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 .
Response to Amendment
This is an office action in response to Applicant's arguments and remarks filed on 2/17/2026. Claims 1-9, 11-18 are pending in the application and are being examined herein.
Status of Objections and Rejections
The objection to the claims has been withdrawn in view of Applicant's amendment.
The rejection of claim 10 is obviated by Applicant's cancellation.
All rejections under 35 U.S.C § 112 from the previous office action are withdrawn in view of Applicant's amendment.
All 35 U.S.C § 103 rejections under Johnson et al. (EP 3816045) from the previous office action are withdrawn in view of Applicant's filing of a certified translation of the foreign priority application.
All rejections under 35 U.S.C § 103 from the previous office action are maintained in view of Applicant's amendment.
New grounds of rejection under 35 U.S.C § 103 are necessitated by the amendments.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
Claim(s) 1-3, 8-9, 11, and 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kreitenberg (US 20160375166) in view of Johnson (US 20210354854) and Bradley (US 20200148348).
Regarding claim 1, Kreitenberg teaches a device for disinfecting an interior space (Fig. 1, [0129]) comprising:
a cart, which is configured to travel along a path through the interior space (trolley 1 [0129]), wherein the device has an electric travel drive and an electronic control for the cart [0164] and configured to control the cart autonomously along the path [0172], and
a germicidal light source (UVC source 2, [0165]).
However, Kreteinberg does not teach a drone, which has at least one electric drive for generating lift wherein the germicidal light source is fastened to the drone (24). One having ordinary skill would be concerned about contaminated seats being unable to be sterilized due to the angle of ultraviolet light being emitted from the trolley, motivating one to turn towards Johnson.
Johnson teaches an unmanned aircraft system (UAS, understood to be a drone) for sanitizing an aircraft cabin [abstract, Fig. 2, 200] wherein the UAS comprises a germicidal light source [0034-0035, 0061-0063 Fig. 2, UAS 110 has emitter 212 that emits UV light] and an electric drive (Fig. 2, electric drive understood to be rotors for flight).
Johnson and Kreteinberg are both considered analogous to the claimed invention since both are drawn to the sterilization arts. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the device as taught by Kreitenberg with the drone as taught by Johnson to enhance sterilization of an aircraft cabin since Johnson teaches the drone to autonomously detect and sanitize sources of contamination [0010] and emit disinfecting light from an aerial angle and this involves the combination of elements to yield a predictable result with a reasonable expectation of success. See MPEP 2143(I)(A).
Modified Kreteinberg teaches the drone as discussed above but fails to teach wherein the drone is connected to the cart via an electrical line for supplying energy to the germicidal light source and the electric drive. One having ordinary skill would be concerned with the drone losing power during sterilization operations, motivating one to turn towards Bradley.
Bradley teaches a tethered drone system [abstract] wherein the tether (understood to be an electrical line) contains wires for the supply of energy and control signals from a control vehicle to the drone ([0033-0035] = understood to be able to power the electrical drive of the drone and a germicidal light source).
Bradley and Modified Kreitenberg are considered analogous to the claimed invention since both are drawn to the unmanned aerial vehicle arts. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to apply the tether as taught by Bradley to the base device (drone) as taught by Modified Kreitenberg since Bradley teaches the tether to enable the drone to fly for indefinite period of times [0024] and to enable the drone to follow a control vehicle while remaining tethered [0020] and this involves applying a known technique (tethering) to a known device (a drone) ready for improvement to yield a predictable result. See MPEP 2143(I)(D).
The Examiner notes the recitation of “wherein the drone is configured to move laterally from the cart into an interior space adjacent the path along which the cart travels” fails to patentably distinguish over the prior art because it describes the functional recitation of the apparatus rather than structure (MPEP 2114(II)). A functional recitation of the claimed invention must result in a structural difference between the claimed invention and the prior art in order to patentably distinguish the claimed invention from the prior art. If the prior art structure is capable of performing the intended use, then it meets the claim. See In re Casey, 152 USPQ 235 (CCPA 1967) and In re Otto, 136 USPQ 458,459 (CCPA 1963). Therefore, the apparatus of Modified Kreitenberg contains the presently claimed structure and therefore, would have the ability to perform the functions recited in the claim.
Regarding claim 2, Modified Kreitenberg teaches the device according to claim 1, characterized in that the interior space is an aircraft cabin and the path is an aisle of the aircraft cabin (Kreitenberg, [0082]).
Regarding claim 3, Modified Kreitenberg teaches the device according to claim 1 wherein the germicidal light source is a UVC light source (Kreitenber, [0149]).
Regarding claim 8, Modified Kreitenberg teaches the device according to claim 1, characterized in that at least one row of seats is arranged in the interior space (Kreitenberg, Fig. 4) and the drone has an electronic control, which is configured to control the drone automatically such that the drone moves at a specified flight speed along the at least one row of seats (Johnson, controller 120 automatically controls drone flight [0041] such as indicating an empty row and deploying the drone [0050] = understood to be moving at a specified flight speed).
Regarding claim 9, Modified Kreitenberg teaches the device according to claim 1, characterized in that the cart has an extendable mast, which in a retracted position is accommodated inside the cart and in an extended position projects upwards out of the cart (Kreitenberg, [0166-0167], Fig. 1-2, UVC sources are connected to a retraction mechanism 6 = understood to be an extendable mast). However, Modified Kreitenberg does not teach wherein the electrical line is connected to the mast.
Bradley teaches a tethered drone system [abstract] wherein the tether (understood to be an electrical line) contains wires for the supply of energy and control signals from a control vehicle to the drone ([0033-0035] = understood to be able to power the electrical drive of the drone and a germicidal light source). Bradley also teaches wherein the control vehicle may be utilized to launch the tethered drone [0035].
Kreitenberg also teaches wherein the sterilization operation of the ultraviolet light begins where the mast is in an extended position [0172].
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to attach the electrical line as taught by Bradley to the extendable mast as taught by Kreitenberg to allow for a better launch point of the sterilization drone when the extendable mast is in the extended position and actuate the UV light from the drone at the same time as UV light from the trolly is actuated since Bradley teaches the control vehicle tethered to the drone to help facilitate launch [0035].
Regarding claim 11, Modified Kreitenberg teaches the device according to claim 1 wherein the device comprises a power cable that is connected to the cart and has a plug for connecting to a supply network, in particular an on-board electrical system of an aircraft (Kreitenberg, teaches a plug with an extension cord [Fig. 33, power cable reel], connected to the cart wherein the cart is connected to an external power source [0174] understood to be the main supply network on the plane [0223]).
Regarding claim 14, Modified Kreitenberg teaches the device according to claim 11, wherein the device has a travel drive module on which the cart can be arranged and fastened (Kreitenberg, [0097-0098] teaches a modular assembly for the device, wherein the travel drive module is separable from a base module and wing assembly = understood to be fastenable).
Claim 4 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kreitenberg (US 20160375166) in view of Johnson (US 20210354854) and Bradley (US 20200148348), as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Rosen (US 20230285618) and Taboada (US 20190134249).
Regarding claim 4, Modified Kreitenberg teaches the device according to claim 1, but does not teach wherein the UVC light source is an excimer lamp.
Rosen teaches a sterilizing system for a mobile unit that utilizes UV-C light [abstract], wherein the light source is an excimer lamp [0035].
Rosen and Modified Kreitenberg are considered analogous to the claimed invention since both are drawn to sterilizing systems. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to substitute the UVC light source as taught by modified Kreitenberg to include the excimer lamp as taught by Rosen since they are both recognized as equivalents structures (UV light sources) for performing the same purpose (sterilization) which has already been found to be obvious. See MPEP 2144.06 (II).
Claim(s) 5-7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kreitenberg (US 20160375166) in view of Johnson (US 20210354854) and Bradley (US 20200148348), as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Shao (CN 111214680).
Regarding claim 5, Modified Kreitenberg teaches the device according to claim 1 (Johnson, Fig. 2, UAS 110 has emitter 212 that emits UV light) but does not teach wherein the germicidal light source has two tubular illuminants arranged parallel next to each other.
Shao teaches a sterilizing aerial vehicle [abstract] comprising an ultraviolet lamp affixed to the vehicle (page 3, para 3, Fig. 1, lamp 2 affixed to vehicle 1), wherein the lamp comprises two tubular lamps arranged parallel to each other (Fig. 2, lamps 201).
Shao and Modified Kreitenberg are considered analogous to the claimed invention since both are drawn to sterilization systems. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the device as taught by Modified Kreitenberg with the tubular lamps as taught by Shao to increase the output of UV light from the drone and improve sterilization and this involves the combination of elements to yield a predictable result with a reasonable expectation of success. See MPEP 2143(I)(A)
Regarding claim 6, Modified Kreitenberg teaches the device according to claim 5, wherein two rotors of the drone are arranged on each of two opposing ends of the arrangement of the illuminants (Shao, Fig. 1, rotors 3 are arranged on two opposing ends of the illuminant arrangement 2).
Regarding claim 7, Modified Kreitenberg teaches the device according to claim 5 but does not teach that a plane defined by the two parallel, tubular illuminants is arranged tilted at an angle in the range of 5° to 45° relative to a rotor plane.
However, Shao recognizes the angle of the tubular illuminants to be a result effective variable which impacts the optimal output of UV light to be delivered to a space (page 3, para 6). Since this particular parameter is recognized as a result-effective variable (i.e. a variable which achieves a recognized result), the determination of the optimum or workable ranges of said variable can be characterized as routine experimentation. See MPEP 2144.05 (II)(A). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to position the tubular illuminants to be at an angle 5° to 45° relative to a rotor plane to optimize the output of UV light emitted.
Claim(s) 12-13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kreitenberg (US 20160375166) in view of Johnson (US 20210354854) and Bradley (US 20200148348), as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Reindle (US 20030209397).
Regarding claim 12, Modified Kreitenberg teaches the device according to claim 11, wherein the device has a coiling device for the power cable (Kreitenberg teaches a reel in para [0054], Fig. 33 = understood to be a coiling device for a power cable). However, Modified Kreitenberg does not teach wherein the coiling device is designed to pull the cart along a specified travel path by coiling the power cable.
Reindle teaches an auto-feed/rewind power cord reel device [abstract] for self-propelled robots [0002] wherein the device is designed to automatically coil and uncoil the power cord [0029-0030] to constantly manage the tension force on the cord regardless of the distance of the robot from the outlet [0003].
Reindle and Modified Kreitenberg are considered to be analogous to the claimed invention since both are drawn to systems relating to autonomous devices. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the power cord reel as taught by modified Kreitenberg with the automatic power cord reel device as taught by Reindle to prevent the sterilization device from depowering during operation since Reindle teaches the device to constantly manage the tension force on the cord regardless of the distance of the robot from the outlet [0003] and this involves the combination of elements to yield a predictable result with a reasonable expectation of success. See MPEP 2143(I)(A).
Regarding claim 13, Modified Kreitenberg teaches the device according to claim 11, wherein the device has a coiling device for the power cable (Kreitenberg teaches a reel in para 0054, Fig. 33 = understood to be a coiling device for a power cable). However, Modified Kreitenberg does not teach wherein the coiling device is wherein the electronic control for the cart is designed to coil and uncoil the power cable automatically during travel depending on a travel speed and/or travel direction.
Reindle teaches an auto-feed/rewind power cord reel device [abstract] for self-propelled robots [0002] wherein the device is designed to automatically coil and uncoil the power cord [0029-0030] to constantly manage the tension force on the cord regardless of the distance of the robot from the outlet [0003].
Reindle and Modified Kreitenberg are considered to be analogous to the claimed invention since both are drawn to systems relating to autonomous devices. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the electronic control as taught by modified Kreitenberg with the automatic power cord reel device as taught by Reindle to prevent the sterilization device from depowering during operation since Reindle teaches the device to constantly manage the tension force on the cord regardless of the distance of the robot from the outlet [0003] and this involves the combination of elements to yield a predictable result with a reasonable expectation of success. See MPEP 2143(I)(A).
Claim(s) 15 and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kreitenberg (US 20160375166) in view of Johnson (US 20210354854) and Bradley (US 20200148348), as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Wang (US 20230138192).
Regarding claim 15, Modified Kreitenberg teaches the device according to claim 14, including extendable arms being stored within the cart (Kreitenberg, [0166-0167]). Modified Kreitenberg also teaches wherein the control vehicle that the drone is tethered to is configured to transport and store the drone (Bradley, [0035]). However, Modified Kreitenberg does not explicitly teach wherein the cart has an accommodation compartment for the drone or the travel drive module can be stored within the cart.
Wang teaches a mobile robot for hospital servicing [abstract] and sterilization [0091]. Wang further teaches wherein the robot has a chassis that includes a bulky item storage compartment 132 [0100, 0102].
Wang and Modified Kreitenberg are considered analogous to the claimed invention since both are drawn to sterilizing systems. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the cart as taught by Modified Kreitenberg with the bulky item storage as taught by Wang since Modified Kreitenberg teaches the transport and store the drone in a control vehicle (Bradley, [0035]).
Regarding claim 18, Modified Kreitenberg teaches the device according to claim 14, wherein the device has a travel drive module on which the cart can be arranged and fastened (Kreitenberg, [0097-0098] teaches a modular assembly for the device, wherein the travel drive module is separable from a base module and wing assembly = understood to be fastenable). However, Modified Kreitenberg does not teach wherein the travel drive module has a crawler track.
Wang teaches a mobile robot for hospital servicing [abstract] and sterilization [0091]. Wang further teaches wherein the robot has a chassis that can be a wheel mobile structure or crawler [0100], which is understood to be a crawler track.
Wang and Modified Kreitenberg are considered analogous to the claimed invention since both are drawn to sterilizing systems. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to substitute the wheel assembly as taught by Modified Kreitenberg with the crawler track as taught by Wang since they are understood to be equivalent structures for performing the same function (driving a mobile structure) and this involves the substitution of parts to yield a predictable result. See MPEP 2143 (I)(B) and MPEP 2144.06 (II).
Claim 16 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kreitenberg (US 20160375166) in view of Johnson (US 20210354854) and Bradley (US 20200148348), as applied to claim 3 above, and further in view of Rosen (US 20230285618).
Regarding claim 3, Modified Kreitenberg teaches the device according to claim 3 wherein the germicidal light source is a UVC light source (Kreitenber, [0149]) but does not teach wherein the germicidal light source has a maximum intensity in the wavelength range from 240 nm to 100 nm.
Rosen teaches a sterilizing system for a mobile unit that utilizes UV-C light [abstract], wherein the mobile unit is a drone (Fig. 12, mobile unit 202) comprising a UVC lamp 208 configured to emit far-UVC light [0070] with a wavelength of 200-230 nm [0004].
Rosen and Modified Kreitenberg are considered analogous to the claimed invention since both are drawn to sterilizing systems. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the UVC light source as taught by modified Kreitenberg to emit within the wavelength of 200-230 nm as taught by Rosen since Rosen teaches the wavelength to prevent damage to human tissue [0004] and this involves the combination of elements to yield a predictable result with a reasonable expectation of success. See MPEP 2143(I)(A)
Claim 17 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kreitenberg (US 20160375166) in view of Johnson (US 20210354854), Bradley (US 20200148348) and Rosen (US 20230285618), as applied to claim 4 above, and further in view of Taboada (US 20190134249).
Regarding claim 17, Modified Kreitenberg teaches the device according to claim 4, wherein the UV-C light source is an excimer lamp (Rosen, [0035]) but does not teach wherein the excimer lamp is a krypton chloride excimer lamp.
Taboada teaches [0024] far-UVC lamp can be a krypton-chlorine excimer lamp which emits at 222 nm.
Taboada and Modified Kreitenberg are considered analogous to the claimed invention since both are drawn to sterilizing systems. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to substitute the UVC light source as taught by modified Kreitenberg to include the krypton chloride lamp as taught by Taboada since they are both recognized as equivalents structures (UV light sources) for performing the same purpose (sterilization) which has already been found to be obvious. See MPEP 2144.06 (II).
Response to Arguments
In the arguments presented on pages 8-10 of the amendment, filed 2/17/2026, the Applicant argues none of Kreitenberg, Johnson, or Bradley teach a drone configured to move laterally relative to a path established by a ground vehicle operating within an interior space with respect to the rejection(s) of claim(s) 1 under 35 U.S.C. 103.
This argument has been fully considered and is unpersuasive. Therefore, the rejection has been maintained. The Examiner respectfully asserts that the limitation “wherein the drone is configured to move laterally from the cart into an interior space adjacent the path along which the cart travels” is a recitation of the intended use of the claimed invention, which must result in a structural difference between the claimed invention and the prior art in order to patentably distinguish the claimed invention from the prior art. If the prior art structure is capable of performing the intended use, then it meets the claim. See rejection of claim 1 above.
In the arguments presented on page 10, para 1, of the amendment, filed 2/17/2026, the Applicant argues that the combination of Kreitenberg and Johnson is based on hindsight reasoning and one having ordinary skill in the art would have no motivation to combine the drone as taught by Johnson with the trolley as taught by Kreitenberg with respect to the rejection(s) of claim(s) 1 under 35 U.S.C. 103.
This argument has been fully considered and is unpersuasive. Therefore, the rejection has been maintained. The Examiner respectfully asserts that it must be recognized that any judgment on obviousness is in a sense necessarily a reconstruction based upon hindsight reasoning. But so long as it takes into account only knowledge which was within the level of ordinary skill at the time the claimed invention was made and does not include knowledge gleaned only from the applicant's disclosure, such a reconstruction is proper. See In re McLaughlin, 443 F.2d 1392, 170 USPQ 209 (CCPA 1971).
In response to Applicant’s argument that there is no teaching, suggestion, or motivation to combine the references, the Examiner recognizes that obviousness may be established by combining or modifying the teachings of the prior art to produce the claimed invention where there is some teaching, suggestion, or motivation to do so found either in the references themselves or in the knowledge generally available to one of ordinary skill in the art. See In re Fine, 837 F.2d 1071, 5 USPQ2d 1596 (Fed. Cir. 1988), In re Jones, 958 F.2d 347, 21 USPQ2d 1941 (Fed. Cir. 1992), and KSR International Co. v. Teleflex, Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 82 USPQ2d 1385 (2007). In this case, KSR Rationale A (Combining prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results), was relied upon to make the rejection. See MPEP 2143(I)(A)
The drone as taught by Johnson was combined with the trolley as taught by Kreitenberg to yield a predictable result (enhanced sterilization), since the drone is capable of emitting UV light from an aerial angle not taught by Kreitenberg. The combination of ultraviolet light emitted from both the drone and the trolley would yield improved sterilization as a greater surface area of the aisles within an aircraft cabin would be reached by sterilizing UV light. Thus, the Examiner respectfully asserts the combination as obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art and proper.
In the arguments presented on page 10, para 2, of the amendment, filed 2/17/2026, the Applicant argues that having ordinary skill in the art would have no motivation to replace the arms of the as taught by Kreitenberg with the drone as taught by Johnson with the trolley with respect to the rejection(s) of claim(s) 1 under 35 U.S.C. 103.
This argument has been fully considered and is unpersuasive. Therefore, the rejection has been maintained. The Examiner respectfully asserts that the arms as taught by Kreitenberg was not replaced by the drone as taught by Johnson. KSR Rationale A (Combining prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results), was relied upon to make the rejection. One having ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to combine the disclosures of Kreitenberg and Johnson to improve sterilization since the combination of ultraviolet light emitted from both the drone and the trolley would cover a greater surface area of the aisles within an aircraft cabin with UV light. Thus, the Examiner respectfully maintains the combination as obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art and proper. See MPEP 2143(I)(A).
In the arguments presented on page 10, para 3, of the amendment, filed 2/17/2026, the Applicant argues that Bradley teaches a stationary vehicle tethered to a drone not an autonomously moving vehicle tethered to a drone that simultaneously moves in an independent direction with respect to the rejection(s) of claim(s) 1 under 35 U.S.C. 103.
This argument has been fully considered and is unpersuasive. Therefore, the rejection has been maintained. The Examiner respectfully asserts that 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). The disclosure of Bradley was relied upon for the tether that enables the drone to fly for an indefinite period and to follow a control vehicle. See rejection of claim 1 above.
Conclusion
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.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to NEBYATE S SEGED whose telephone number is (703)756-4611. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 7:30-5:00 pm (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, 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.
/N.S.S./Examiner, Art Unit 1758
/MARIS R KESSEL/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1758