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 .
Priority
2. Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Information Disclosure Statement
3. The information disclosure statements (IDS) submitted on 22 February 2023 and 21 July 2025 are being considered by the examiner.
Specification
4. Applicant is reminded of the proper content of an abstract of the disclosure.
A patent abstract is a concise statement of the technical disclosure of the patent and should include that which is new in the art to which the invention pertains. The abstract should not refer to purported merits or speculative applications of the invention and should not compare the invention with the prior art.
If the patent is of a basic nature, the entire technical disclosure may be new in the art, and the abstract should be directed to the entire disclosure. If the patent is in the nature of an improvement in an old apparatus, process, product, or composition, the abstract should include the technical disclosure of the improvement. The abstract should also mention by way of example any preferred modifications or alternatives.
Where applicable, the abstract should include the following: (1) if a machine or apparatus, its organization and operation; (2) if an article, its method of making; (3) if a chemical compound, its identity and use; (4) if a mixture, its ingredients; (5) if a process, the steps.
Extensive mechanical and design details of an apparatus should not be included in the abstract. The abstract should be in narrative form and generally limited to a single paragraph within the range of 50 to 150 words in length.
5. The abstract of the disclosure is objected to because reference characters that refer to design details of the apparatus should not be included. A corrected abstract of the disclosure is required and must be presented on a separate sheet, apart from any other text. See MPEP § 608.01(b).
6. The disclosure is objected to because of the following informalities:
Page 1, line 14: “Avian Influenza (i.e. Bird Flu)” should read --avian influenza (i.e., bird flu)-- and “Coxiella Burnetii” should read --Coxiella burnetii--.
Page 1, line 17: “Influenza” need not be capitalized.
Page 3, line 32: “verification the correct functioning” should read --verification of the correct functioning--.
Page 7, line 5: “Time-of-Flight sensor” should read --time-of-flight sensor--.
Page 8, line 26 and page 16, lines 21-22: The use of the terms Bluetooth® and ZigBee®, which are a trade name or a mark used in commerce, has been noted in this application. The terms should be accompanied by the generic terminology; furthermore the term should be capitalized wherever it appears or, where appropriate, include a proper symbol indicating use in commerce such as ™, SM , or ® following the term. Although the use of trade names and marks used in commerce (i.e., trademarks, service marks, certification marks, and collective marks) are permissible in patent applications, the proprietary nature of the marks should be respected and every effort made to prevent their use in any manner which might adversely affect their validity as commercial marks.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Objections
7. Claim 3 is objected to because of the following informalities: “disable the light source to provide” should read --disable the light source from providing--. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
8. 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.
9. Claim 15 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.
Claim 15 recites the limitation “a sensor” in the tenth line. It is unclear if this sensor is the same or different than the sensor introduced in the first line, and if different, then which sensor the subsequent recitations of “the sensor” in the tenth and eleventh lines pertain to is also unclear. Examiner recommends revising to --the sensor-- to clarify that all actions are taken with regard to the same sensor if that is the intended scope of the claim.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
10. 35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
11. Claims 1-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. The claims recite a series of controller functions that include: “determine a verification condition” (claim 1) and “determine an error condition” (claim 2), actions that do not have a tangible form or result. These abstract ideas, best characterized as mental processes, do not fit neatly into one of the four statutory categories and are analyzed for patent eligibility as follows.
12. In accordance with MPEP 2106, the claims are found to recite statutory subject matter outside of the limitations in question (Step 1: Yes) and are analyzed to determine if the claims recite any concepts that equate to an abstract idea, law of nature, or natural phenomenon (Step 2A: Prong 1). In the instant application, the “determine” steps in the context of this claim refer to mental processes, controller actions that can be performed in the human mind and treated equally under the judicial exception to an abstract idea. See MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(III). Accordingly, the claims recite abstract ideas (Step 2A, Prong 1: Yes). For the purposes of analysis, these several instances of a judicial exception are treated together in accordance with MPEP 2106.04(II)(B).
13. This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because the claims do not recite any additional elements that reflect an improvement to technology or apply the judicial exception in some other meaningful way (Step 2A, Prong 2: No). In claim 2, the determination of an error condition is intended to trigger the controller to “output an output signal”, an application of the abstract “determining” step that is stated with a high degree of generality. See MPEP 2106.05(h). Further, the claim language fails to recite details of how a solution to a problem is accomplished using the controller determinations, simply amounting to a recitation of the words “apply it” to the stated control problem. See MPEP 2106.05(f). To overcome this, Examiner recommends reciting a clear causal relationship between each “determine” function executed by the controller and a specific action or beneficial outcome. Claim 3 attempts to overcome the determination of an error condition by controlling the lighting device to disable the light source, to which the claim language must clearly delineate that the controller would disable the light source in response to receiving the error signal to successfully incorporate the judicial exception into a practical application. However, the determination of a verification condition recited in claim 1 is not applied in any meaningful way, thus all claims are rejected for failing to integrate the abstract idea. See MPEP 2106.04(d) for further guidance regarding integration of a judicial exception into a practical application.
14. The claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because all elements within the claimed system are well-understood, routine, and conventional in the art. (Step 2B: No). Ranta et al (US 20150182647 A1) teaches a similar controller (par 0024), UV light device (par 0015), and sensor in the form of an infrared light transmitter and receiver (pars 0005 and 0020). The emulator device, as broadly recited in the claims and described in the Specification to be preferably embodied as an “infrared light source” (page 6 lines 1-6), is thereby shown to be well-understood, routine, and conventional by Ranta’s teaching of an infrared light transmitter in signal communication with the sensor. See MPEP 2106.05(h).
15. Claims 2-14 do not resolve the issues of the independent claim(s) discussed above. Although claim 3 would successfully apply the abstract idea of “determine an error condition” if rephrased to directly control the lighting device to disable the light source in the event of an error and to actively enable operation of the light source in the event of no error, none of the dependent claims overcome the judicial exception, as the abstract idea of “determine a verification condition of the sensor” is never integrated into a particular practical application. Therefore, the claims do not amount to significantly more than the judicial exception itself and are not patent eligible.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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.
16. Claims 1, 5-9, and 11-12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Ranta et al (US 20150182647 A1).
17. Regarding claim 1, Ranta discloses a system (sanitizing system, Abstract) comprising:
a lighting device comprising 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), wherein the sensor is 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), wherein the light source is 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 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 received by one or more IR light receivers 41, par 0020, FIG. 2);
a controller configured 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), and to determine a verification condition of the sensor if the sensor detects the emulator signal at the first moment in time (UVC light sources remain in the illuminated state as described above while no contact or proximity is detected, pars 0020 and 0024-0025).
18. Regarding claim 5, Ranta discloses 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).
19. Regarding claim 6, Ranta discloses 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).
20. Regarding claim 7, Ranta discloses 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.
21. Regarding claim 8, Ranta discloses the system according to claim 1, wherein the lighting device comprises the controller (UVC lamp controller 63 implemented in a microprocessor, par 0024).
22. Regarding claim 9, Ranta discloses the system according to claim 1, wherein the space comprises a surface (FIG. 2), wherein the emulator device is configured to project said emulator signal onto the surface (FIG. 2, emulator device 40 projects signal onto surface 41, par 0020).
23. Regarding claim 11, Ranta discloses 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).
24. Regarding claim 12, Ranta discloses the system according to claim 1, wherein the lighting device comprises the emulator device (FIG. 3, bezel 21 comprises IR source emulator 40).
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.
26. Claim(s) 2-4, 10, 13, and 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ranta et al (US 20150182647 A1).
27. Regarding claim 2, Ranta discloses the system according to claim 1, wherein the controller is configured to determine an error condition of the sensor if the sensor does not detect the emulator signal at the first moment in time (once contact is detected, processor turns off the UV light and implements a delay timer, par 0026, FIG. 4);
The embodiment does not explicitly teach wherein the controller is configured to output 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. Doing so would predictably, and in a similar manner, enable the controller to turn off the light in order to protect a user from ultraviolet radiation (par 0020).
28. Regarding claim 3, Ranta teaches the system according to claim 2, wherein said output signal is arranged for controlling the lighting device to disable the light source to provide said ultraviolet light in operation (once contact is detected, processor turns off the UV light and implements a delay timer, par 0026, FIG. 4).
29. Regarding claim 4, Ranta teaches the system according to claim 2, wherein said output signal is indicative of the error condition (command signal to turn off the light, see rejection of claim 2 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 output said output signal to a further device as taught by Ranta, as doing so would predictably notify the further device and the user on the error condition.
30. 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, as 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.
31. Regarding claim 13, Ranta discloses 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.
32. 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);
wherein the sensor is 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), wherein the light source is 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 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);
wherein the method comprises:
controlling an emulator device to transmit an 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);
determining a verification condition of a sensor if the sensor detects the emulator signal at the first moment in time (UVC light sources remain in the illuminated state as described above while no contact or proximity is detected, pars 0020 and 0024-0025), and determining an error condition of the sensor if the sensor does not detect the emulator signal at the first moment in time (once contact is detected, processor turns off the UV light and implements a delay timer, par 0026, FIG. 4);
The embodiment 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. Doing so would predictably, and in a similar manner, enable the controller to turn off the light in order to protect a user from ultraviolet radiation (par 0020).
33. 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. Doing so would predictably enable the detection of a presence via detecting a beam intercept over a wider space having a plurality of UV emitting screens, as advantageously taught by Quilici (par 0022).
Conclusion
34. The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Polidoro (US 20170321877 A1) discloses an analogous luminaire system having UV-C emitters, occupancy sensors, control means, and an onboard air purifier.
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