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 22 April 2026 has been received and considered for examination. Claims 1, 4-8, and 10-18 are presently pending and being examined herein.
3. All rejections and objections from the previous Office action are withdrawn in view of Applicant’s amendment.
4. New grounds of rejection under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) and 35 U.S.C. 103 are necessitated by the amendments, as detailed below.
Information Disclosure Statement
5. The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 26 January 2026 is being considered by the examiner.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
6. 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.
7. Claims 1, 4-8, 10-13, 15, and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ranta et al (US 20150182647 A1).
8. Regarding claim 1, Ranta discloses a system (sanitizing system, Abstract) comprising:
a lighting device having a sensor and a light source (monitor includes an ultraviolet light source, par 0004; sensor is in the form of an infrared light transmitter and receiver, par 0005), the sensor being configured to detect a presence in a space (sensor to detect an object in the path between the transmitter and the receiver, par 0005) and/or to detect an emulator signal (IR light receivers positioned on opposite side to receive signal from IR light transmitter, pars 0005 and 0020), the light source being configured to provide ultraviolet light in operation (UVC lamps configured to produce UVC light, pars 0015-0019) and to interrupt providing the ultraviolet light in operation when the sensor detects presence in said space (when object breaks the path i.e. presence of a finger is sensed, the system shuts down the UVC lamps immediately, par 0020);
an emulator device configured to convey the emulator signal to the sensor (one or more IR light transmitters 40 produces plane of IR light 42 received by one or more IR light receivers 41, par 0020, FIG. 2), the emulator device being configured to project the emulator signal onto a surface in the space at a predefined distance from the sensor (FIG. 2, convex surface of sensor 41 in the space at a predefined distance from IR light transmitter 40) such that the emulator signal is conveyed to the sensor over at least part of a field-of-view of the sensor (one or more IR light receivers 41 receives plane of the IR light 42, par 0020). The limitation to verify detection capability across the field-of-view is recited as an intended use of the projected emulator signal (see MPEP 2114(II)), which the system of Ranta is capable of carrying out such a verification of detection capability by virtue of the system continuing to operate as long as the emulator signal is detected, i.e. not blocked or malfunctioning (pars 0020 and 0025);
Ranta further discloses a controller configured (i) to control the emulator device (controller 63 to control the operation of the lamps and likewise in communication with the sensor, par 0024) to transmit the emulator signal at a first moment in time (one or more IR light transmitters 40 produces plane of IR light received by one or more IR light receivers 41, par 0020, FIG. 2) before a period in which the light source is in operation (FIG. 4, block 130 evaluates proximity emulator signal before light cycle initiated), and (ii) to determine a verification condition of the sensor when the sensor detects the emulator signal at the first moment in time (processor 60 evaluates whether the sensor such as the IR receiver 41 has detected the presence of an object such as a finger, pars 0020 and 0024-0025; FIG. 4, “no” at 130 represents verification condition) or to determine an error condition of the sensor when the sensor does not detect the emulator signal at the first moment in time (FIG. 4, “yes” at 130 represents error condition),
wherein the controller is configured, upon determination of the error condition, to disable the light source from providing the ultraviolet light in operation (when a finger 50 or any other object breaks the plane of the IR light 42, the UVC lamps are turned off…lamps remain off thereafter during touchscreen activity, par 0020).
Ranta teaches that the processor is in communication with the sensor such as the IR detector 41 to control the UVC lamps ( pars 0024-0025) but the embodiment does not specifically teach that the controller would output an output signal upon determination of this verification condition or the error condition. However, Ranta teaches in another version that in response to screen contact the controller issues a command i.e. output signal to turn off the light (par 0021).
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 controller to output an output signal upon determining the error condition or presence as taught by Ranta because this would predictably empower the controller to turn off the light in order to protect a user from ultraviolet radiation (par 0020) and simply involves combining prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results. See MPEP 2143(I)(A).
9. Regarding claim 4, Ranta teaches the system according to claim 1, wherein said output signal is indicative of the error condition (command signal to turn off the light, see rejection of claim 1 above). Ranta not explicitly teach wherein the controller is configured to output the output signal to a further device so as to notify the further device on the error condition.
In another embodiment, Ranta teaches wherein a UVC sensor measures a UV output to detect a faulty bulb, giving a failure indication such as an audible alarm or the illumination of an LED or other visual indicator (par 0028) i.e., outputting the output signal to a further device, which under a broadest reasonable interpretation can include this alarm or LED device as claimed.
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 controller to output said output signal to a further device as taught by Ranta because this would predictably notify the further device and the user on the error condition and simply involves combining prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results. See MPEP 2143(I)(A).
10. Regarding claim 5, Ranta teaches the system according to claim 1, wherein the sensor is a PIR sensor (infrared receiver 41, pars 0020 and 0025), the emulator device is an infrared light source (infrared light transmitters 40, par 0020), and the emulator signal is an infrared signal (plane of the IR light, par 0020), by extension disclosing also wherein the sensor is a light sensor (infrared receiver 41, pars 0020 and 0025), and the emulator device is a light beacon (infrared light transmitters 40, par 0020), wherein the emulator signal is a light signal (plane of the IR light, par 0020).
11. Regarding claim 6, Ranta teaches the system according to claim 1, wherein the light source is configured to illuminate in operation at least part of the space with the ultraviolet light (FIG. 2, ultraviolet light 35 and 36), or to illuminate at least part of a main space comprising the space with the ultraviolet light (FIG. 2).
12. Regarding claim 7, Ranta teaches the system according to claim 1, wherein the lighting device comprises a purifier (sanitizing system, pars 0009-0013), wherein the purifier comprises the light source (UV light source for sanitizing, pars 0004 and 0007). The limitations for purifying air in operation and wherein the ultraviolet light of the light source purifies the air describe an intended use of the apparatus, though the presence of ultraviolet rays in the space would provide purification of the air encountering the rays in said space, reading upon the claim.
13. Regarding claim 8, Ranta teaches the system according to claim 1, wherein the lighting device comprises the controller (UVC lamp controller 63 implemented in a microprocessor, par 0024).
14. Regarding claim 10, Ranta teaches the system according to claim 1, wherein the emulator device is arranged at a distance from the sensor (FIG. 2, opposite sides of the touchscreen, par 0020). Ranta only shows the size of the touchscreen and bezel in relation to a sketched human hand (FIG. 2), thus does not explicitly teach wherein said distance is at least two meters.
The courts have held that scaling up does not establish patentability, more specifically, where the only difference between the prior art and the claims was a recitation of relative dimensions of the claimed device and a device having the claimed relative dimensions would not perform differently than the prior art device, the claimed device was not patentably distinct from the prior art device. Gardner v. TEC Syst., Inc., 725 F.2d 1338, 220 USPQ 777 (Fed. Cir. 1984), cert. denied, 469 U.S. 830, 225 USPQ 232 (1984), see MPEP 2144.04(IV)(A).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to space the emulator device from the sensor by a distance of at least two meters because doing so would predictably provide the same presence detection across a space encompassing a wider range of touchscreen dimensions, protecting the user from UV radiation in the same manner.
15. Regarding claim 11, Ranta teaches the system according to claim 1, wherein the system comprises a second lighting device (FIG. 3, first and second light sources 34 and 32 included in bezels 22 and 21, pars 0017 and 0020); wherein the second lighting device comprises the emulator device (FIG. 3, bezel 21 comprises IR source emulator 40).
16. Regarding claim 12, Ranta teaches the system according to claim 1, wherein the lighting device comprises the emulator device (FIG. 3, bezel 21 comprises IR source emulator 40).
17. Regarding claim 13, Ranta teaches the system according to claim 1, wherein the lighting device is a luminaire and comprises a luminaire housing (FIG. 2, UV lamps and associated hardware described in pars 0015-0020 and 0024-0025), wherein the luminaire housing comprises the sensor (FIG. 2, 41), the light source (FIG. 2, 31 and 32), and the emulator device (FIG. 2, 40). Although Ranta discloses a controller as part of the luminaire system, the reference is silent regarding the position of this controller and therefore does not teach wherein the luminaire housing comprises the controller.
The courts have held that shifting the position of a control element in a manner that does not modify the operation of the device is an obvious matter of design choice. In re Japikse, 181 F.2d 1019, 86 USPQ 70 (CCPA 1950), see MPEP 2144.04(VI)(C). In this case, the controller comprises a microprocessor and memory (FIG. 3, par 0024), occupying a small space. Further, the controller needs to be in communication with the light source and sensor to carry out control operations (par 0024).
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 the controller within the luminaire housing, since doing so would readily enable the controller to communicate with the sensor, light source, and emulator device as taught by Ranta and simply involves combining prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results. See MPEP 2143(I)(A).
18. Regarding claim 15, Ranta discloses a method of determining a condition of a sensor of a lighting device (processor evaluates whether the sensor has detected the presence of an object, pars 0024-0025 and 0028), the sensor being configured to detect a presence in a space (sensor to detect an object in the path between the transmitter and the receiver, par 0005) and/or to detect an emulator signal (IR light receivers positioned on opposite side to receive signal from IR light transmitter, pars 0005 and 0020), the lighting device having a light source configured to provide ultraviolet light in operation (UVC lamps configured to produce UVC light, pars 0015-0019) and to interrupt providing said ultraviolet light in operation if the sensor detects presence in the space (when object breaks the path i.e. presence of a finger is sensed, the system shuts down the UVC lamps immediately, par 0020), the method comprising:
controlling an emulator device to transmit an emulator signal (one or more IR light transmitters 40 produces plane of IR light received by one or more IR light receivers 41, par 0020, FIG. 2) at a first moment in time before a period in which the light source is in operation (FIG. 4, block 130 evaluates proximity emulator signal before light cycle initiated), the emulator device projecting the emulator signal onto a surface in the space at a predefined distance from the sensor (FIG. 2, convex surface of sensor 41 in the space at a predefined distance from IR light transmitter 40) such that the emulator signal is conveyed to the sensor over at least part of a field-of-view of the sensor (one or more IR light receivers 41 receives plane of the IR light 42, par 0020) to verify detection capability across the field-of-view (array of infrared sources and sensors is focused to form an invisible grid that senses the presence of a finger across plane of screen, par 0020; system shuts down immediately when object breaks path between a sensor and source of IR light, par 0020);
determining a verification condition of the sensor when the sensor detects the emulator signal at the first moment in time (processor 60 evaluates whether the sensor such as the IR receiver 41 has detected the presence of an object such as a finger, pars 0020 and 0024-0025; FIG. 4, “no” at 130 represents verification condition) or determining an error condition of the sensor when the sensor does not detect the emulator signal at the first moment in time (FIG. 4, “yes” at 130 represents error condition),
upon determination of the error condition, disabling the light source from providing the ultraviolet light in operation (when a finger 50 or any other object breaks the plane of the IR light 42, the UVC lamps are turned off…lamps remain off thereafter during touchscreen activity, par 0020).
Ranta teaches that the processor is in communication with the sensor such as the IR detector 41 to control the UVC lamps ( pars 0024-0025), but the method of operating the FIG. 2 embodiment using the FIG. 4 sequence does not explicitly teach outputting an output signal upon determining said error condition. However, Ranta teaches in another version that in response to screen contact the controller issues a command i.e. output signal to turn off the light.
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 controller to output an output signal upon determining the error condition or presence as taught by Ranta because this would predictably empower the controller to turn off the light in order to protect a user from ultraviolet radiation (par 0020) and simply involves combining prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results. See MPEP 2143(I)(A).
19. Regarding claim 18, Ranta teaches the system according to claim 1, wherein the emulator device is configured to transmit a plurality of emulator signals directed to different regions within the field-of-view of the sensor (array of infrared sources and sensors is focused to form an invisible grid of IR light that senses the presence of a finger/ object, par 0020).
20. Claim 14 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ranta et al (US 20150182647 A1) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Quilici (US 20190022263 A1).
Regarding claim 14, Ranta teaches a system arrangement according to claim 1, but does not teach a plurality of systems wherein the respective lighting device of at least one system of the plurality of systems comprises the respective emulator device of one other system of the plurality of systems.
Quilici teaches an analogous disinfecting luminaire for disinfecting a target surface (Abstract) having a track lighting array implementation (FIG. 7, par 0025) wherein the distance sensor mounted on the housing of each respective lighting device (FIG. 7, 714) may be used to measure the distance to the target surface and to detect a beam intercept (par 0025), reading upon the claim in the instance when one of the disinfecting track lights is directed such that the reflected beam aims toward another of the track lights.
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 Ranta in the use case of a plurality of systems such that the respective lighting device of at least one system of the plurality of systems comprises the respective emulator device of one other system of the plurality of systems as taught by Quilici, because this would predictably enable the detection of a presence via detecting a beam intercept over a wider space having a plurality of UV emitting sources as advantageously taught by Quilici and involves combining prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results. See MPEP 2143(I)(A).
21. Claim 16 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ranta et al (US 20150182647 A1) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Lalicki et al (US 20180185533 A1).
Regarding claim 16, Ranta teaches the system according to claim 1, wherein the controller is configured to determine the first moment in time (the process queries after the delay cycle 120 has completed, par 0027, FIG. 4). Ranta does not teach that the first moment of time is based on a scheduled activation time of the light source.
Lalicki teaches an analogous disinfecting light system and control method (Abstract, FIGS. 1-5) wherein the controller may initiate the disinfecting light according to a predetermined operational schedule which includes time of day and/or day of the week (par 0064), either determined by the device or set according to e.g. the peak operating times (par 0106).
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 controller of Ranta to assign the first moment in time based on a scheduled activation time of the light source as taught by Lalicki, because this would predictably provide the same control capability to initiate the light source activation at times of the week when light disinfection is most needed and simply involves combining prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results. See MPEP 2143(I)(A).
22. Claim 17 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ranta et al (US 20150182647 A1) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Randolph (US 20160037597 A1).
Regarding claim 17, Ranta teaches the system according to claim 1, wherein the emulator device is configured to emit the emulator signal in a direction toward the surface at an angle (FIG. 2, IR signal 42 emitted perpendicular to luminaire structure). Ranta does not teach that emulator signal direction or angle is selected to cause reflection toward the sensor.
Randolph teaches an analogous luminaire system (Abstract, par 0003) dependent upon an infrared sensor that operates to detect if an object or structure is improperly positioned relative to the luminaire 1 such that the structure may cause an overheating condition and present a fire hazard (par 0022), such that the IR signal reflected from the object’s surface is detected by the IR receiver (par 0022).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to select the emulator signal angle of Ranta so as to cause reflection from a surface toward the sensor as taught by Randolph, because this angle selection would predictably enable the IR signal to detect objects within proximity that are not necessarily within the IR plane as shown advantageous by Randolph and involves applying a known technique to a known device ready for improvement to yield predictable results. See MPEP 2143(I)(D).
Response to Arguments
23. Applicant’s arguments, see Remarks filed 22 April 2026 pages 10-11, with respect to the rejections of claims 1, 15, and their dependents under 35 U.S.C. 101 have been fully considered and are persuasive. Therefore, the rejections have been withdrawn. Examiner clarifies that the “determining” steps of these claims as amended have been successfully integrated into a practical application under step 2B by either allowing the light activation to commence (for the verification condition) or disabling the light source from providing the ultraviolet light (for the error condition).
24. Applicant's arguments, see Remarks filed 22 April 2026, with respect to the rejections of claims 1-15 under 35 U.S.C. 102 and 35 U.S.C. 103 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Applicant asserts that the limitation wherein the emulator device projects a signal “onto a surface in the space at a predefined distance from the sensor such that the emulator signal is conveyed to the sensor over at least part of a field-of-view of the sensor to verify detection capability across the field of view” overcomes Ranta because Ranta teaches an array of infrared sources and sensors that form an invisible grid. Examiner understands the difference in structure but respectfully disagrees with the assertion. The quoted limitation can be interpreted broadly such that the disclosure of Ranta reads on it in multiple ways: the convex outer surface of the lens to the sensor (FIG. 2, 41) satisfies this surface by being located in the space and separated from the emulator by a predefined distance, or the surface of the finger (FIG. 2) can even satisfy this surface when another of the plurality of IR emitters conveys the signal to the receiver across the field-of-view. Without importing limitations from the Specification, the disclosure of Ranta renders obvious the independent claims, with new rejections under 103 delineated above.
Conclusion
25. The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Kaler et al (US 20240207475 A1) teaches an analogous UV disinfection system (Abstract) wherein sensors may be tested or calibrated by actively impulse testing the space with illumination in a desired band (par 0098) or by pinging each sensor to check its health (par 0098).
26. 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.
27. 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
Prosecution Insights