DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Response to Amendment
This is an office action in response to Applicant's arguments and remarks filed on 10/01/2025. Claims 1-14 are pending in the application and are being examined herein.
Status of Objections and Rejections
The objection to the claims has been withdrawn in view of Applicant's amendment.
The rejection of claims 1-4, 7-8 and 12 under 35 USC 102 as being anticipated by Bennett (US 20220226517) is withdrawn in view of Applicant's amendment.
The rejection of claims 9 and 13-14 under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bennett (US 20220226517), Pierson (US 20220143250), and Raphaelli (US 20220118133) is withdrawn in view of Applicant's amendment.
All 35 USC 101 rejections from the previous office action are maintained.
New grounds of rejection under 35 U.S.C. 101 are necessitated by the amendments.
New grounds of rejection under 35 U.S.C. 103 are necessitated by the amendments.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
Claims 1, 9-10, 12 and 13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Regarding claim 1, the limitation of “comparing the exposure map and at least one selected from the group consisting of: the images of the one or more exposure sensors that are captured by an image sensor of the mobile robot, and the disinfection levels measured by the one or more exposure sensors” is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of the generic computer components. In this context, “comparing” encompasses the user manually denoting where geographical locations on an exposure map with images or disinfection level data received from the exposure sensors. If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components, then it falls within the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas (See MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(III)). Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea.
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the “comparing” does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract claim as it does not lead to any action or application, the claim merely recites that the comparing is taking place “the mobile robot [or] at a remote processor” which is a generic computer component in this context. Accordingly, the claim is directed to an abstract idea. See MPEP 2106.05(g).
The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because, as discussed above with respect to the integration of the abstract idea into a practical application. The additional limitations of “plotting...a representation of the emission of the UV light onto a map...,” “receiving…images of the one or more exposure sensors, and disinfection levels,” and “generating…a validation report that includes at least the exposure plot” are well-understood, routine, and conventional in the art as seen in Bennett (US 20220226517) para [0019-0022]), As such, the claim is not patent eligible. For compact prosecution purposes, prior art will be applied to the claim as if it was eligible for patenting.
Regarding claim 9, the limitation of “determining” an actual exposure amount of UV light exposed to the exposure sensors is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of the generic computer components. Other than reciting “at the processor” nothing in the claim element precludes the step from practically being performed in the mind. In this context, “determining” encompasses the user manually calculating the amount of UV light exposed to the exposure sensors based on a disinfection level data received from the exposure sensors. If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components, then it falls within the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas (See MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(III)). Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea.
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the determining of “an exposure amount” does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract claim as it does not lead to any action or application, the claim merely recites that the assigning is taking place “at the processor” which is a generic computer component in this context. Accordingly, the claim is directed to an abstract idea. See MPEP 2106.05(g).
The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because as discussed above with respect to the integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional element of “at the processor” amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. Mere instructions to apply an exception using a generic computer component cannot provide an inventive concept. As such, the claim is not patent eligible. For compact prosecution purposes, prior art will be applied to the claim as if it was eligible for patenting.
Regarding claims 9-10 and 13, the claims recite “determining, at the processor of the mobile robot or the remote processor, a future disinfection plan for the mobile robot and based on a comparison between the exposure plot and at least one of the received images and the received disinfection levels, wherein the future disinfection plan is configured to be used by the processor of the mobile robot to disinfect portions of the area that are identified based on the comparison by emitting UV light from the light source”
The limitation of determining a future disinfection plan based on a comparison between data is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of the generic computer components. That is, other than reciting “at the processor of the mobile robot or the remote processor,” nothing in the claim precludes the step from practically being performed in the mind. For example, but for the “processor” language, “determining,” in the context of this claim, encompasses the user manually calculating future coordinates or dosages of UV light to be emitted by the mobile robot based on UV exposure data and mapping data collected from the exposure sensors. If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components, then it falls within the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas (See MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(III)). Accordingly, the claims recite an abstract idea.
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. The claims only recite two additional elements – performing the calculations at the processor or the remote processor and wherein the disinfection plan is configured to be used by the processor to disinfect portions of the area identified by the comparison, The processor is recited at a high-level of generality (i.e. as a generic processor performing a generic computer function of comparing intermediate calculation based on spatial and radiation data) and gathering said data does not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application because data gathering is insignificant extra-solution activity. See MPEP 2106.05(g). Additionally, disinfecting portions of the area identified by the comparison does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. Accordingly, the claims recite an abstract idea.
The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because, as discussed above with respect to the integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional element of “at the processor of the mobile robot or the remote processor” amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component and disinfecting portions of the area identified by the comparison does not provide any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. Mere instructions to apply an exception using a generic computer component cannot provide an inventive concept. As such, the claim is not patent eligible. For compact prosecution purposes, prior art will be applied to the claim as if it was eligible for patenting.
Regarding claim 10, the claim recites “determining, at the processor of the mobile robot, whether to continue to emit UV light based on the at least one of the images of the one or more exposure sensors and disinfection levels measured by the one or more exposure sensors.”
The limitation of determining whether to emit UV light based on a comparison between data is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of the generic computer components. That is, other than reciting “at the processor of the mobile robot” nothing in the claim precludes the step from practically being performed in the mind. For example, “determining”, in the context of this claim, encompasses the user manually deciding whether to deactivate UV light emitted by the mobile robot based on a previously collected UV exposure data or mapping data collected from the exposure sensors. If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components, then it falls within the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas (See MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(III)). Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea.
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. The claim only recites determining whether to continue to emit UV light one additional element, not actually requiring the step of physically deactivating or changing the emittance of UV light and therefore does not integrate the judicial exception. With regards to the image and exposure data collected by the exposure sensor used to make the determination, it is not incorporated into a practical application because data gathering is insignificant extra-solution activity, and not a particular practical application. See MPEP 2106.05(g). Accordingly, these additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. Accordingly, the claims recite an abstract idea.
The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because, as discussed above with respect to the integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional element of “at the mobile robot” amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. Mere instructions to apply an exception using a generic computer component cannot provide an inventive concept. Further, while the determination step is being used to cease/continue emitting operations, this additional element is well-understood, routine, and conventional in the art as seen in Bitra (US 20220233730) para [0034]. As such, the claim is not patent eligible. For compact prosecution purposes, prior art will be applied to the claim as if it was eligible for patenting.
Regarding claim 12, the claim recites “determining, at the processor, a delivered dose of UV light based on at least one selected from the group consisting of: the received images of the one or more exposure sensors that are captured by the image sensor, and the received disinfection levels...”
The limitation of determining how much UV light to emit based on a comparison between data is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind, with nothing in the claim precluding the step from practically being performed in the mind. For example, “determining,” in the context of this claim, encompasses the user manually calculation a dosage of UV light emitted by the mobile robot based on a previously collected UV exposure data or mapping data collected from the exposure sensors to achieve desired sterilization. If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind, then it falls within the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas. See MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(III). Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea.
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. The claim only recites determining a dosage of UV light and not actually requiring the step of physically changing the emittance of UV light and therefore does not integrate the judicial exception. With regards to the image and exposure data collected by the exposure sensor used to make the determination, it is not incorporated into a practical application because data gathering is insignificant extra-solution activity, and not a particular practical application. See MPEP 2106.05(g). Accordingly, these additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. Accordingly, the claims recite an abstract idea.
The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because, as discussed above with respect to the integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional elements of emitting UV light, plotting an emission map, receiving images, and generating a validation report (see claim 1) elements are well-understood, routine, and conventional in the art as seen in Slycke (US 20240181109) as discussed below in the prior art rejections. As such, the claim is not patent eligible. For compact prosecution purposes, prior art will be applied to the claim as if it was eligible for patenting.
Regarding claim 13, the claim recites “comparing, at the processor of the mobile robot or a server system communicatively coupled to the mobile robot, a determined delivered dose with the exposure plot.”
The limitation of comparing between delivered UV dosage and spatial emission data is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of the generic computer components. That is, other than reciting “at the processor of the mobile robot or a server system communicatively coupled to the mobile robot” nothing in the claim precludes the step from practically being performed in the mind. For example, but for the “processor” language, “determining”, in the context of this claim, encompasses the user manually calculating the difference between the dosage of UV light emitted by the mobile robot and the UV exposure data and mapping data received from the exposure sensors. If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components, then it falls within the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas (See MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(III)). Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea.
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. The claim only recites comparing between the dosage of UV light emitted by the robot and the emissions received by the exposure sensors not any steps that require deactivating or changing the emittance of UV light and therefore does not integrate the judicial exception. With regards to the image and exposure data collected by the exposure sensor used to make the determination, it is not incorporated into a practical application because data gathering is insignificant extra-solution activity, and not a particular practical application. See MPEP 2106.05(g). Accordingly, these additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. Accordingly, the claims recite an abstract idea.
The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because, as discussed above with respect to the integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional element of “at the processor of the mobile robot or a server system communicatively coupled to the mobile robot” amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. Mere instructions to apply an exception using a generic computer component cannot provide an inventive concept. As such, the claim is not patent eligible. For compact prosecution purposes, prior art will be applied to the claim as if it was eligible for patenting.
To further prosecution and overcome the rejections above, Applicant may consider integrating the judicial exception (abstract ideas, specifically Mental Processes) into a practical application, showing that an integration of the exception results in an improvement to the field of use and technological environment, or demonstrating that the claim limitations other than the exception amount to significantly more (i.e. are not well understood, routine and conventional within the art).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
Claim(s) 1-4, 7-9, and 12-14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bennett (US 20220226517) in view of Slycke (US 20240181109).
Regarding claim 1, Bennet teaches a sterilization system and method [abstract] comprising:
emitting, using a light source of a mobile robot, ultraviolet (UV) light to disinfect at least a portion of an area, including at least one of air, a surface, and an object (Fig. 4, light source 406 on robot 300 configured to sterilize enclosed space [0014-0015, 0018-0019]),
wherein the UV light is emitted onto one or more exposure sensors disposed in the area (enclosed space 114 contains wall-mounted cameras/sensors 434 for detecting position of robot and levels of disinfection [0015], Fig. 4, mapping source 434 understood to be exposure sensor [0019]);
plotting, using a processor of the mobile robot, a representation of the emission of the UV light onto a map of the area to generate an exposure plot (computing technology 510, sterilization detector 528, and mapping technology 532 understood to be processor for mapping exposure plot [0019-0022]),
wherein the representation is of the UV light emitted on at least one of the air, the surface, the object, and the one or more exposure sensors in the area (map is of UV light levels emitted in enclosed space [0019-0021]);
receiving, at the mobile robot, at least one from the group consisting of: images of the one or more exposure sensors, and disinfection levels measured by the one or more exposure sensors (sterilization level detector 428 understood to receive disinfection levels detected by mapping source 434 [0019-0021]); and
generating, using at least at one selected from the group consisting of:
(i) the mobile robot, and
(ii) a remote processor,
a validation report that includes at least the exposure plot and at least one selected from the group consisting of: the images of the one or more exposure sensors, and the disinfection levels measured by the one or more exposure sensors (computing technology 510 and mapping technology 532 generates an exposure plot of the enclosed space and include disinfection levels as well as duration, time, and date = understood to be validation report [0024-0027, Fig. 8, 814].
Bennett does not teach wherein the exposure plot is validated by comparing the exposure map and at least one selected from the group consisting of: the images of the one or more exposure sensors that are captured by an image sensor of the mobile robot, and the disinfection levels measured by the one or more exposure sensors that are captured by the image sensor or received by a network interface of the mobile robot via a communications link with the one or more exposure sensors based on exposure to the UV light emitted by light source of a mobile robot. One having ordinary skill in the art would be concerned with effectively validating the dosage of UV light delivered to points of interest on an exposure plot, motivating one to turn towards Slycke.
Slycke teaches a system and method for mobile robot disinfection [abstract] comprising employing an autonomous robot (100) with a UVC light source to sterilize a room by traveling a predetermined trajectory [0045]. Slycke teaches wherein the autonomous robot is in wireless communication with a plurality of UVC sensors positioned in the room (understood to be exposure sensors, [0048]) to assign a dosage associated with specific points on a 3D map of the room (understood to be an exposure plot) for quality control purposes [0083-0084]. Further, Slycke teaches wherein the exposure plot from the robot is validated by comparing the plot to disinfection levels measured by the sensors to mark areas of insufficient dosage delivery in a validation report and store the validation report (including a final dosage delivery map) for an audit trail [0085-0086]. This validation report can also be used by human operators to manually apply UVC light, or other means of disinfection such as wipes with suitable chemicals or cleaning agents, in such areas to increase terminal disinfection coverage [0085].
Slycke is considered analogous to the claimed invention since both are drawn to disinfection methods. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the system as taught by Bennett to include the wirelessly linked exposure sensors as taught by Slycke since Slycke teaches the exposure sensors to detect actual dosage of UVC light delivered to a target area and communicate with the mobile robot to identify insufficiently sterilized areas and optimize future robot behavior [0048] and this involves the combination of elements to yield a predictable result with a reasonable expectation of success. See MPEP 2143(I)(A) and 2143(I)(G).
Further, it would have also been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention the method as taught by Bennett to include the exposure plot validation step measuring step by the exposure sensors as taught by Slycke since Slycke teaches the validation step to compare the delivered UVC dosage map to actual disinfection dosage received by exposure sensors to generate a validation report (including a final dosage delivery map) for auditing purposes [0085-0086] and this involves the combination of elements to yield a predictable result with a reasonable expectation of success. See MPEP 2143(I)(A) and 2143(I)(G).
Regarding claim 2, Modified Bennett teaches the method of claim 1, further comprising, controlling, at the processor of the mobile robot, a drive system of the mobile robot to move or stop the mobile robot by at least one selected from the group consisting of: autonomously moving or stopping the mobile robot, and moving or stopping the mobile robot by control signals received via a communications interface along a disinfection route in the area (Bennett, computing technology 510 can cause propulsion element 430 to move robot autonomously [0019]).
Regarding claim 3, Modified Bennett teaches the method of claim 1, wherein the emitting the UV light to disinfect at least a portion of the area comprises: emitting UV light as the mobile robot moves along the disinfection route (Bennett, [0019-0020, 0022]).
Regarding claim 4, Modified Bennett teaches the method of claim 1, further comprising: identifying, at an image sensor or the processor of the mobile robot, the one or more exposure sensors in the area (Bennett, mapping technology 532 and computing technology 510 [processors] can receive information about physical space and map physical factors accordingly = understood to identify positions of exposure sensors 434 in the space [0020]).
Regarding claim 7, Modified Bennett teaches the method of claim 1, further comprising: assigning, at the processor of the mobile robot, positions of the one or more exposure sensors on the map of the area (Bennett, mapping technology 532 and computing technology 510 can receive information about physical space and map physical factors accordingly = understood to be able to assign positions of exposure sensors 434 [0020]).
Regarding claim 8, Modified Bennett teaches the method of claim 1, wherein the disinfection levels of the one or more exposure sensors are received during at least one time selected from the group consisting of: before the emission of UV light in the area, during the emission of UV light in the area, and after the emission of UV light in the area (Bennet, Fig. 8, step 804-808 sterilization level is determined before and after UV light is emitted).
Regarding claim 9, Modified Bennet teaches the method of claim 1, further comprising: determining, at the processor of the mobile robot, an actual exposure amount of the one or more exposure sensors to the emitted UV light from the light source based on at least one of the received images and the received disinfection levels (Bennett, computing technology 510 uses spatial positioning and levels of disinfecting within enclosed space to determine actual/optimal UV coverage of UV [0021], Slycke, UVC sensors are capable of detecting actual UVC light emission and communicating with mobile robot [0048], [0083]).
Modified Bennett also teaches determining, at the processor of the mobile robot or the remote processor, a future disinfection plan for the mobile robot and based on a comparison between the generated exposure plot and at least one of the received images and the received disinfection levels, wherein the future disinfection plan is configured to be used by the processor of the mobile robot to disinfect portions of the area that are identified based on the comparison by emitting UV light from the light source (Slycke, mobile robot uses processor 113 and exposure sensors to create a validation report and use path planning algorithms to generate future disinfection plan [0044], [0083-0086]).
Regarding claim 12, Modified Bennett teaches the method of claim 1, further comprising: determining, at the processor (computing technology 510, sterilization level detector 528, and mapping technology 532), a delivered dose of UV light based on at least one selected from the group consisting of: the received images of the one or more exposure sensors that are captured by the image sensor, and the received disinfection levels measured by the one or more exposure sensors and that are received by the network interface of the mobile robot via the communications link with the one or more exposure sensors (Bennett, dose of UV light based on received disinfection levels using sterilization level detector 528 [0020-0022], Slycke, UVC exposure sensors determine disinfection levels and communicate wirelessly with mobile robot).
Regarding claim 13, Modified Bennet teaches the method of claim 1, further comprising: comparing, at the processor of the mobile robot or a server system communicatively coupled to the mobile robot, a determined delivered dose with the exposure plot (Bennett, Fig. 8, step 804-808 sterilization level is determined before and after UV light is emitted and computing technology 510 is understood to compare the levels and determine level of disinfection relative to the map of the enclosed space [0019-0022], Slycke, comparison between actual dose measured by exposure sensors and exposure plot [0085-0086]); and
storing a result of the comparison in a memory communicatively coupled to at least one selected from the group consisting of: the processor of the mobile robot, and the server system (Bennett, [0021], Slycke comparison stored for audit trail and can include a processor and memory [0044], [0084-0086]); and
determining, at the processor of the mobile robot or the remote processor, a future disinfection plan for the mobile robot based on the stored comparison, wherein the future disinfection plan is configured to be used by the processor of the mobile robot to disinfect portions of the area that are identified based on the comparison by emitting UV light from the light source (Slycke, mobile robot uses processor 113 and exposure sensors to create a validation report and use path planning algorithms to generate future disinfection plan [0044], [0083-0086]).
Regarding claim 14, Modified Bennett teaches the method of claim 13, wherein the generating the validation report is further based on the result of the comparison (Slycke, [0083-0086]).
Claim(s) 5-6 and 11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bennett (US 20220226517) in view of Slycke (US 20240181109), as applied to claim 1 above, further in view of Rephaeli (US 20220118133).
Regarding claim 5, Modified Bennett teaches the method of claim 1, but is silent with regards to capturing, at an image sensor of the mobile robot, a reference image of the one or more exposure sensors.
Rephaeli teaches a sterilization system and method for a robotic device with a UV illuminator [abstract, 0005] including an image sensor configured to capture a reference image of an object without UV illumination to compare with a post illumination image of an object to determine how much UV light is reflected from the illuminator [0107].
Modified Bennett and Rephaeli are considered analogous to the claimed invention since both are drawn to systems and methods for disinfecting a space with a UV robot. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the method as taught by Modified Bennett with the reference image and illuminated image capturing step as taught by Rephaeli to better calculate an appropriate dosage of UV light [based on the reflected light] to be emitted to a space and towards an exposure sensor since Repaheli teaches the comparison of the two images to determine how much UV light is reflected by an object [0107] and this involves the combination of elements to yield a predictable result with a reasonable expectation of success. See MPEP 2143(I)(A).
Regarding claim 6, Modified Bennett teaches the method of claim 5, further comprising: storing, in a memory communicatively coupled to the mobile robot, the captured reference image (Bennett, memory can store images [0021]).
Regarding claim 11, Modified Bennett teaches the method of claim 1, wherein the receiving step comprises receiving disinfection levels from sterilization level detector 428 [0019-0021] but does not teach wherein the receiving the images of the one or more exposure sensors comprises: capturing, at an image sensor of the mobile robot, the images of the one or more exposure sensors.
Rephaeli teaches a sterilization system and method for a robotic device with a UV illuminator [abstract, 0005] including an image sensor configured to capture a reference image of an object without UV illumination to compare with a post illumination image of an object to determine how much UV light is reflected from the illuminator [0107].
Modified Bennett and Rephaeli are considered analogous to the claimed invention since both are drawn to systems and methods for disinfecting a space with a UV robot. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the method as taught by Modified Bennett with the reference image and illuminated image capturing step as taught by Rephaeli to better calculate an appropriate dosage of UV light [based on the reflected light] to be emitted to a space and towards an exposure sensor since Repaheli teaches the comparison of the two images to determine how much UV light is reflected by an object [0107] and this involves the combination of elements to yield a predictable result with a reasonable expectation of success. See MPEP 2143(I)(A).
Claim 10 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bennett (US 20220226517) in view of Slycke (US 20240181109), as applied to claim 1 above, further in view of Bitra (US 20220233730).
Regarding claim 10, Bennett teaches the method of claim 1, including determining, at the processor of the mobile robot or the remote processor, a future disinfection plan based on a comparison between the exposure plot and the at least one of the images of the one or more exposure sensors and disinfection levels measured by the one or more exposure sensors, wherein the future disinfection plan is configured to be used by the processor to disinfect portions of the area that are identified based on the comparison by emitting UV light from the light source (Slycke, mobile robot uses processor 113 and exposure sensors to create a validation report and use path planning algorithms to generate future disinfection plan to disinfect insufficiently disinfected areas [0044], [0083-0086]).
Modified Bennett does not teach wherein the method further comprises determining, at the processor of the mobile robot, whether to continue to emit UV light from the light source based on the at least one of the received images of the one or more exposure sensors and disinfection levels measured by the one or more exposure sensors.
Bitra teaches a system [abstract] and method [0007-0008] for sanitizing an area using UV light including a control system 102 for determining whether to activate/deactivate UV light source based on image data obtained from imaging source 108 and intensity of UV radiation emitted by UV light source 110 [0034].
Modified Bennett and Bitra are considered analogous to the claimed invention since both are drawn to sterilization systems and methods utilizing UV light. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the method as taught by Bennett to include the control system as taught by Bitra since Bitra teaches the control system to determine whether to activate/deactivate UV light emitted into a space based on image data and intensity of UV radiation [0034] and this involves the combination of elements to yield a predictable result with a reasonable expectation of success. See MPEP 2143(I)(A).
Response to Arguments
In the arguments presented on pages 8-9 of the amendment, filed 10/01/2025, the Applicant argues that the determination step is occurring at the processor of the mobile robot or a remote processor, that a future disinfection plan for the mobile robot is based on a comparison between a generated exposure plot and at least one of the received images of the exposure sensors and the received disinfection levels from the exposure sensors, and that the disinfection plan is configured to be used by the processor to disinfect portions of the area that are identified based on the comparison with respect to the rejection(s) of claims 9-10 and 12-13 under 35 U.S.C. 101.
This argument has been fully considered but is unpersuasive. MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(III)(C) states that “Claims can recite a mental process even if they are claimed as being performed on a computer.” Therefore, the determination step occurring at the processor of the mobile robot still recites a mental process and fails to incorporate the abstract idea of “determining” into a practical application that amounts for significantly more than the abstract idea. See rejection above.
In the arguments presented on pages 9-10 of the amendment, filed 10/01/2025, the Applicant argues that Bennett (US 20220226517) does not teach validating an exposure plot by comparing the exposure map and images of the exposure sensors that area captured by an image sensor of the mobile robot and/or the disinfection levels measured by the one or more exposure sensors that are captured by the image sensor or received by a network interface of the mobile robot via a communications link with the one or more exposure sensors based on exposure to the UV light emitted by light source of a mobile robot with respect to the rejection(s) of claim(s) 1-4, 7-8 and 12 under 35 U.S.C. 102.
This argument has been fully considered and is persuasive. Therefore, the rejection has been withdrawn. However, upon further consideration, a new ground(s) of rejection is made in view of the art Slycke (US 20240181109). See rejection above.
In the arguments presented on pages 10 of the amendment, filed 10/01/2025, the Applicant argues that none of Bennett (US 20220226517), Pierson (US 20220143250), or Raphaelli (US 20220118133) teach validating an exposure plot by comparing the exposure map and images of the exposure sensors that area captured by an image sensor of the mobile robot and/or the disinfection levels measured by the one or more exposure sensors that are captured by the image sensor or received by a network interface of the mobile robot via a communications link with the one or more exposure sensors based on exposure to the UV light emitted by light source of a mobile robot with respect to the rejection(s) of claim(s) 9 and 13-14 under 35 U.S.C. 103.
This argument has been fully considered and is persuasive. Therefore, the rejection has been withdrawn. However, upon further consideration, a new ground(s) of rejection is made in view of the art Slycke (US 20240181109). See rejection above.
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 NEBYATE SEGED whose telephone number is (703)756-4611. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8-5:00 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.
/N.S.S./Examiner, Art Unit 1758
/MARIS R KESSEL/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1758