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
Applicant’s amendments, filed 25 June 2026, with respect to the claims have been entered. Therefore, the rejections of claims 1-20 under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) have been withdrawn.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments, see pages 10-11, that Enomoto fails to disclose reflectors for collimating radiation, have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Enomoto discloses that “the emitted light from the center of the LED chip is reflected by the inner peripheral surface of the reflector 61, and most of the light becomes parallel light” (page 8, paragraph beginning “FIG. 9 shows…”, emphasis added). The Chambers Dictionary defines “collimate” as “to make parallel”; therefore, the reflectors disclosed in Enomoto collimate the radiation emitted by the illuminants.
Applicant’s arguments, see page 11, that Andersson fails to disclose reflectors for collimating radiation, have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on Andersson to teach reflectors for collimating radiation.
Applicant’s arguments, see pages 11-12, that Enomoto fails to disclose illuminants positioned laterally with respect to their associated reflectors, have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. FIG. 8 of Enomoto shows an illuminant 46 positioned laterally with respect to the walls 64-67 of the reflector. FIG. 9 of Enomoto further shows that light emitted from the leftmost, middle, and rightmost areas of the illuminant is reflected away from the illuminant by the walls of the reflector.
Applicant’s arguments, see pages 11-12, that Enomoto fails to disclose that the totality of collimated radiation exiting the lamp is reflected radiation, have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on Enomoto to teach this limitation.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claims 1-3, 5-6, 9-10, and 12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Enomoto et al. (WO Patent No. 2016199804 A1), hereinafter Enomoto (English machine translation provided in a prior office action), in view of Raischein (U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2017/0102123 A1), hereinafter Raischein.
Regarding claim 1, Enomoto discloses a lamp for forming a wall-type irradiation field as a barrier for pathogens in indoor air (page 17, paragraph beginning “The LED chip is…”, UV-C sterilization; page 18, paragraph labeled (2)), comprising:
a plurality of UV-C (page 17, paragraph beginning “The LED chip is…”) radiation-emitting illuminants (page 16, Ninth Embodiment paragraph 2), and
a plurality of reflectors for collimating radiation emitted from the illuminants (page 8, paragraph beginning “FIG. 9 shows…”, lines 2-3), wherein each of the reflectors is associated with each of the illuminants (page 16, Ninth Embodiment paragraph 2),
an inner surface of each of the reflectors is rotationally symmetric about a symmetry axis thereof (page 17, paragraph beginning “The reflector block…”; FIG. 24A shows circular reflectors),
the plurality of illuminants and the plurality of reflectors forming at least one group (FIG. 28), and within the group, each of the radiations emitted from the illuminants and collimated by the reflectors has a radiation direction along the symmetry axis and situated in a shared plane (FIG. 7b),
wherein the wall-type irradiation field is achieved by arranging the plurality of UV-C radiation emitting illuminants together with their associated reflectors, in a consecutive series, forming at least one row of illuminants (page 16, Ninth Embodiment paragraph 1), wherein neighboring reflectors are arranged along a line (page 16, Ninth Embodiment paragraph 1) in such a way that the radiation collimated by the neighboring reflectors is directly adjacent and overlaps and the totality of the collimated radiation thus generates the wall-type irradiation field as a barrier for viruses (FIG. 7(b1) shows radiation from adjacent illuminants collimated by reflectors into adjacent, overlapping radiation),
wherein each of the illuminants is arranged laterally with respect to its associated reflector (FIG. 8: illuminants 46 are arranged laterally with respect to reflector walls 64-67), such that each of the illuminants is arranged outside an area in which incident radiation is reflected by the reflectors (FIG. 9: the radiation incident on the reflector walls is reflected away from the illuminant).
Enomoto fails to disclose that the totality of the collimated radiation exiting the lamp is reflected radiation.
However, Raischein discloses that the totality of the collimated radiation exiting the lamp is reflected radiation (paragraph 0035).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have modified Enomoto to include that the totality of the collimated radiation exiting the lamp is reflected radiation, based on the teachings of Raischein that this reflection prevents undesirable heating of the illuminants (Raischein, paragraphs 0009-0011).
Regarding claim 2, Enomoto in view of Raischein as applied to claim 1 discloses the lamp according to claim 1.
In addition, Enomoto discloses that the radiation directions of the radiation that is emitted by the illuminants and collimated by the reflectors within a group are parallel to one another (page 8, paragraph beginning “FIG. 9 shows…”, lines 2-3), or the radiation directions of assemblies within a group are parallel to one another, wherein an assembly includes multiple illuminants of a group together with their associated reflectors.
Regarding claim 3, Enomoto in view of Raischein as applied to claim 1 discloses the lamp according to claim 1.
In addition, Enomoto discloses that each group includes multiple assemblies, wherein an assembly includes multiple illuminants of a group together with their associated reflectors (FIG. 28, assemblies 421).
Regarding claim 5, Enomoto in view of Raischein as applied to claim 1 discloses the lamp according to claim 1.
In addition, Enomoto discloses that the illuminants are LEDs (page 16, Ninth Embodiment paragraph 2).
Regarding claim 6, Enomoto in view of Raischein as applied to claim 5 discloses the lamp according to claim 5.
In addition, Raischein discloses that each illuminant is made up of at least two LED chips (FIG. 1, elements 101) that are arranged in succession in the longitudinal direction of the lamp (FIG. 1: the illuminant comprises a plurality of LED chips 101 arranged in a line along the longitudinal direction of lamp 100).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have modified Enomoto in view of Raischein to include that each illuminant is made up of at least two LED chips that are arranged in succession in the longitudinal direction of the lamp, based on the additional teachings of Raischein that this arrangement provides a more compact lamp with convenient placement of heat sinks (Raischein, paragraph 0034).
Regarding claim 9, Enomoto in view of Raischein as applied to claim 1 discloses the lamp according to claim 1.
In addition, Enomoto discloses that the lamp includes two groups that are situated symmetrically with respect to a center plane of the lamp (FIG. 28, the first group comprising elements 421a – 421e, the second group comprising elements 421f – 421j).
Regarding claim 10, Enomoto in view of Raischein as applied to claim 1 discloses the lamp according to claim 1.
In addition, Enomoto discloses that the lamp is designed as a light strip (FIG. 28) for ceiling or wall mounting.
Features of an apparatus may be recited either structurally or functionally (In re Schreiber, 128 F.3d 1473, 1478, 44 USPQ2d 1429, 1432 (Fed. Cir. 1997)), but “apparatus claims cover what a device is, not what a device does” (Hewlett-Packard Co. v. Bausch & Lomb Inc., 909 F.2d 1464, 1469, 15 USPQ2d 1525, 1528 (Fed. Cir. 1990)(emphasis in original)). A claim containing a "recitation with respect to the manner in which a claimed apparatus is intended to be employed does not differentiate the claimed apparatus from a prior art apparatus" if the prior art apparatus teaches all the structural limitations of the claim (Ex parte Masham, 2 USPQ2d 1647 (Bd. Pat. App. & Inter. 1987)), i.e., a recitation of the intended use of the claimed invention must result in a structural difference between the claimed invention and the prior art in order to patentably distinguish the claimed invention from the prior art. If the prior art structure is capable of performing the intended use, then it meets the claim. See MPEP 2114. In the case at hand, Enomoto teaches the structural limitations of the lamp, i.e., the lamp is designed as a light strip as shown in FIG. 28. The light strip is mounted on a module substrate 460, which is itself mounted on a mounting substrate 441 (see Enomoto, page 16, Ninth Embodiment paragraph 2), i.e., the lamp is capable of being mounted on a surface. Therefore, the functional limitation “for ceiling or wall mounting” is met.
Regarding claim 12, Enomoto in view of Raischein as applied to claim 1 discloses the lamp according to claim 1.
In addition, Enomoto discloses that the UV-C radiation that is collimated is UV-C radiation having a wavelength in the range of 223-280 nm (page 17, paragraph beginning “The LED chip is…”, 260 nm).
Claim 4 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Enomoto in view of Raischein as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Tsikos et al. (U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2003/0034395 A1), hereinafter Tsikos.
Regarding claim 4, Enomoto in view of Raischein as applied to claim 1 discloses the lamp according to claim 1.
Enomoto in view of Raischein fails to disclose that the reflectors include a screening device for screening out divergent radiation components.
However, Tsikos discloses that the reflectors include a screening device (FIG. 84B, element 2954) for screening out divergent radiation components (paragraph 1955: UV radiation in the direction of aperture 2954 is transmitted through aperture 2954, while radiation which is not aligned with aperture 2954 is blocked by the edges of aperture 1954).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have modified Enomoto in view of Raischein to include that the reflectors include a screening device for screening out divergent radiation components, based on the teachings of Tsikos that this results in a more powerful UV germicidal system (Tsikos, paragraphs 1955-1956).
Claims 7-8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Enomoto in view of Raischein as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Nishio (JP Patent No. 2006317801 A), hereinafter Nishio (English machine translation provided in a prior office action).
Regarding claim 7, Enomoto in view of Raischein as applied to claim 1 discloses the lamp according to claim 1.
Enomoto in view of Raischein fails to disclose that the illuminants of at least one group are divided into subgroups, and the illuminants of these subgroups may be jointly switched on and off, but independently of the illuminants of other subgroups.
However, Nishio discloses that the illuminants of at least one group are divided into subgroups, and the illuminants of these subgroups may be jointly switched on and off, but independently of the illuminants of other subgroups (page 9, last paragraph to page 10, first paragraph).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have modified Enomoto in view of Raischein to include that the illuminants of at least one group are divided into subgroups, and the illuminants of these subgroups may be jointly switched on and off, but independently of the illuminants of other subgroups, based on the teachings of Nishio that this ability reduces the running cost of the system by allowing fewer lights to be powered on when not all lights are necessary (Nishio, page 10, paragraph 1).
Regarding claim 8, Enomoto in view of Raischein and Nishio as applied to claim 7 discloses the lamp according to claim 7.
In addition, Nishio discloses that each subgroup corresponds to an assembly, wherein the assembly includes multiple illuminants of a group together with their associated reflectors (FIG. 8: the light-emitting elements 1, which are categorized into subgroups in FIG. 18, each have an associated optical element 9-1, i.e., the subgroups in FIG. 18 are assemblies including multiple illuminants together with their associated optical elements).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have modified Enomoto in view of Raischein and Nishio to include that each subgroup corresponds to an assembly, wherein the assembly includes multiple illuminants of a group together with their associated optical elements, based on the additional teachings of Nishio that the optical elements of the assemblies further enhance the ability to achieve full luminance while reducing the number of lights which must be powered on (Nishio, page 6, paragraph 3).
Claims 11, 13, and 19-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Enomoto in view of Raischein as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Andersson et al. (U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2019/0192710 A1), hereinafter Andersson.
Regarding claim 11, Enomoto in view of Raischein as applied to claim 1 discloses the lamp according to claim 1.
Enomoto in view of Raischein fails to disclose that the UV-C radiation that is collimated is far UV-C radiation having a wavelength in the range of 200-222 nm.
However, Andersson discloses that the UV-C radiation is far UV-C radiation having a wavelength in the range of 190-290 nm (paragraph 0034).
The disclosed range of 190-290 nm is broader than the claimed range of 200-222 nm. However, optimizing the wavelength of irradiation is well within the bounds of normal experimentation. See MPEP 2144.05 II (A). “[W]here the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to dis-cover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation.” In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955). Furthermore, “[a] particular parameter must first be recognized as a result-effective variable, i.e., a variable which achieves a recognized result, before the determination of the optimum or workable ranges of said variable might be characterized as routine experimentation.” In re Antonie, 559 F.2d 618, 195 USPQ 6 (CCPA 1977). In the case at hand, Andersson teaches that “Ultraviolet light…may typically be classified into three wavelength ranges: UV-C, from about 190 nm to 290 nm…UV-C provides efficient prevention of bacteria” (Andersson, paragraphs 0034-0035). As such, Andersson identifies the wavelength of UV irradiation as a variable which achieves a recognized result, i.e., wavelengths in the UV-C range destroy bacteria. Therefore, the prior art teaches adjusting the wavelength of irradiation and identifies said wavelength as a result-effective variable. Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective time of filing to optimize the wavelength of irradiation to meet the claimed range since it is not inventive to dis-cover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation.
Regarding claim 13, Enomoto in view of Raischein as applied to claim 1 discloses the lamp according to claim 1.
In addition, Enomoto discloses a system for preventing or minimizing the spread of pathogens in indoor air, including one or more radiation sources (page 17, paragraph beginning “The LED chip is…”).
Features of an apparatus may be recited either structurally or functionally (In re Schreiber, 128 F.3d 1473, 1478, 44 USPQ2d 1429, 1432 (Fed. Cir. 1997)), but “apparatus claims cover what a device is, not what a device does” (Hewlett-Packard Co. v. Bausch & Lomb Inc., 909 F.2d 1464, 1469, 15 USPQ2d 1525, 1528 (Fed. Cir. 1990)(emphasis in original)). A claim containing a "recitation with respect to the manner in which a claimed apparatus is intended to be employed does not differentiate the claimed apparatus from a prior art apparatus" if the prior art apparatus teaches all the structural limitations of the claim (Ex parte Masham, 2 USPQ2d 1647 (Bd. Pat. App. & Inter. 1987)), i.e., a recitation of the intended use of the claimed invention must result in a structural difference between the claimed invention and the prior art in order to patentably distinguish the claimed invention from the prior art. If the prior art structure is capable of performing the intended use, then it meets the claim. See MPEP 2114. In the case at hand, Enomoto teaches the structural limitations of the system, i.e., one or more radiation sources which emit sterilizing radiation (see Enomoto, page 17, paragraph beginning “The LED chip is…”). Therefore, the functional limitation “for preventing or minimizing the spread of pathogens in indoor air” is met.
Enomoto in view of Raischein fails to disclose a sensor system for detecting a penetration of one or more persons or objects into a safety zone that is formed adjacent to the wall-type irradiation field, and a controller that is designed to at least partially switch the one or more radiation sources on or off as a function of at least the presence of the person(s) and/or objects, the controller being designed to at least partially switch off the radiation source in question when the sensor system detects a penetration.
However, Andersson discloses a sensor system (FIG. 2b, element 106) for detecting a penetration of one or more persons or objects into a safety zone that is formed adjacent to the wall-type irradiation field (paragraph 0080), and a controller (FIG. 2b, element 107) that is designed to at least partially switch the one or more radiation sources on or off as a function of at least the presence of the person(s) and/or objects, the controller being designed to at least partially switch off the radiation source in question when the sensor system detects a penetration (paragraph 0081).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have modified Enomoto in view of Raischein to include a sensor system for detecting a penetration of one or more persons or objects into a safety zone that is formed adjacent to the wall-type irradiation field, and a controller that is designed to at least partially switch the one or more radiation sources on or off as a function of at least the presence of the person(s) and/or objects, the controller being designed to at least partially switch off the radiation source in question when the sensor system detects a penetration, based on the teachings of Andersson that this prevents exposure of humans to harmful radiation (Andersson, paragraph 0081).
Regarding claim 19, Enomoto in view of Raischein and Andersson as applied to claim 13 discloses the system according to claim 13.
In addition, Andersson discloses that the sensor system is configured to determine a penetration into the safety zone with spatial resolution (paragraph 0065), and the controller is configured to switch off at least one illuminant based on the location of the penetration (paragraph 0069).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have modified Enomoto in view of Raischein and Andersson to include that the sensor system is configured to determine a penetration into the safety zone with spatial resolution, and the controller is configured to switch off at least one illuminant based on the location of the penetration, based on the additional teachings of Andersson that this improves the safety of the system as a whole (Andersson, paragraph 0069).
Regarding claim 20, Enomoto in view of Raischein as applied to claim 1 discloses the lamp according to claim 1.
Enomoto in view of Raischein fails to disclose a method for preventing or minimizing the spread of viruses in indoor air, using one or more radiation sources in a room, wherein the method includes generating at least one radiation field, using at least one lamp, and detecting a movement or a presence of one or more persons or objects in the room, and automatically switching at least a portion of the illuminants of one or more radiation sources on or off as a function of at least the presence of the person or object.
However, Andersson discloses a method for preventing or minimizing the spread of viruses in indoor air (paragraph 0033), using one or more radiation sources in a room (paragraph 0077), wherein the method includes generating at least one radiation field (FIG. 2b, element 118), using at least one lamp (FIG. 1a, elements 104a, 104b), and detecting a movement or a presence of one or more persons or objects in the room, and automatically switching at least a portion of the illuminants of one or more radiation sources on or off as a function of at least the presence of the person or object (paragraphs 0068-0069).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have modified Enomoto in view of Raischein to include a method for preventing or minimizing the spread of viruses in indoor air, using one or more radiation sources in a room, wherein the method includes generating at least one radiation field, using at least one lamp, and detecting a movement or a presence of one or more persons or objects in the room, and automatically switching at least a portion of the illuminants of one or more radiation sources on or off as a function of at least the presence of the person or object, based on the teachings of Andersson that this provides efficient prevention of bacteria which may spread disease (Andersson, paragraph 0035) while minimizing exposure of humans to harmful radiation (Andersson, paragraph 0081).
Claims 15-16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Enomoto in view of Raischein and Andersson as applied to claim 13 above, and further in view of Zheng et al. (CN Patent No. 1548165 A), hereinafter Zheng (English machine translation provided in a prior office action).
Regarding claim 15, Enomoto in view of Raischein and Andersson as applied to claim 13 discloses the system according to claim 13.
In addition, Andersson discloses that the one or more radiation sources are designed for arrangement along boundaries of room segments (FIG. 2b shows a segment 216 of room 202 illuminated with light 118, while another segment 214 of the room 202 is not illuminated; therefore, there must be radiation sources arranged along the boundary or edge of illuminated segment 216).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have modified Enomoto in view of Raischein and Andersson to include that the one or more radiation sources are designed for arrangement along boundaries of room segments, based on the additional teachings of Andersson that this prevents exposure of humans to harmful radiation while maintaining disinfection functionality of the system (Andersson, paragraph 0081).
Enomoto in view of Raischein and Andersson fails to disclose the controller being designed to activate the radiation sources in question when one or more persons are present in the room segment in question, and to deactivate at least one of the radiation sources when a person enters or leaves the room segment.
However, Zheng discloses the controller being designed to activate the radiation sources in question when one or more persons are present in the room segment in question (page 4, paragraph 1, lines 1-3), and to deactivate at least one of the radiation sources when a person enters or leaves the room segment (page 4, paragraph 1, lines 4-6).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have modified Enomoto in view of Raischein and Andersson to include the controller being designed to activate the radiation sources in question when one or more persons are present in the room segment in question, and to deactivate at least one of the radiation sources when a person enters or leaves the room segment, based on the teachings of Zheng that this saves energy by only requiring the germicidal light curtain to be formed when two people are present who may transmit airborne viruses, and turning the germicidal light curtain off when only one person is present (Zheng, page 4, paragraph 1).
Regarding claim 16, Enomoto in view of Raischein, Andersson, and Zheng as applied to claim 15 discloses the system according to claim 15.
In addition, Andersson discloses that further radiation sources having a pathogen-deactivating or disinfecting effect are situated within the room segments, and the controller is designed to activate the further radiation sources when no person is present in the room segment (paragraph 0082).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have modified Enomoto in view of Raischein, Andersson, and Zheng to include that further radiation sources having a pathogen-deactivating or disinfecting effect are situated within the room segments, and the controller is designed to activate the further radiation sources when no person is present in the room segment, based on the additional teachings of Andersson that this prevents exposure of humans to harmful radiation (Andersson, paragraph 0083).
Claim 14 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Enomoto in view of Raischein and Andersson as applied to claim 13 above, and further in view of Trapani (U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2012/0282135 A1), hereinafter Trapani.
Regarding claim 14, Enomoto in view of Raischein and Andersson as applied to claim 13 discloses the system according to claim 13.
Enomoto in view of Raischein and Andersson fails to disclose freely movable stands for holding one or more radiation sources.
However, Trapani discloses freely movable stands for holding one or more radiation sources (FIG. 1 and paragraph 0025, lines 1-5).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have modified Enomoto in view of Raischein and Andersson to include freely movable stands for holding one or more radiation sources, based on the teachings of Trapani that this enables easy re-positioning of the radiation sources to more completely disinfect an area (Trapani, paragraph 0027).
Claims 17-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Enomoto in view of Raischein and Andersson as applied to claim 13 above, and further in view of Baarman et al. (U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2022/0313850 A1), hereinafter Baarman.
Regarding claim 17, Enomoto in view of Raischein and Andersson as applied to claim 13 discloses the system according to claim 13.
Enomoto in view of Raischein and Andersson fails to disclose that the sensor system includes a 3D camera or TOF camera and/or one or more CCD cameras.
However, Baarman discloses that the sensor system includes a 3D camera or TOF camera and/or one or more CCD cameras (paragraph 0147, lines 1-3).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have modified Enomoto in view of Raischein and Andersson to include that the sensor system includes a 3D camera or TOF camera and/or one or more CCD cameras, based on the teachings of Baarman that TOF sensors are advantageously capable of detecting multiple objects within a three dimensional space, meaning they are well suited for detecting in a wide range of situations (Baarman, paragraph 0147).
Regarding claim 18, Enomoto in view of Raischein and Andersson as applied to claim 13 discloses the system according to claim 13.
Enomoto in view of Raischein and Andersson fails to disclose that the sensor system includes at least one light source, and is configured to detect changes in the reflected portion of the light that is emitted by the light source and reflected from objects in a surrounding area.
However, Baarman discloses that the sensor system includes at least one light source (paragraph 0148), and is configured to detect changes in the reflected portion of the light that is emitted by the light source and reflected from objects in a surrounding area (paragraph 0150).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have modified Enomoto in view of Raischein and Andersson to include that the sensor system includes at least one light source, and is configured to detect changes in the reflected portion of the light that is emitted by the light source and reflected from objects in a surrounding area, based on the teachings of Baarman that this enhances the efficiency of the system by reducing delays between a person moving and the start of the germicidal irradiation process (Baarman, paragraph 0149).
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 ALINA R KALISZEWSKI whose telephone number is (703)756-5581. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 8:00am - 5:00pm 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, Robert Kim can be reached at (571)272-2293. 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.
/A.K./Examiner, Art Unit 2881 /MICHAEL J LOGIE/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2881
Prosecution Insights