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 .
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claims 11-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AJA), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention. Claim 4 recites, “a pathogen sensor connected to the mobile unit, the pathogen sensor being configured to detect and identify any pathogen in an area around the mobile unit.”
The courts have described the essential question to be addressed in a description requirement issue in a variety of ways. An objective standard for determining compliance with the written description requirement is, "does the description clearly allow persons of ordinary skill in the art to recognize that he or she invented what is claimed." In re Gosteli, 872 F.2d 1008, 1012, 10 USPQ2d 1614, 1618 (Fed. Cir. 1989). Under Vas-Cath, Inc.v. Mahurkar, 935 F.2d 1555, 1563-64,19 USPQ2d 1111,1117 (Fed. Cir. 1991), to satisfy the written description requirement, an applicant must convey with reasonable clarity to those skilled in the art that, as of the filing date sought, he or she was in possession of the invention, and that the invention, in that context, is whatever is now claimed.
In the instant case, the claim defines the invention by functional language specifying a desired result to be obtained, namely a sensor that identifies any pathogen. However, the disclosure fails to explain how such a result is achieved. Instead, the disclosure provides general descriptions of sensors that are available, e.g. “surface plasmon enhanced fluorescence spectroscopy” and “Microbial sensors provided by Nuwave Sensor Technology Ltd..” PgPub para 55. In arguments, applicant asserts that it is “well known to those skilled in the art of pathogen detection and identification how a pathogen sensor functions.” This may be true, but one of ordinary skill in the art would also understand that sensors such as those described in the specification and the arguments do not identify pathogens, i.e., they do not indicate what particular pathogen has been detected. Thus, the applicant fails to describe how the problem posed by the functional limitation of claim 11 is solved, and provides no evidence that the problem is solved at all. As such, one of ordinary skill in the art would not recognize that the applicant had possession of “a pathogen sensor electronically connected to the processor for signaling the processor an identified pathogen in an area proximate the mobile unit.” Since one of ordinary skill in the art would not recognize that the applicant had possession of the claimed invention, the claims are rejected for failing the written description requirement.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
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.
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.
Claims 1-4 and 7-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 2019/0378706 A1 [Stibich] in view of US 2022/0023467 A1 [Garner], and further in view of US 2022/0016286 A1 [Naito].
Regarding Claim 1:
Stibich teaches a system for eradicating pathogens (abstract), comprising:
a mobile unit (Fig. 4 (100));
a lamp connected to the mobile unit, wherein the lamp emits a far-ultraviolet C (far-UVC) light thereby generating an irradiation zone (Fig. 4 (104), para 24- the xenon flashtube provides germicidal radiation in the far UVC range as well as other ranged, as is evident by its emission range from 200-320 nm); and
a processor connected to the mobile unit, wherein the processor navigates the mobile unit within a predetermined area while the lamp eradicates pathogens in the predetermined area (paras 88-90).
However, Stibich fails to teach the processor maintaining a predetermined distance of the mobile unit from surfaces being irradiated by said lamp.
Garner teaches a UV sanitizing mobile unit (Fig. 1, abstract) including a processor maintaining a predetermined distance of the mobile unit from surfaces being irradiated by said lamp (claim 20). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective time of filing to add the irradiation distance adjustments of Garner to Stibich, since this would allow one to further control an intensity of irradiation on a given target.
Further, Stibich fails to teach the lamp including an irradiation range being restricted between 200 and 230 nm and including a peak irradiation of about 222 nm thereby providing for irradiation of spaced occupied by individuals.
Naito teaches a UV sterilization technique using an examiner lamp (para 60) the lamp including an irradiation range being restricted between 200 and 230 nm and including a peak irradiation of about 222 nm (para 60). Such a range implicitly provides for irradiation of spaced occupied by individuals. Naito para 14. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective time of filing to use the filtered excimer lamp of Naito as the lamp of Stibich, since this Naito teaches that this is an effective band for eliminating bacteria. Naito Paras 59-61.
Regarding Claim 2:
The above modified invention teaches the system set forth in claim 1, wherein the mobile unit comprises a drone. As previously noted, Stibich Fig. 4 (100) is a drone.
Regarding Claim 3:
The above modified invention teaches the system set forth in claim 1, further comprising a robotic arm extending from the mobile unit, wherein the lamp is at or near an end of the robotic arm. Stibich para 74, the lamp is in an arm which extends above the body of the mobile unit.
Regarding Claim 4:
The above modified invention teaches the system set forth in claim 1, further comprising a pathogen sensor for identifying the existence of a pathogen and signaling the processor existence of the pathogen. Naito paras 18, 62-63 describe the sensor, and Fig. 6 describes the signaling process.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective time of filing to add the pathogen sensor and associated signaling process of Naito to Stibich. One would have been motivated to do so since this would provide the user with knowledge of contamination and the ability to determine when treatment is complete. Naito paras 93-95.
Regarding Claim 7:
The above modified invention teaches the system set forth in claim 4, wherein the pathogen sensor comprises a microbial sensor for sensing aerosol pathogens or a surface plasmon resonance sensor for sensing surface pathogens. Naito paras 18, 62-63.
Regarding Claim 8:
The above modified invention teaches the system set forth in claim 4, wherein the processor determines a light intensity and/or time duration to eradicate the pathogen based on distance of the mobile unit from an area. Naito para 94 – the time and intensity selected by the processor. The intensity is based on distance at least to the extent that intensity of radiation at the surface is dependent upon the distance to the object. Stibich para 57.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective time of filing to incorporate the distance adjustments to intensity discussed in Stibich to the time and intensity calculation of Naito. One would have been motivated to do so since this would provide the more effective sterilization.
Regarding Claim 9:
The above modified invention teaches the system set forth in claim 4, further comprising a biometric sensor that detects presence of an individual in the irradiation zone (Stibich para 33. Garner para 95.), and the processor adjusts the light intensity and/or time period in response to the biometric sensor sensing the presence of the individual (Garner para 95).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective time of filing to incorporate the safety interlock of Garner to the above modified invention . One would have been motivated to do so since this would prevent accidental exposure to UV light. Garner para 95.
Regarding Claim 10:
The above modified invention teaches the system set forth in claim 9, wherein the biometric sensor is configured for detecting at least one of the individual's skin, eyes, heart rhythm, vein pattern, fingerprints, hand geometry, DNA, voice pattern, iris pattern, and face detection. Stibich para 33 and Garner para 95 - motion sensors detect skin.
Claim 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 2019/0378706 A1 [Stibich] in view of US 2022/0023467 A1 [Garner], and further in view of US 2022/0016286 A1 [Naito] as applied to claim 1, and further in view of US 2020/0050213 A1 [Lim].
Regarding Claim 5:
The above modified invention teaches the system set forth in claim 1, but fails to teach the system further comprising a central control unit; and
a transmitter integrated with processor disposed on the mobile unit for transmitting detection to the central control unit.
Lim teaches mobile cleaning robots. Para 119. Further, Lim teaches a transmitter integrated into each mobile cleaning unit and the processors thereof, that transmits information to a central server. Incorporating such a transmitter and server system into the above modified invention would entail transmitting location, detection, and activity data to the server so that it wouldn’t have to be stored locally.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective time of filing to use the transmitters and central server of Lim in the above modified invention. One would have been motivated to do so since this would allow for mobile unit information, such as location, detection, and activity data, to be stored remotely at a server, thus reducing the amount of hardware needed in the mobile unit.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 2/20/26 have been fully considered but they are not fully persuasive.
The rejections of claims 4-10 for failing the written description requirement are withdrawn in light of applicant’s amendments thereto.
The indefiniteness rejections of claims 11-20 are withdrawn in light of applicant’s amendments thereto.
Applicant argues that the pathogen sensor of claim 11 has sufficient written description support, and cites to multiple hyperlinks in support of this proposition. It is again noted that none of the linked documents were provided, and, as such, none of the references therein has been considered. Furthermore, it is noted that neither the applicant’s assertions nor the evidence on the record provides any support for the proposition that the applicant possessed a pathogen sensor capable of identifying a pathogen. This is specifically because there is no indication or knowledge in the art that the sensors disclosed by the applicant can identify a particular pathogen (as is required by claim 11). Rather, such sensors detect the presence of pathogens. It is up to other mechanisms, none of which have been described in the instant application, to identify pathogens. As such, one of ordinary skill in the art could not reasonably believe that the applicant possessed the claimed sensors.
The 112(b) rejections of the previous action are withdrawn in light of applicant’s amendments.
Applicant argues that Stibich fails to teach maintaining a predetermined distance from surfaces. This is not persuasive. Any position at which the mobile unit is placed is a predetermined distance from an irradiated surface. Further, Garner explicitly notes maintaining a desired distance.
Applicant argues that Garner fails to teach a processor maintaining a predetermined distance from surfaces. In particular, applicant argues that Garner does not disclose technology related to such a limitation, e.g., sensors. This is not persuasive. Garner’s disclosure of maintaining a desired distance during irradiation is more than sufficient to suggest the proposed medication.
Further, in response to applicant's arguments against the references individually, one cannot show nonobviousness by attacking references individually where the rejections are based on combinations of references. See In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 208 USPQ 871 (CCPA 1981); In re Merck & Co., 800 F.2d 1091, 231 USPQ 375 (Fed. Cir. 1986).
Applicant argues that Garner teaches away from the use of far-UVC light. This is not persuasive. Garner teaches using UV-C light, which naturally includes the entire far-UVC range. Further, Garner offers no criticism whatsoever to any portion of the wavelength band that Garner is actively using.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 6 is objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to WYATT A STOFFA whose telephone number is (571)270-1782. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 0700-1600 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.
WYATT STOFFA
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 2881
/WYATT A STOFFA/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2881
Prosecution Insights