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 .
Election/Restrictions
2. Applicant’s election without traverse of Group I, claims 1-6, 9, 11-13, and 15-17 in the reply filed on 23 October 2025 is acknowledged. Applicant’s cancellation of restricted claims 20-23 and 29 and addition of new claims 30, 33, 35-39 are acknowledged, and new claims are directed to Group I and considered herein.
Information Disclosure Statement
3. The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 28 December 2022 is being considered by the examiner.
Specification
4. The disclosure is objected to because of the following informalities:
In par 0098, “Pathogen” need not be capitalized.
The numbering of paragraphs is improper beginning with [00100] on page 37 and continuing with [0100] on page 42, as 37 CFR 1.52 requires that paragraphs are consecutively numbered.
The lengthy specification has not been checked to the extent necessary to determine the presence of all possible minor errors. Applicant’s cooperation is requested in correcting any errors of which applicant may become aware in the specification. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Objections
5. Claim 2 is objected to because of the following informalities: “electronic entry security device” should read --an electronic entry security device--.
Claim 3 is objected to because of the following informalities: “The disinfection system of any claim 1” should read --The disinfection system of claim 1--.
Appropriate correction is required.
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 § 112
7. The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
8. Claim 37 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
9. Regarding claim 37, it is unclear whether the light sources are to be controlled based on a season of year indicated by the [date and/or time] provided by the clock, or whether the claim more broadly allows that the light sources be controlled based on either a season of year indicated by the date or based on a time provided by the clock. For the purpose of examination, either interpretation is considered to read upon the claim.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
10. 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.
11. Claims 1-5, 9, 11, 15, 17, 30, 33, 37, and 39 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Lloyd (US 20170246329 A1).
12. 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).
13. 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).
14. 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)
15. 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 the one or more light sources (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 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).
16. Regarding claim 5, 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 the one or more light sources (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 an object proximity measured by the proximity or distance sensor (depth information used to identify “unsafe” areas of persons against a fixed environment, par 0115).
17. 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).
18. 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).
19. 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).
20. 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).
21. Regarding claim 30, Lloyd discloses the disinfection system of claim 15 wherein the electronic processor is further proqrammed 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).
22. 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).
23. 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) based on a time provided by the clock (clock 56 may be associated with the computing device 50 that measures the various timing requirements for specific events, par 0161).
24. 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).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
25. 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.
26. Claim 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lloyd (US 20170246329 A1) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Smetona et al (US 20170101328 A1).
Regarding claim 6, Lloyd discloses the disinfection system of claim 1 wherein the one or more light sources are configured to emit the ultraviolet light effective for inactivating pathogens in the environment for human occupancy with a configurable spectrum (emitter 20 may be a combination of multiple sources of germicidal radiation…advantageous because different wavelengths of germicidal radiation can cause different chemical reactions in the DNA of microorganisms, thereby achieving a higher probability of destroying the organism, pars 0077 and 0068-0071). Lloyd does not specifically teach wherein the electronics are further configured to control the spectrum of the ultraviolet light emitted by the one or more light sources.
Smetona teaches an analogous disinfection system using UV light (Abstract, pars 0070-0071) wherein the control unit can control the wavelength of ultraviolet radiation to operate at a target wavelength designed for the disinfection of bacteria and/or viruses on a surface (pars 0074-0075).
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 wavelength spectrum of the ultraviolet light emitted by the one or more light sources as taught by Smetona. Doing so would predictably provide the same ability to tune UV wavelengths to selectively treat specific bacteria and/or viruses as taught by Smetona.
27. 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.
28. Claim 13 and 38 are 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 Ball et al (US 20150297768 A1) and Vasilenko (US 20120100038 A1).
29. Regarding claim 13, Lloyd discloses the disinfection system of claim 11 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 would emit visible light (par 0078). 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.
30. 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).
31. 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.
32. Claims 35-36 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lloyd (US 20170246329 A1) and Smetona et al (US 20170101328 A1) as applied to claim 6 above, and further in view of Ramanand et al (US 20200085983 A1).
33. Regarding claim 35, Lloyd as modified by Smetona teaches the disinfection system of claim 6 wherein the electronics are configured to control the spectrum of the ultraviolet light emitted by the one or more light sources to match the spectrum and/or intensity corresponding to the pathogen. The combination does not teach that the electronics would receive an identification of a pathogen or determine a spectrum and/or intensity corresponding to 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).
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 modified Lloyd to receive an identification of a pathogen and determine a spectrum corresponding to the pathogen as taught by Ramanand. 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.
34. Regarding claim 36, Lloyd as modified by Smetona and Ramanand teaches the disinfection system of claim 35 further comprising at least one of: a user input device via which the electronics receives the identification of the pathogen (input controls to manually control/adjust/program various operating parameters, par 0079; target pathogen-based emission of UV energy, par 0086); and/or a biosensor via which the electronics receive the identification of the pathogen (disinfection apparatus in communication with pathogen identification sensors, Ramanand par 0045).
Conclusion
35. 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
/MARIS R KESSEL/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1758