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 19 March 2026 has been received and considered for examination. Claims 1-4,6,9,11-13,15-17,30,33, and 35-39 are presently pending and being examined herein.
3. Rejections of claims 1 and 4 under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) and of claims 13 and 38 under 35 U.S.C. 103 from the prior Office action are 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 All other rejections and objections from the previous Office action are withdrawn in view of Applicant’s amendment.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. 102 and 35 U.S.C. 103 are necessitated by the amendments, as detailed below.
Claim Interpretation
6. Regarding claim 33, the term “actinic dose limit” is interpreted per the Specification pars 0031-0033 as a safe exposure limit to the applied UV spectrum, and as such, it is desirable to keep an occupant’s exposure below this dose limit (in contrast to the conventional meaning of “actinic dose” associated with photodynamic therapy, wherein exceeding the limit is advantageous and would ensure targeted cells are destroyed).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
7. The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
8. Claims 1-4, 9, 11, 15, 17, 30, 33, and 39 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Lloyd (US 20170246329 A1).
9. Regarding claim 1, Lloyd discloses a disinfection system (system of disinfecting an area using germicidal radiation, Abstract, par 0058) comprising:
one or more light sources configured to emit light including at least ultraviolet light (germicidal radiation emitter, usually an ultraviolet light or HINS light source, par 0058) effective for inactivating pathogens (the radiation destroys, kills, or inactivates microorganisms such as viruses, bacteria, and fungi, pars 0066-0067) in an environment for human occupancy (persons in the environment, Abstract, par 0065);
one or more sensors configured to acquire data indicative of the environment for human occupancy (a plurality or network of sensors configured to track persons in the environment 100 or detect whether the persons in the environment are equipped with protective equipment, par 0060); and
electronics included or operatively connected with the one or more light sources (processing circuitry 51 operates the emitter 20, par 0060) and configured to control an intensity and/or spectrum of the ultraviolet light emitted by the one or more light sources (processing circuitry 51 is configured to control at least one of the direction, intensity, and shape of a beam of germicidal radiation, par 0058) based on the data indicative of the environment acquired by the one or more sensors (based on inputs from image analysis determining “safe” and “unsafe” areas of environment, par 0058);
wherein one of: (i) the one or more sensors include a proximity or distance sensor secured with each light source (depth measurement of the environment may be part of the camera system 30, par 0082; FIG. 6, camera system 30 secured with emitter 20), and the electronics are configured to reduce or turn off the intensity of the ultraviolet light emitted by a given light source (processing circuitry 51 controls intensity of the germicidal radiation emitted into the environment by emitters 20 onto areas that have been determined by the processing circuitry to be safe and does not emit germicidal radiation onto areas determined by the processing circuitry 51 to be unsafe, pars 0172-0174 and 0176-0178; FIG. 12, radiation turned off when unsafe border is reached, pars 0120-0122) in response to the proximity or distance sensor secured with that light source detecting an object closer to the light source than a programmed or fixed distance (depth information used to identify “unsafe” areas of persons against a fixed environment, par 0115).
10. Regarding claim 2, Lloyd discloses the disinfection system of claim 1 wherein the one or more sensors include one or more of: a motion sensor (sensors 40 may include…motion or movement sensing, par 0127), a microphone (microphones, par 0127), a proximity or distance sensor secured with the light source (depth measurement of the environment may be part of the camera system 30, par 0082; FIG. 6, camera system 30 secured with emitter 20), electronic entry security device implemented at an accessway of the environment for human occupancy (sensor 40 on the doors within the environment that can detect opening/closing, par 0127), and/or an RFID badge reader (RFID tracking system to read electronic information stored on the tag to determine the location of the person, par 0128).
11. Regarding claim 3, Lloyd discloses the disinfection system of any claim 1 wherein the one or more sensors include a microphone (sensors 40 may include microphones, par 0127), and the electronics are configured to increase the ultraviolet light emitted by the plurality of light sources (processing circuitry 51 may adjust germicidal radiation emitted into the environment either by increasing or decreasing…germicidal radiation may be increased during coughing, pars 0131-0132) in response to detection by the microphone of a sound indicative of an aerosol emission event produced by an occupant of the environment for human occupancy (noises such as coughing or sneezing may also cause a change in emissions or the areas that the system prioritizes for decontamination, par 0182)
12. Regarding claim 4, Lloyd discloses the disinfection system of claim 1 wherein the one or more sensors include a proximity or distance sensor secured with the light source (depth measurement of the environment may be part of the camera system 30, par 0082; FIG. 6, camera system 30 secured with emitter 20), and the electronics are configured to reduce or turn off the intensity of the ultraviolet light emitted by a given light source (processing circuitry 51 controls intensity of the germicidal radiation emitted into the environment by emitters 20 onto areas that have been determined by the processing circuitry to be safe and does not emit germicidal radiation onto areas determined by the processing circuitry 51 to be unsafe, pars 0172-0174 and 0176-0178; FIG. 12, radiation turned off when unsafe border is reached, pars 0120-0122) in response to the proximity or distance sensor secured with that light source (depth measurement of the environment may be part of the camera system 30, par 0082; FIG. 6, camera system 30 secured with emitter 20) detecting an object closer than a programmed or fixed distance (depth information used to identify “unsafe” areas of persons against a fixed environment, par 0115).
13. Regarding claim 9, Lloyd discloses the disinfection system of claim 1 wherein the electronics are configured to control the intensity and/or spectrum of the ultraviolet light emitted by the one or more light sources (processing circuitry 51 may provide a time delay for emitters, par 0174; FIG. 16, operate UV emitters and monitor time exposure in blocks 327 and 328) further based on a date and/or time provided by a clock of or accessible by the electronics (clock 56 may be associated with the computing device 50 that measures the various timing requirements for specific events, par 0161).
14. Regarding claim 11, Lloyd discloses the disinfection system of claim 1 wherein the one or more light sources comprise a plurality of light sources (FIG. 2, plurality of emitters 20) configured as a light source communication network (processing circuitry 51 communicates with emitters 20 in sections, par 0165), and the electronics are configured to control the intensity of the ultraviolet light emitted by the plurality of light sources via the light source communication network (processing circuitry 51 determines “safe” and “unsafe” areas and then controls the direction, intensity, and shape of the germicidal radiation emitted into the environment by emitters 20, pars 0172-0173 and 0176-0178).
15. Regarding claim 15, Lloyd discloses the disinfection system of claim 11 wherein the electronics comprise an electronic processor programmed (processing circuitry 51 may comprise one or more microprocessors, programmable hardware capable of executing software instructions, par 0152) to control the intensity of the ultraviolet light emitted by the plurality of light sources (processing circuitry 51 is configured to control at least one of the direction, intensity, and shape of a beam of germicidal radiation, par 0058) by operations including:
generating an occupancy map of the environment for human occupancy using the data indicative of the environment acquired by the one or more sensors (maps of persons in the environment and their body movements can be created from network of cameras and processed by processing circuitry, par 0109);
determining an intensity for each light source of the plurality of light sources (processing circuitry 51 determines “safe” and “unsafe” areas and then controls the direction, intensity, and shape of the germicidal radiation emitted into the environment by emitters 20, pars 0172-0173 and 0176-0178) based on the occupancy map (maps of the persons in the environment to better enable the processing circuitry 51 to identify “safe” and “unsafe” areas in the environment, par 0109) and locations of the light sources in the occupancy map (processing circuitry 51 may also prevent initialization based on section, par 0165, FIG. 2); and
controlling each light source of the plurality of light sources to emit ultraviolet light at the intensity determined for that light source (processing circuitry 51 determines “safe” and “unsafe” areas and then controls the direction, intensity, and shape of the germicidal radiation emitted into the environment by emitters 20, pars 0172-0173 and 0176-0178).
16. Regarding claim 17, Lloyd discloses the disinfection system of claim 1 wherein:
the one or more sensors comprise identification badges worn by occupants (sensors 40 may include…RFID tracking system where tags are assigned to the person such as tags incorporated into a wrist band, pars 0127-0128); and
the electronics are configured to control the intensity of the ultraviolet light emitted by the one or more light sources (processing circuitry 51 determines “safe” and “unsafe” areas and then controls the direction, intensity, and shape of the germicidal radiation emitted into the environment by emitters 20, pars 0172-0173 and 0176-0178) based on ultraviolet doses received by occupants determined from the data indicative of the environment including ultraviolet doses received by the occupants (time and germicidal radiation exposure for each person monitored in determination of “safe” and “unsafe” areas, par 0172) computed based on tracking of the occupants using the identification badges (RFID’s tracking at least one of the presence, location, or position of persons in the environment, par 0127).
17. Regarding claim 30, Lloyd discloses the disinfection system of claim 15 wherein the electronic processor is further programmed to:
determine one or more additional operational parameters for the respective light sources of the plurality of light sources wherein the one or more additional operational parameters is in addition to the intensity for each light source (processing circuitry 51 determines “safe” and “unsafe” areas and then controls…intensity and shape of the germicidal radiation, pars 0172-0173),
wherein the control of the respective light sources is in accord with the one or more additional operational parameters determined for the respective light sources (FIG. 12, direction controlled irradiation with a circular beam size 4-6 inches…expanding beam has a lower energy per unit area, par 0121) and the one or more additional operational parameters includes a geometric beam parameter and/or a parameter defining a spectrum of the light (“shape” of the germicidal radiation is used to indicate the cross-sectional contour or outline of the beam and includes the size of the cross-section, pars 0079-0080).
18. Regarding claim 33, Lloyd discloses the disinfection system of claim 15 wherein:
the determination of the intensities for the respective light sources includes determining a high intensity for light sources that do not impinge on an occupant as indicated by the occupancy map (processing circuitry 51 would produce a two or three dimensional map of the image having zone with no occupant designated “Safe” for higher amounts of radiation exposure, par 0117);
wherein the high intensity exceeds an intensity that would produce a dose exceeding an actinic dose limit (lower amounts of radiation requires that total amount of exposure does not exceed the safety limits for unprotected eyes or skin, par 0117, higher intensity faces no such limit) if received over a design-basis dose time period over which the actinic dose limit is defined (ACGIH threshold limit value for UV exposure… integral of the effective irradiance over time shall not exceed 3 mJ/cm2 in a day, par 0086).
19. Regarding claim 39, Lloyd discloses the disinfection system of claim 1 wherein the electronics are configured to control the intensity and/or spectrum of the ultraviolet light emitted by the one or more light sources (processing circuitry 51 determines “safe” and “unsafe” areas and then controls the direction, intensity, and shape of the germicidal radiation emitted into the environment by emitters 20, pars 0172-0173 and 0176-0178) based on the data indicative of the environment acquired by the one or more sensors (based on inputs from image analysis determining “safe” and “unsafe” areas of environment, par 0058) to control an irradiance of the one or more light sources (processing circuitry 51 controls the direction, intensity, and shape of the germicidal radiation emitted into the environment by emitters 20, pars 0172-0173 and 0176-0178) at a defined location in the environment for human occupancy (emitter 20 and imaging system 30 can be in a fixed location in the environment, par 0061, FIG. 2).
20. Claims 6 and 35 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Ufkes (US 20180193501 A1).
21. Regarding claim 6, Ufkes discloses a disinfection system (germicidal irradiation apparatus and system, Abstract) comprising:
a plurality of LEDs with different emission peaks (UV-C emitters 106 and 405 nm emitters 108 are preferably UV-C LEDs and near-UV LEDs, par 0023) configured to emit ultraviolet light effective for inactivating pathogens in the environment for human occupancy with a configurable spectrum (UV-C and near-UV emitters may be calibrated to various wavelength emissions within a known range of wavelengths that demonstrate strong disinfection effect, par 0023);
one or more sensors configured to acquire data indicative of the environment for human occupancy (occupant sensor 118 may be comprised of, for example, one or more sensors capable of detecting the presence and location of objects, and detect movement in the room, par 0028-0029); and
electronics included or operatively connected with the plurality of LEDs (controller 112 engaged with emitters 106/108 to begin disinfection cycle, disengage emitters, and adjust kill dose threshold, pars 0027-0029) and configured to control a spectrum of the ultraviolet light emitted by the plurality of LEDs based on the data indicative of the environment acquired by the one or more sensors (occupant sensor 118 may be operably engaged with controller 112 to disengage UV-C emitter 106 when an occupant is detected in a room, par 0028).
22. Regarding claim 35, Ufkes discloses the disinfection system of claim 6 wherein the electronics are configured to receive an identification of a pathogen (controller 112 may calibrate various kill dose thresholds depending on the specific disinfection application between viruses, bacteria, spores, par 0026), determine a spectrum and/or intensity corresponding to the pathogen (kill curve i.e. time and intensity to kill a given microorganism e.g. viruses, bacteria, and spores, par 0024), and control the spectrum of the ultraviolet light emitted by the one or more light sources plurality of LEDs to match the spectrum and/or intensity corresponding to the pathogen (modulation schema may be employed between emitters 104 and emitters 106 in order to optimize the kinetics of the kill curve for a given microorganism e.g. viruses, bacteria, and spores thereby reducing the amount of time required to achieve a kill dose for the target microorganism, par 0024).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
23. 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.
24. Claim 12 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lloyd (US 20170246329 A1) as applied to claim 11 above, and further in view of Bettles et al (US 20150297768 A1).
Regarding claim 12, Lloyd discloses the disinfection system of claim 11 wherein the electronics includes a user input device (input circuitry may comprise a keyboard, par 0153-0154) and are further configured to control the intensity of the ultraviolet light emitted by the plurality of light sources based on an operational mode received via the user input device (processing circuitry 51 controls the direction, intensity, and shape of the germicidal radiation emitted into the environment by emitters 20…based on operational mode, pars 0172-0173 and 0176-0178). Although the operational mode includes a function to track people’s time and germicidal radiation in the environment (pars 0169-0172), Lloyd does not teach that this user input would include a dose time period nor that such a dose time period would lead to control of the intensity of ultraviolet light by the electronics.
Bettles teaches an analogous ultraviolet emitter for disinfection of a space (pars 0024-0028) wherein a user can utilize an external interface component to input data corresponding to a required dose, such as intensity and time duration of radiation (par 0037) in order to provide UV illumination consistent with the substantial sterilization of the radiation target (par 0005).
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 electronics of Lloyd to control the intensity of the ultraviolet light emitted by the light sources based on a dose time period received via the user input device as taught by Bettles. Doing so would predictably provide a similar controllable consistency of UV illumination to ensure substantial sterilization of the target.
25. Claim 13 and 38 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lloyd (US 20170246329 A1) in view of Ball et al (US 20150297768 A1) and Vasilenko (US 20120100038 A1).
26. Regarding claim 13, Lloyd discloses a disinfection system (system of disinfecting an area using germicidal radiation, Abstract, par 0058) comprising:
one or more light sources configured to emit light including at least ultraviolet light (germicidal radiation emitter, usually an ultraviolet light or HINS light source, par 0058) effective for inactivating pathogens (the radiation destroys, kills, or inactivates microorganisms such as viruses, bacteria, and fungi, pars 0066-0067) in an environment for human occupancy (persons in the environment, Abstract, par 0065);
one or more sensors configured to acquire data indicative of the environment for human occupancy (a plurality or network of sensors configured to track persons in the environment 100 or detect whether the persons in the environment are equipped with protective equipment, par 0060); and
electronics included or operatively connected with the one or more light sources (processing circuitry 51 operates the emitter 20, par 0060) and configured to control an intensity and/or spectrum of the ultraviolet light emitted by the one or more light sources (processing circuitry 51 is configured to control at least one of the direction, intensity, and shape of a beam of germicidal radiation, par 0058) based on the data indicative of the environment acquired by the one or more sensors (based on inputs from image analysis determining “safe” and “unsafe” areas of environment, par 0058).
Lloyd further teaches wherein the emitter 20 may be pulsed to emit a relatively high level of radiation for a first-time period, followed by lower radiation or no radiation for a second time period (par 0076) and wherein room lighting of the environment for human occupancy (par 0034) would emit visible light so as to enable the visible light color camera to operate (pars 0088 and 0090-0091). Lloyd does not teach wherein the electronics are further configured to: control the plurality of light sources to emit UVA light over this first time interval; and control room lighting of the environment for human occupancy during the second time interval to emit white light at a color temperature of 3000K or lower.
Ball teaches within an analogous system for sterilizing using UV light (Abstract, pars 0093-0094) the advantageous use of UV-A light with UV-C light as the sterilizing effect of the two wavelengths together can be greater than the sum of each light wavelength individually (par 0088), similarly activating the combined UV light for a controllable pulse frequency (pars 0094 and 0096).
Vasilenko teaches an analogous device for simultaneously illuminating and disinfecting products (Abstract, pars 0007-0008) wherein white light is preferably provided using a 3000 K LED (par 0025).
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 electronics of Lloyd to control emit a pulsed UV-A light as taught by Ball and to control room lighting to during the second time interval as taught by Vasilenko. Doing so would predictably increase the efficiency of UV sterilization in a similar manner as taught by Ball and provide pleasant visible light for the user when UV sterilization is not active at wavelengths described as preferable by Vasilenko. See MPEP 2143(I)(G).
27. Regarding claim 38, Lloyd as modified by Ball and Vasilenko teaches the disinfection system of claim 13 wherein the electronics are further configured to control the plurality of light sources to emit UVC light over at least a portion of the second time interval (emitter 20 may emit UV-C radiation, Lloyd par 0069; may be pulsed to emit a relatively high level of radiation for a first-time period, followed by lower radiation for a second time period, Lloyd par 0076).
28. Claim 16 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lloyd (US 20170246329 A1).
Regarding claim 16, Lloyd discloses the disinfection system of claim 1 further comprising: wherein the electronics are configured to control the intensity of the ultraviolet light emitted by the one or more light sources further based on ultraviolet doses received by the occupants (dose is automatically controlled by the processing circuitry 51 controlling the speed and intensity of the emitted radiation…so that total exposure does not exceed the safety limits, pars 0117). Lloyd does not specifically teach that this action would be taken based on doses determined by dosimeters worn by occupants of the environment;
Lloyd contemplates that radiant exposure can be measured using an integrating UV radiometer i.e. dosimeter in order to ensure that UV exposure of each occupant does not exceed the 3 mJ/cm2 safe limit (par 0086), though does not specifically teach that the dosimeter would be worn. Lloyd further contemplates each occupant wearing tracking tags in the environment (pars 0127-0128) to allow the processing circuitry to track dosing in a similar manner (par 0172).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the system of Lloyd to provide dosimeters worn by occupants of the environment, as doing so would predictably provide each individual dosing measurement similarly to the light beam/motion tracking system and ensure that no individual exceeds the safe limit as taught by Lloyd.
29. Claim 36 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ufkes (US 20180193501 A1) as applied to claim 35 above, and further in view of Ramanand et al (US 20200085983 A1).
Regarding claim 36, Ufkes discloses the disinfection system of claim 35 wherein the electronics have a set of instructions to calibrate the kill dose threshold based on the specific disinfection application i.e. what type of pathogen is being treated (par 0026). Ufkes also teaches that the controller may enable a manual input (par 0027) but discusses this mechanism in the context of modifying ranging sensor data. Ufkes does not specifically teach either of a user input device via which the electronics receives the identification of the pathogen; and/or a biosensor via which the electronics receive the identification of the pathogen.
Ramanand teaches an analogous surface disinfection system using pulsed UV lamps (Abstract, pars 0045-0048) wherein the control unit can communicate with pathogen detection and identification sensors (par 0045) then activate a surface disinfection unit configured to provide the pulsed UV light of a predetermined frequency suitable for deactivating or killing an intended pathogen (par 0045), in a similar manner to adjusting the emission parameters to meet the kill curve of the intended pathogen as taught by Ufkes. Ramanand also teaches input controls to manually control/adjust/program various operating parameters (par 0079) to similarly enable target pathogen-based emission of UV energy (par 0086).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to include within the disinfection system of Ufkes a user input device and/or a biosensor via which the electronics can receive the identification of the pathogen as taught by Ramanand, because doing so would predictably enable controllable, automatic illumination suitable for deactivating or killing an intended pathogen in a similar manner to the system of Ramanand.
30. Claim 37 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lloyd (US 20170246329 A1) as applied to claim 9 above, and further in view of Yee et al (US 20200209136 A1).
Regarding claim 37, Lloyd discloses the disinfection system of claim 9 wherein the electronics are configured to control the intensity and/or spectrum of the ultraviolet light emitted by the one or more light sources (processing circuitry 51 may provide a time delay for emitters, par 0174; FIG. 16, operate UV emitters and monitor time exposure in blocks 327 and 328) to reduce the level of microorganisms including bacteria, viruses, and fungi (par 0066). Lloyd does not teach that this control would occur based on a season of year.
Yee teaches an analogous UV light chamber (par 0044) wherein a control device may use the information about time of day and season of year or other environmental parameters to determine the conditions for initiating a measurement cycle based on likelihood of undesired mold spores (par 0049) and the UV light can activate after every measurement cycle to define a baseline i.e. treated condition (par 0044).
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 electronics which control the intensity and/or spectrum of the ultraviolet light emitted by the one or more light sources of Lloyd to control the intensity based on a season of year as taught by Yee, because doing so would predictably enable additional UV light activation when needed to counteract higher concentrations of undesired molds in a similar manner as taught by Yee.
Response to Arguments
31. Applicant’s arguments, see Remarks filed 07 April 2026 pages 22-23, with respect to the rejections of claims 1 and 4 under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Applicant asserts that Lloyd discloses using cameras to identify exposed body parts and avoiding irradiating those exposed body parts and thus does not teach reducing or turning off its light source in response to the proximity or distance sensor secured with the light source detecting an object closer to the light source than a programmed or fixed distance. Examiner respectfully disagrees, as Lloyd describes the camera (or equally, an IR laser system as described in par 0091) as relying on depth measurement to create a 3D model of the environment then control the germicidal radiation beam therefrom (par 0082). The detection of a person in the environment then involves identifying any part of the person at a closer distance than the fixed background (par 0115). As the system of Lloyd is capable of irradiating the space using a single given UV light source 20 that is collocated with a sensor 30 (FIGS. 1 and 6) and turning off the light in response to a body part being detected (radiation is turned off when the “unsafe” area or border is reached, par 0121, FIG. 12), the disclosure of Lloyd fully reads upon claims 1 and 4.
Rejections of dependent claims 2, 3, 9, 11, 12, 15-17, 30, 33, 38, and 39 under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) and/or 35 U.S.C. 103 are updated to reflect the amended scope of independent claim 1.
32. Applicant’s arguments, see Remarks filed 07 April 2026 page 23, with respect to the rejection(s) of claim 37 under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) have been fully considered and are persuasive. Therefore, the rejection has been withdrawn. However, upon further consideration, a new ground(s) of rejection under 35 U.S.C. 103 is made over Lloyd in view of Yee as necessitated by the amendment to require that control is based on a season of year.
33. Applicant’s arguments, see Remarks filed 07 April 2026 pages 24-27, with respect to claims 6 and 35-36 under 35 U.S.C. 103 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
34. Applicant’s arguments, see Remarks filed 07 April 2026 pages 27-29, with respect to the rejections of claims 13 and 38 under 35 U.S.C. 103 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Applicant asserts that the combination of Lloyd with the teachings of Ball and Vasilenko do not fairly teach the claimed sequence of emitting UVA radiation and 3000K white light radiation. Examiner respectfully disagrees, as Lloyd teaches the basic sequence of emitting UV radiation over a first time period (par 0076) then not emitting UV radiation but still operating some form of visible room lighting as evidenced by the continuous operation of the visible light camera (pars 0088 and 0090). Ball is relied upon only for teaching that a combination of UVA and UVC radiation is more effective than UVC alone, thus it would be obvious to include a UVA emitter to operate on the same schedule of the UVC emitter of Lloyd. Vasilenko is relied upon only for teaching the color temperature of the white light, an obvious choice of a white light color temperature based upon Vasilenko’s teaching that “in one embodiment, the white light LED elements comprise a 3000 K LED element” (par 0025). Examiner notes that Vasilenko does not teach away from using this color temperature by expressing a preference for warm and cold white LED elements for combination with IR LEDs, as Applicant argues, especially since another embodiment is stated to comprise the 6500 K LED element (par 0025). See MPEP 2145(X)(D)(1), particularly In re Gurley, 27 F.3d 551, 553, 31 USPQ2d 1130, 1132 (Fed. Cir. 1994). Irrespective of whether the sequence of lighting exhibits synergistic benefits as Applicant has argued, the device of Lloyd as minorly modified by the teachings of Ball and Vasilenko reads upon the merits of the claims.
Conclusion
35. 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.
36. 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
Prosecution Insights