DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
1. The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Response to Amendment
2. The amendment filed 09 March 2026 has been received and considered for examination. Claims 1 and 3-20 are presently pending, with claims 16-20 withdrawn from consideration and claims 1 and 3-15 being examined herein.
3. The prior rejection of claim 4 (now amended claim 1) under 35 U.S.C. 103 is maintained.
4. All other rejections and objections from the previous Office action are withdrawn in view of Applicant’s amendment.
5. New grounds of rejection under 35 U.S.C. 103 are necessitated by the amendments, as detailed below.
Claim Objections
6. Claims 3 and 4 are objected to because the claims recite subject matter that repeats limitations from claim 1 without further limiting the scope, and are also indicated as “Cancelled”. Cancelled claims should be deleted from the claim set. If not cancelled, the claims in their current form are in violation of 35 U.S.C. 112(d) for failing to specify a further limitation of the claimed subject matter.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(d):
(d) REFERENCE IN DEPENDENT FORMS.—Subject to subsection (e), a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, fourth paragraph:
Subject to the following paragraph [i.e., the fifth paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112], a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
7. 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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
8. Claims 1, 3, 4, and 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chen et al (US 20210308317 A1) in view of Brais et al (US 20170049915 A1).
9. Regarding claim 1, Chen discloses a sterilization system that sterilizes an interior of a storage compartment of a vehicle (treatment apparatus for a vehicle comprises a housing with at least one wall and a floor forming a treatment chamber, par 0004, FIGS. 5-7), comprising:
at least one lamp configured to irradiate ultraviolet light (source of ultraviolet light can be UV LED or discharge lamp, par 0058) to the interior of the storage compartment (source of ultraviolet light configured to emit ultraviolet light into the treatment chamber, pars 0056-0057);
a sensor configured to detect an open or closed state of the storage compartment (sensor 90 that produces output that varies as a function of the door 48 being in the open position 68 or in the closed position 70, par 0068); and
a controller (controller 92, pars 0069-0070, FIG. 8) configured to:
based on the storage compartment being switched from an open state to a closed state in a state where the sterilization system is turned on (after the passenger 42 places the door 48 in the closed position 70, the controller 92 causes the source of ultraviolet light 46 to emit ultraviolet light 34, par 0083), turn on the at least one lamp (controller 92 controls activation and deactivation of the source of ultraviolet light 46, par 0069),
count a duration for which the at least one lamp is in an ON state (display the progress and remaining duration of the treatment with ultraviolet light, par 0047),
based on the counted duration reaching a preset duration, turn off the at least one lamp (upon conclusion of the predetermined period of time, deactivates the source of ultraviolet light 46, par 0079), and
based on the storage compartment being switched to the open state (when the sensor 90 produces an output to the controller 92 from which the controller 92 determines that the door 48 is in the open position 68, pars 0070 and 0073) in a state where the at least one lamp is turned on (if the controller had activated the source of ultraviolet light, par 0070) turn off the at least one lamp (controller 92 deactivates the source of ultraviolet light 46, par 0070).
Chen does not specifically teach the routine in which upon re-closing the compartment within a preset period of time, the controller would turn on the at least one lamp and resume counting from the saved first duration without resetting and continue the illumination cycle until the summed duration reaches the preset duration. Thus the disclosure of Chen does not read upon the clause wherein, based on the storage compartment being switched to the closed state within a preset period of time after the at least one lamp is turned off due to an opening of the storage compartment, the controller is configured to turn on the at least one lamp, maintain the counted duration of a first duration for which the at least one lamp was in the ON state before being turned off without resetting while the storage compartment is in the open state, and count the duration for which the at least one lamp is in the ON state by summing the first duration for which the at least one lamp was in the ON state before being turned off and a second duration for which the at least one lamp is in the ON state after being turned back on, until the summed duration reaches the preset duration.
Brais teaches an analogous UV decontamination system and method for a room (Abstract, pars 0009-0012) wherein a decontamination operation may be interrupted by a motion sensor detecting a presence in the room (par 0161) or a door sensor detecting the opening of a door (par 0161), to detect unsafe conditions and prevent UV radiation leakage to particularly a person’s eyes (par 0161), an analogous safety consideration to the opening of the storage compartment in the present vehicle. The operation is resumed if non-occupancy is established by the controller within an allowable interval (pars 0161 and 0163), an analogous condition to the storage compartment being switched to the closed state within a preset period of time after the at least one lamp is turned off due to an opening of the storage compartment; upon establishing the condition of confirmed non-occupancy, the controller causes the UV lamp to turn on (par 0097). The controller may determine that decontamination has successfully occurred if cumulatively a certain decontamination time threshold has occurred even if there were interruptions (par 0163), which reads upon maintaining the counted duration of a first duration for which the at least one lamp was in the ON state before being turned off without resetting, and counting the duration for which the at least one lamp is in the ON state by summing the first duration for which the at least one lamp was in the ON state before being turned off and a second duration for which the at least one lamp is in the ON state after being turned back on (par 0102), until the summed duration reaches the preset duration (par 0163). Brais teaches that the controller configuration to account for the total amount of irradiation time amidst interruptions advantageously ensures that the space experiences a sufficient level of decontamination (pars 0163 and 0165).
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 Chen to perform the following sequence: wherein, based on the storage compartment being switched to the closed state within a preset period of time after the at least one lamp is turned off due to an opening of the storage compartment, the controller is configured to turn on the at least one lamp, maintain the counted duration of a first duration for which the at least one lamp was in the ON state before being turned off without resetting while the storage compartment is in the open state, and count the duration for which the at least one lamp is in the ON state by summing the first duration for which the at least one lamp was in the ON state before being turned off and a second duration for which the at least one lamp is in the ON state after being turned back on, until the summed duration reaches the preset duration. As Brais teaches the same count resuming sequence applied to analogous disinfection of a closed unoccupied room, this configuration would predictably provide the same time counting consistency to ensure sufficient decontamination of the compartment with a reasonable expectation of success. See MPEP 2143(I)(A) and MPEP 2143(I)(G).
10. Chen further teaches wherein the controller is configured to:
reset the counted duration (controller 92 determines i.e. resets the predetermined period of time for the pending treatment, Chen par 0085), based on some period of time being elapsed after the at least one lamp is turned off (amount of time that has lapsed since the object 32 was last treated with ultraviolet light 34, Chen par 0085) due to the opening of the storage compartment (controller 92 deactivates the source of ultraviolet light 46 when…the door 48 is in the open position, Chen par 0070),
when turning on the at least one lamp in a state where the counted duration is not reset (controller 92 determines the predetermined period of time as a function of the amount of time that has lapsed since the object 32 was last treated with ultraviolet light 34, Chen par 0085), turn on the at least one lamp at a point in time that the storage compartment is switched to the closed state (after the passenger 42 places the door 48 in the closed position 70, the controller 92 causes the source of ultraviolet light 46 to emit ultraviolet light 34, Chen par 0083), and
when turning on the at least one lamp in a state where the counted duration is reset, turn on the at least one lamp (controller 92 determines i.e. resets the predetermined period of time, Chen par 0085; after the passenger 42 places the door 48 in the closed position 70, the controller 92 causes the source of ultraviolet light 46 to emit ultraviolet light 34, Chen par 0083).
Chen does not teach that this would occur after a delay time from the point in time that the storage compartment is switched to the closed state, nor that the period of time elapsed would be the preset period of time defined after the lamp has been turned off due to the opening of the storage compartment.
Brais further teaches a counter in a completion determination function to constantly vary the amount of time needed to decontaminate the room based on the interval or threshold of acceptable interruption time (par 0163) wherein the upper bound to this counter is the total time required for a complete continuous decontamination (par 0163), mathematically the same as resetting the count to the full required decontamination duration after a preset period of time.
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 controller of Chen to reset the counted duration based on the preset period of time being elapsed after the at least one lamp is turned off due to the opening of the storage compartment. As Brais teaches the same count resetting sequence after a threshold time applied to analogous disinfection of a closed unoccupied room, this configuration would predictably account for germ spread in the interruption time between decontamination to ensure sufficient decontamination of the compartment with a reasonable expectation of success. See MPEP 2143(I)(A) and MPEP 2143(I)(G).
Brais further teaches a safety time-out period to ensure occupants have enough time to exit the room or otherwise manifest their presence to the controller if they are still present (par 0078). Brais also teaches multiple conditions so that the controller may not use the time-out period if the interruption is minor or user-actuated (par 0091) and when occupancy is detected the safety time period is reset (pars 0090-0091) i.e., a delay will occur if an occupant was detected analogously to if the storage compartment is accessed by a user to change item being sterilized, for example.
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 controller of Chen to turn on the at least one lamp after a delay time from the point in time that the storage compartment is switched to the closed state when turning on the lamp in a state where the counted duration is reset as taught by Brais. Doing so would predictably ensure in a similar manner, with a reasonable expectation of success, that the user is fully finished loading the compartment by delaying UV radiation therein, as Brais teaches that such a delay is effective in preventing inadvertent user exposure to harmful UV radiation. See MPEP 2143(I)(A) and MPEP 2143(I)(G).
11. Regarding claim 3, Chen as modified by Brais teaches the sterilization system of claim 1, wherein the controller is configured to reset the counted duration (controller 92 determines i.e. resets the predetermined period of time for the pending treatment, Chen par 0085), based on the preset period of time being elapsed after the at least one lamp is turned off (upper bound to the function may be used so that it goes no higher than the total time required for a complete continuous decontamination, Brais par 0163) due to the opening of the storage compartment (controller 92 deactivates the source of ultraviolet light 46 when…the door 48 is in the open position, Chen par 0070).
12. Regarding claim 4, Chen as modified by Brais teaches the sterilization system of claim 3, wherein the controller is configured to:
when turning on the at least one lamp in a state where the counted duration is not reset (controller 92 determines the predetermined period of time as a function of the amount of time that has lapsed since the object 32 was last treated with ultraviolet light 34, Chen par 0085), turn on the at least one lamp at a point in time that the storage compartment is switched to the closed state (after the passenger 42 places the door 48 in the closed position 70, the controller 92 causes the source of ultraviolet light 46 to emit ultraviolet light 34, Chen par 0083), and
when turning on the at least one lamp in a state where the counted duration is reset, turn on the at least one lamp (controller 92 determines i.e. resets the predetermined period of time, Chen par 0085; after the passenger 42 places the door 48 in the closed position 70, the controller 92 causes the source of ultraviolet light 46 to emit ultraviolet light 34, Chen par 0083) after a delay time from the point in time that the storage compartment is switched to the closed state (in the case of a door use, the controller 150 merely re-establishes a condition of possible room non-occupancy, resetting the safety time period if one is used, Brais pars 0091 and 0078-0079).
13. Regarding claim 14, Chen as modified by Brais teaches the sterilization system of claim 1, further comprising: an indicator configured to provide a visual feedback related to a state of the sterilization system (LED display to indicate by emitting light within the visual spectrum that the ultraviolet light is being emitted within the treatment chamber, Chen par 0043), wherein the controller is configured to turn on the indicator based on the at least one lamp being turned on (controller 92 causes the display 94 to provide the visual indication that the source of ultraviolet light 46 is emitting ultraviolet light, Chen par 0071).
14. Claims 5-7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chen et al (US 20210308317 A1) and Brais et al (US 20170049915 A1) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Alestra et al (US 20220126793 A1).
15. Regarding claim 5, Chen as modified by Brais teaches the sterilization system of claim 1, further comprising: a power supply configured to supply power supplied from a battery of the vehicle to the sterilization system (Chen par 0060). The combination does not teach wherein the controller is configured to turn off the at least one lamp based on a voltage level of the power supplied from the power supply being out of a preset range.
Alestra teaches an analogous vehicle having an ultraviolet light sanitizing system integral to the interior of the vehicle (pars 0003-0004) wherein the control configuration includes an Insufficient Voltage routine triggered when the battery voltage is too low i.e. outside an acceptable preset range (pars 0099 and 0102) in which the sanitization routine can be canceled and the ultraviolet light source deactivated when the battery voltage is lower than the predetermined voltage (par 0102).
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 controller of Chen to turn off the at least one lamp based on a voltage level supplied from the power supply being out of a preset range as taught by Alestra. Doing so would predictably enable the emitter to be run only when battery voltage is sufficiently high and to alert the controller to recharge the battery on the condition that the voltage is insufficient, with a reasonable expectation of success (Alestra pars 0099 and 0102). See MPEP 2143(I)(A) and MPEP 2143(I)(G).
16. Regarding claim 6, Chen as modified by Brais and Alestra teaches the sterilization system of claim 5, and that when the controller will turn on the at least one lamp (controller 92 controls activation and deactivation of the source of ultraviolet light 46, Chen par 0069) it will also accumulate the counted duration to count the duration for which the at least one lamp is in the ON state (display the progress and remaining duration of the treatment with ultraviolet light, Chen par 0047) by summing the first duration for which the at least one lamp was in the ON state before being turned off and the second duration for which the at least one lamp is in the ON state after being turned back on (controller may determine that decontamination has successfully occurred if cumulatively, i.e. in sum, a certain decontamination time threshold has occurred even if there were interruptions in the process, Brais par 0163). The combination does not teach wherein, based on the voltage level returning to within the preset range within a preset period of time after the at least one lamp is turned off due to a decrease in the voltage level below a preset level, the controller is configured to turn on the at least one lamp.
Alestra further teaches wherein, based on the voltage level returning to within the preset range (determined whether the voltage of the low-voltage battery 82 is greater than the predetermined voltage, par 0102) within a preset period of time (predetermined elapsed time, par 0102) after the at least one lamp is turned off due to a decrease in the voltage level below a preset level (If the voltage of the low-voltage battery 82 is not greater than the predetermined voltage, sanitization may be canceled, pars 0099 and 0102), the controller is configured to turn on the at least one lamp (at step 322 the source of ultraviolet light is activated, pars 0098 and 0101, FIG. 9B) and accumulate the counted duration to count the duration for which the at least one lamp is in the ON state (timer is started to measure the amount of time that the source 28 of the ultraviolet light 30 has been emitting the ultraviolet light, pars 0114-0115).
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 controller of modified Chen to turn on the lamp again once the battery voltage is increased back above the preset level within a preset period of time as taught by Alestra. Doing so would predictably further ensure that the lamp operates only when the battery voltage is sufficient, with a reasonable expectation of success. See MPEP 2143(I)(A) and MPEP 2143(I)(G).
17. Regarding claim 7, Chen as modified by Brais and Alestra teaches the sterilization system of claim 6, wherein the controller is configured to reset the counted duration (controller 92 determines the predetermined period of time as a function of the amount of time that has lapsed since the object 32 was last treated with ultraviolet light, Chen par 0085), based on the preset period of time being elapsed after the at least one lamp is turned off due to the decrease in the voltage level below the preset level (if it is determined the elapsed time is greater than the predetermined elapsed time, the source of ultraviolet light is activated, Alestra pars 0098 and 0101-0102, Alestra FIG. 9B). The combination does not teach that this lapsed time is the same as the resuming interval taught by Brais as relied upon per claim 1.
Brais further teaches a counter in a completion determination function to constantly vary the amount of time needed to decontaminate the room based on the interval or threshold of acceptable interruption time (par 0163) wherein the upper bound to this counter is the total time required for a complete continuous decontamination (par 0163), mathematically the same as resetting the count to the full preset duration.
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 controller of Chen to reset the counted duration, based on the preset period of time being elapsed after the at least one lamp is turned off due to the decrease in the voltage level below the preset level as taught by Alestra. As Brais teaches the same count resetting sequence after a threshold time applied to an analogous interruption in disinfection of a closed unoccupied room, this configuration would predictably account for germ spread in the interruption time between decontamination to ensure sufficient decontamination of the compartment with a reasonable expectation of success. See MPEP 2143(I)(A) and MPEP 2143(I)(G).
18. Claims 8 and 9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chen et al (US 20210308317 A1), Brais et al (US 20170049915 A1), and Alestra et al (US 20220126793 A1) as applied to claim 5 above, and further in view of Lyon et al (US 20080131330 A1).
19. Regarding claim 8, Chen as modified by Brais and Alestra teaches the sterilization system of claim 5, wherein the controller is configured to:
when the at least one lamp is turned off due to the voltage falling below the preset level (Alestra pars 0099 and 0102), maintain the counted duration until the voltage level returns to within the preset range (elapsed time relation to voltage/predetermined voltage, Alestra pars 0114-0115), and
based on the voltage level returning to within the preset range (determined whether the voltage of the low-voltage battery 82 is greater than the predetermined voltage, Alestra par 0102 and 0115), turn on the at least one lamp (at step 322 the source of ultraviolet light is activated, pars 0098 and 0101, Alestra FIG. 9B) and count the duration for which the at least one lamp is in the ON state (timer is started to measure the amount of time that the source 28 of the ultraviolet light 30 has been emitting the ultraviolet light, Alestra pars 0114-0115) by summing the first duration for which the at least one lamp was in the ON state before being turned off and the second duration for which the at least one lamp is in the ON state after being turned back on (controller may determine that decontamination has successfully occurred if cumulatively, i.e. in sum, a certain decontamination time threshold has occurred even if there were interruptions in the process, Brais par 0163).
The combination does not teach that the controller would do this due to an increase in the voltage level above a preset level.
Lyon teaches an analogous small item sterilization system using UV light (Abstract, pars 0006-0007) wherein a control board monitors voltage against a voltage difference threshold (par 0036) and may immediately shut down the UV sterilizer when the voltage difference exceeds the threshold (par 0038).
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 controller to implement the interruption and summing upon resumption in modified Chen due to an increase in the voltage level above a preset level as taught by Lyon. Doing so would predictably allow the claimed control sequence to occur due to an increase in voltage level above a preset upper limit as well, enabling the maintenance of voltage within an operating range by quickly diagnosing a supply voltage problem (Lyon par 0036). See MPEP 2143(I)(A) and MPEP 2143(I)(G).
20. Regarding claim 9, Chen as modified by Brais and Alestra teaches the sterilization system of claim 5, further comprising:
an indicator configured to provide a visual feedback related to a state of the sterilization system (display 94 provides a visual indication that the source of ultraviolet light 46 is emitting ultraviolet light, Chen par 0071),
The combination does not specifically teach wherein the controller is configured to control the indicator to provide a first visual feedback based on the voltage level being equal to or less than a first preset level and control the indicator to provide a second visual feedback based on the voltage level being equal to or greater than a second preset level,
the first preset level is a lower limit value of the preset range, the second preset level is an upper limit value of the preset range, and the first visual feedback and the second visual feedback are different from each other.
Lyon teaches an analogous small item sterilization system using UV light (Abstract, pars 0006-0007) wherein an indicator may indicate when the measured voltage falls outside of a predetermined tolerable band with a green light or a red light (par 0036). Further, Lyon teaches wherein the measured voltage value can be directly compared to a lower or upper threshold to activate one of the respective LEDs, reading upon wherein the first visual feedback and the second visual feedback are different from each other.
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 controller of modified Chen to give a unique first and second visual feedback based on when the voltage level is less than a first preset level and greater than a second preset level, respectively as taught by Lyon. Doing so would predictably provide the user/controller with clear feedback when voltage is either higher or lower than desired, ensuring that the UV light source operates in a safe and appropriate voltage range. See MPEP 2143(I)(A).
21. Claims 10 and 12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chen et al (US 20210308317 A1) and Brais et al (US 20170049915 A1) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Gil et al (US 20190262487 A1).
22. Regarding claim 10, Chen as modified by Brais teaches the sterilization system of claim 1, wherein the at least one lamp comprises a plurality of lamps (source of ultraviolet light may be plurality of UV LEDs…or one or more vapor discharge lamps, Chen par 0058). The combination does not teach wherein the controller is configured to detect a failure state of the plurality of lamps based on a current applied to the plurality of lamps.
Gil teaches an analogous sterilization system using ultraviolet radiation (Abstract, pars 0023-0025) wherein one or more sensors monitor current to/from the devices that emit ultraviolet radiation (par 0036), which Gil teaches is an effective way to detect aging or failure of the emitters (par 0036).
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 controller of modified Chen to detect and respond to a failure state of the plurality lamps based on feedback from a current sensor as taught by Gil. Doing so would predictably provide the same benefit of detecting aging or failure of the emitters, eliminate the one or more lamps that have failed (Gil par 0036), and notify the user accordingly about device performance (Gil par 0037). See MPEP 2143(I)(A).
23. Regarding claim 12, Chen as modified by Brais and Gil teaches the sterilization system of claim 10, wherein, when at least one lamp of the plurality of lamps is determined as an open state (processor signals aging or failure by eliminating one or more lamps or LEDs, Gil par 0036) and other lamps of the plurality of lamps are determined as a normal state (processor reads current going to/from each of the devices that emit ultraviolet radiation and identifies which devices are emitting vs failed, Gil par 0037), the controller is configured to adjust the preset duration (controller determines the predetermined period of time, Chen par 0029) based on a number of lamps determined as the open state (controller 92 can also determine…number of UV LEDs activated as a function of the selected selectable option 116, which assigns the predetermined time period i.e. preset duration, Chen pars 0080-0082).
24. Claims 11 and 13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chen et al (US 20210308317 A1), Brais et al (US 20170049915 A1), and Gil et al (US 20190262487 A1) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Liu et al (WO 2020252514 A1).
25. Regarding claim 11, Chen as modified by Brais and Gil teaches the sterilization system of claim 10, wherein the controller is configured to switch the sterilization system to an OFF state, based on at least one lamp of the plurality of lamps being determined as a failure state (upon detection of a failed or aging devices that emit ultraviolet radiation 70, the processor 100 signals such aging or failure by eliminating one or more lamps, Gil par 0036). The combination does not teach wherein this switching off would occur when at least one lamp is in a short-circuited state.
Liu teaches a method for monitoring an analogous ultraviolet sterilization device (Abstract, pg 4 lines 16-36) wherein sensed low-voltage state indicates a short circuit (pg 6 lines 5-19, pg 10 lines 24-25) and may trigger the inactivation of UV LEDs (pg 9 lines 3-11).
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 controller of modified Chen to identify and deactivate the plurality of lamps based on a short-circuited state as taught by Liu. Doing so would predictably enable the detection of emitter inactivity to ensure that desirable disinfection conditions are maintained (Liu pg 9 lines 3-17). See MPEP 2143(I)(A).
26. Regarding claim 13, Chen as modified by Brais and Gil teaches the sterilization system of claim 10, further comprising:
an indicator configured to provide a visual feedback related to a state of the sterilization system (LED display to indicate by emitting light within the visible spectrum that the ultraviolet light is being emitted, Chen pars 0043 and 0071; LEDs, Gil pars 0036 and 0039-0040).
Gil further teaches wherein the controller is configured to control the indicator to provide a first visual feedback based on at least one lamp of the plurality of lamps being determined as a failure state (Upon detection of a failed or aging devices that emit ultraviolet radiation 70, the processor 100 signals such aging or failure by changing the color of one or more lamps or LEDs 104, emitting a sound through a transducer 106, and/or sending a message, Gil par 0036), and control the indicator to provide a second visual feedback based on at least one lamp of the plurality of lamps being determined as an open state (once the devices that emit ultraviolet radiation 70 are shut off, any lamps/LEDs 9 that were illuminated are extinguished, Gil par 0040), and the first visual feedback and the second visual feedback are different from each other (see above).
The combination does not teach that the indicator would provide visual feedback when at least one lamp is determined to be in a short-circuited state.
Liu teaches a method for monitoring an analogous ultraviolet sterilization device (Abstract, pg 4 lines 16-36) wherein sensed low-voltage state indicates a short circuit (pg 6 lines 5-19, pg 10 lines 24-25) and may trigger the inactivation of UV LEDs (pg 9 lines 3-11).
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 controller of modified Chen to control the indicator to provide a first and second visual feedback to indicate a short-circuited state and an open state, respectively as taught by Gil, including when the failure is a short-circuited state as taught by Liu. This modification would also predictably enable the detection of emitter inactivity to ensure that desirable disinfection conditions are maintained (Liu pg 9 lines 3-17). See MPEP 2143(I)(A).
27. Claim 15 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chen et al (US 20210308317 A1) and Brais et al (US 20170049915 A1) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Jung (KR 20170110987 A, references made to English Machine Translation).
Regarding claim 15, Chen as modified by Brais teaches the sterilization system of claim 1, further comprising: an inputter configured to receive a user input (capacitive sensor or other touch sensitive sensor such as a button, par 0073) for switching the sterilization system to an ON state or an OFF state (the controller 92 as a consequence of receiving the output causes the source of ultraviolet light 46 to cease emitting ultraviolet light, par 0073). While Chen suggests that this sensor may be disposed at the door or on an outside portion thereof (par 0073), Chen does not specifically teach wherein the inputter is provided inside the storage compartment.
Jung teaches a sanitary case using ultraviolet radiation (par 0018) analogous to the claimed compartment in that it can sterilize e.g., smartphones (pars 0012-0013) wherein a limit switch is provided inside the case (par 0126, FIG. 2, switch 30 depicted as a push button) to at least automatically stop the sanitizing process (par 0028).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to provide the inputter of Chen inside the storage compartment as taught by Jung. Doing so would predictably provide the same advantageous condition of only activating the sanitizing process when a personal device such as a cell phone is present in the compartment (Jung pars 0126-0128). See MPEP 2143(I)(G).
Response to Arguments
28. Applicant’s arguments, see Remarks filed 22 July 2026, with respect to the rejections of claims 1 and 3-15 under 35 U.S.C. 103 have been fully considered but are not persuasive. Applicant asserts that Brais applies a uniform, static delay for safety thus does not teach the selective, dynamic control principle claimed. Examiner respectfully disagrees. Brais teaches a controller that does far more than apply the static delay as alleged (an optional configuration per pars 0078-0079), operating with multiple configurable safety delays that may be variable or fixed (pars 0079, 0084, 0102, 0105) as well as logic that enables the controller to bypass a delay in the event of e.g., a minor door sensor disruption (par 0190). The Brais controller reads on the limitations of claim 3 (as incorporated into amended claim 1) by dynamically adjusting the required duration until the count is reset to require the full duration after a preset period of time (par 0163). The Brais controller reads on the limitations of claim 4 (as incorporated into amended claim 1) by teaching a time-out period that follows a major interruption in which the counted duration is reset (par 0084) and that the controller may not use the time-out period if the interruption is minor or user-actuated (par 0091). See also Brais pars 0189-0191, regarding the door interruption timer.
As such, Examiner maintains that it would have been obvious to assign a delay time to a major interruption and not assign a delay time to a minor interruption in the UV treatment, as Brais teaches the advantage of a delay time in ensuring safety (pars 0078 and 0092) by not exposing the user when a user is known to be accessing the space. Examiner remains of the opinion that any differences in Applicant’s claim terminology regarding time durations and cumulative summations are not inventive over the teachings of Chen and Brais, in view of the foregoing, as the dynamic control principle argued seems to be differentiated only by a slightly different manner of counting/tracking variables that can be readily implemented by a person of ordinary skill programming the controller for the same function.
Conclusion
29. 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.
30. 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
/SEAN E CONLEY/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1799
