a light emitting device (120a-120n; 220) comprising one or more light sources (102a-120n; 220) emitting light flux with a wavelength within a range of 100 nanometers to 280 nanometers (see entire document, particularly p. 2 [0036]);
one or more sensors (137; 238, 270), each sensor generating environmental data (e.x.: presence of a person or characteristics of a space); and
a processor (136; 226; 500/501, 502) communicatively coupled to the one or more sensors (137; 238, 270) and the light emitting device (120a-120n; 220) (see Figures 1A, 2 and 5), the processor (136; 226; 500/501, 502) capable of performing an analysis on the environmental data from each sensor of the one or more sensors (137; 238, 270) and adjusting the light flux emitted from the light emitting device (120a-12n; 220) based at least in part on the environmental data from the one or more sensors (137; 238, 270) (see entire document, particularly p. 4 [0061]-[0062] and [0064]),
wherein the processor (500, 502) is configured by a stored program (i.e. within 503, 506) (see Figure 5) to execute a neural network model (via 504) for the analysis on at least the environmental data from the one or more sensors (137; 238) (see entire document, particularly p. 4 [0061]-[0062] and [0064]-[0067], pp. 4-5 [0068], p. 5 [0070]-[0073], p. 6 [0079]),
in order to determine the extent of usage so as to adjust the sterilization parameter to ensure complete sterilization and to schedule such sterilization that maximizes convenience to users of a building or space (see entire document, particularly p. 4 [0064]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in this art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide a neural network model in the system of Lloyd as a known component in order to calculate and apply more accurate sterilization parameter by using real-time environmental data so as to avoid excess sterilization and to provide a complete sterilization that maximizes convenience to users of the environment as shown by Wang or Dombrowsky.
As to Claim 15, Lloyd (‘331) discloses that the system (10) further comprises one or more additional light emitting devices (20), each additional light emitting device comprising one or more light sources (20) emitting light flux with a wavelength within a range of 100 nanometers to 280 nanometers (see entire document, particularly p. 5 [0055]-[0057] and [0059], p. 6 [0069], pp. 6-7 [0071]), wherein the one or more additional light emitting devices (20) are located within a building and the processor (50) is remote from the building (see entire document, particularly Figure 2, pp. 4-5 [0052]).
As to Claim 16, Lloyd (‘331) discloses that the two or more sensors (30, 40) include at least one motion sensor (30) or occupancy sensor (30) providing data for the environment (100) (see entire document, particularly pp. 7-8 [0077]), wherein the light flux emitted from the one or more light emitting devices (20) is adjusted to inactivate and/or reduce pathogenic bioburden in the environment (100) based at least on a temperature, a humidity, and an occupancy of the environment (100) sensed by the two or more sensors (30, 40) (see entire document, particularly p. 4 [0046]-[0047] and [0050]-[0051], p. 5 [0055]).
As to Claim 17, the adjusting the light flux in the system of Lloyd (‘331) is capable of including at least two adjustments selected from a group: total light flux output, duration of light flux output, and frequency of light flux output (see entire document, particularly Figures 6-7 and 10, p. 7 [0071], p. 12 [0119]).
Thus, Claims 7 and 15-17 would have been obvious within the meaning of 35 U.S.C. 103 over the combined teachings of Lloyd (‘331) and Wang (‘862) or Dombrowsky (‘643).
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 10/08/2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
As to applicant’s argument at the bottom on p. 9 and in last/second full paragraph on p. 10 of Remarks with respect to limitation that the light emitting device is “suspended”, examiner disagrees and points out that Gilling do disclose a configuration where the light emitting device is suspended in a room or the environment (see particularly p. 3 [0027] – 7th – 8th lines from the bottom) in addition to Lloyd (see particularly Figure 9B, pp. 13-14 [0131]).
As to the applicant’s argument in last line on p. 9 to line 2 on p. 10 as well as the two full paragraphs on p. 10 of Remarks regarding the limitation that one light source is emitting light upward and another light source is emitting light downward, examiner disagrees and points out that this feature is being taught by combined teaching of Lloyd and Gilling as discussed in paragraph 15 above. In addition, examiner points out that the test for obviousness is not whether the features of a secondary reference may be bodily incorporated into the structure of the primary reference; nor is it that the claimed invention must be expressly suggested in any one or all of the references. Rather, the test is what the combined teachings of the references would have suggested to those of ordinary skill in the art. See In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 208 USPQ 871 (CCPA 1981). Furthermore, examiner indicates that the applicant's argument is an argument against the references individually, one cannot show nonobviousness by attacking references individually where the rejections are based on combinations of references. See In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 208 USPQ 871 (CCPA 1981); In re Merck & Co., 800 F.2d 1091, 231 USPQ 375 (Fed. Cir. 1986).
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 4-13 and 15-17 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on the same combination of reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
Conclusion
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.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to REGINA M YOO whose telephone number is (571)272-6690. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday, 9:00 am - 5:00 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 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.
/REGINA M YOO/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1758