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 .
DETAILED ACTION
Response to Amendment
The amendment filed on 3/30/2026 has been received and claims 23, 25-27 and 29-45 are pending.
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 3/30/2026 has been entered.
Claim Objections
Claims 23, 25-27 and 29-45 are objected to because of the following informalities:
in line 15 of Claim 23, delete “another” and insert --other--;
in line 5 of Claim 35, delete “another” and insert --other--;
in line 2 of Claim 44, delete “a” before “controller” and insert --and wherein said--;
in line 3 of Claim 44,
insert --is-- before “configured”,
insert --one or more ambient or radiant heat disinfecting-- before “modules”,
delete “and one or more occupancy sensors”;
in line 1 of Claim 45, delete “heating element includes” and insert --plurality of heating elements include--.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitation(s) is/are: “disinfecting module”/”heating module”/”heating elements” in claim 23; “ambient or radiant heat disinfecting modules” in claim 44.
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof. Specifically, the corresponding structure(s) for “disinfecting module”/”heating module”/”heating elements” include wire, conductive fibers, conductive inks (e.g. carbon filled) or paste (see Specification, p. 14 [0064], and claim 45).
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
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.
Claim 44 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 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. There is no written description support of a corresponding structure for “one or more ambient or radiant heat disinfecting modules” within the Specification.
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.
Claims 36, 41 and 44 are 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.
In Claim 36, it is not clear how an occupant device in the form of “one of one or more indicator lights, [or] photoluminescent surfaces…, a personal computer” as set forth in the parent claim 35 can comprise “a ride-share application”.
In Claim 41, it is not clear how the configuration set forth in parent claim 40 where the plurality of heating elements indicated to be positioned between the cover layer and backing material can further be located in a substrate that is located below both the cover layer and the backing layer.
Claim limitation “ambient or radiant heat disinfecting modules” invokes 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. However, the written description fails to disclose the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the entire claimed function and to clearly link the structure, material, or acts to the function. Specifically, the disclosure is devoid of any corresponding structure for the ambient or radiant heat disinfecting modules in the specification. Therefore, the claim is indefinite and is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, second paragraph.
Applicant may:
(a) Amend the claim so that the claim limitation will no longer be interpreted as a limitation under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph;
(b) Amend the written description of the specification such that it expressly recites what structure, material, or acts perform the entire claimed function, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)); or
(c) Amend the written description of the specification such that it clearly links the structure, material, or acts disclosed therein to the function recited in the claim, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)).
If applicant is of the opinion that the written description of the specification already implicitly or inherently discloses the corresponding structure, material, or acts and clearly links them to the function so that one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize what structure, material, or acts perform the claimed function, applicant should clarify the record by either:
(a) Amending the written description of the specification such that it expressly recites the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function and clearly links or associates the structure, material, or acts to the claimed function, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)); or
(b) Stating on the record what the corresponding structure, material, or acts, which are implicitly or inherently set forth in the written description of the specification, perform the claimed function. For more information, see 37 CFR 1.75(d) and MPEP §§ 608.01(o) and 2181.
In addition, in Claim 44 it is not clear whether “one or more ambient or radiant heat disinfecting modules” are separate and distinct component from the plurality of heating elements.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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.
Claim(s) 23, 25-27, 29, 34, 38-42 and 44-45 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ji (KR20180113851) in view of Gutowski (20210339712).
As to Claim 23, Ji (‘851) discloses a system for disinfecting surfaces in a space (1 - i.e. within a vehicle) (see entire document, particularly Figures 3-6) comprising:
a disinfecting module (100; 100a) configured to disinfect surfaces (e.x. surfaces such as seat or door or ceiling surfaces – see English translation, p. 3 8th – 11th lines from the bottom) in the space (1);
a user device (i.e. external device - see English translation, p. 9 lines 2-5);
a controller (200) configured to provide a control signal to the disinfecting module (100; 100a) (see Figures 3(b) and 6); and
an occupancy sensor configured to detect the presence of an occupant within the space (see English translation, p. 8 – 6th – 7th lines from the bottom, p. 9 lines 10-12);
said user device wirelessly coupled to said controller (200) (see English translation, p. 9 lines 2-4), said user device being configured to provide a user input to said controller, wherein said user input causes said controller (200) to activate or deactivate the disinfecting module (100; 100a) ) (see English translation, p. 9 lines 2-5);
wherein said disinfecting module (100; 100a) comprises a heating module (110; 110a) configured to heat said surfaces and said space for disinfection, wherein the heating module (110; 110a) comprises a plurality of heating elements (2; 2a) positioned within a trim panel (10, 11 , 12, 20, 31, 32, 40, 41, 42, 43, 50) (see entire document, particularly Figures 2(a)-2(b) and 5; English translation, p. 7 line 12 to p. 8 line 19).
While Ji (‘851) does not appear to specifically teach that the user device is one of: one or more mechanical or electronic buttons or actuation points on a panel or display in said space or on an external key-FOB, a personal computer, a smart phone, a tablet, or other mobile device, it was well known in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention that an user/external device for controlling a remote device includes devices such as a personal computer, a smart phone, a tablet, or other mobile device as well as one or more mechanical or electronic buttons or actuation points on a panel or display in a space or on an external key-FOB. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide any one of one or more mechanical or electronic buttons or actuation points on a panel or display in said space or on an external key-FOB, a personal computer, a smart phone, a tablet, or other mobile device as the user/external device of Ji as a known form of a user device as an obvious engineering choice and/or as a user’s preference. Only the expected results would be attained.
In addition, it was known in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide a user/external device in the form of one of one or more mechanical or electronic buttons or actuation points on a panel or display in a space or on an external key-FOB, a personal computer, a smart phone, a tablet, or other mobile device in a disinfection system. Gutowski (‘712) discloses a system (100) for disinfecting surfaces in a space (200 - 214, 215) (see Figures 1-2) comprising:
a disinfecting module (90) configured to disinfect surfaces in the space (see entire document, particularly Figures 2-3 and 5, p. 7 [0060], p. 8 [0065], p. 9 [0068], p. 10 [0078] and [0082]);
a user device (134, 196, 724) (see entire document, particularly Figure 7, p. 8 [0067], p. 12 [0091] – lines 7-9);
a controller (700, 190) configured to provide a control signal to the disinfecting module (90) (via 212 - see Figures 2 and 7);
an occupancy sensor (216) configured to detect the presence of an occupant within the space (200 - 214, 215) (see entire document, particularly Figure 2, p. 4 [0035]);
said user device (134, 724) wirelessly (via 131) coupled to said controller (700, 190) (see entire document, particularly Figure 1-2, 4 and 7) and configured to provide a user output to said controller (700, 190) to activate or deactivate the disinfecting module (90) (see entire document, particularly Figures 1-2 and 4, p. 8 [0062], p. 12 [0091] – lines 7-9);
wherein the disinfecting module (90) comprises a heating module (90) configured to heat said surfaces and space for disinfection (see entire document, particularly Abstract, Figures 2-5 and 7, p. 1 [0007], p. 10 [0081]-[0082], p. 114 [0111]); and
wherein said user device is one of: one or more mechanical buttons on a panel or display in said space or on an external key-FOB, or a smart phone (see entire document, particularly p. 8 [0067] – lines 3-9);
in order to enable a vehicle operator/user to request a sanitization/disinfection of the surfaces (see entire document, particularly p. 8 [0067] – lines 3-9).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in this art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide one of one or more mechanical buttons on a panel or display in said space or on an external key-FOB, or a smart phone as the user device in the system of Ji as a known form of a user device in order to enable a user/vehicle operator to provide an input to the system such as to request a sanitization/disinfection of the interior as shown by Gutowski.
As to Claim 25, the heating module (100; 100’) of Ji (‘851) is configured/capable to heat the surfaces in the space (1) to a temperature and for a duration sufficient to deactivate viruses on the surfaces.
As to Claim 26, the heating module (100; 100’) of Ji (‘851) is configured/capable to heat the surfaces in the space (1) to a temperature in a range from about 50 ºC to 100 ºC for a time period in a range from about 1 minute to 20 minutes.
As to Claim 27, Ji (‘851) discloses that the space is a vehicle interior (see Figure 5) and that the heating module (100; 100’) is incorporated into various locations within the space (i.e. vehicle 1) (see English translation, p. 9 lines 17-20).
As to Claim 29, while Ji (‘851) discloses that the space (1) is an interior of a vehicle (1) (see Figure 5) and Gutowski (‘712) discloses that the user device (134, 196, 724) (see entire document, particularly p. 8 [0062] and [0064], pp. 8-9 [0067], p. 12 [0091]) comprises an application (see entire document, particularly pp. 8-9 [0067] – line 6) capable of being a ride-share application, neither Ji (“851) nor Gutowski (‘712) appear to specifically teach that the application is a ride-share application configured to provide transportation by a driver in said vehicle to one or more occupants for a subscription or service fee. However, as a ride-share application is a common application on a user/external device, it would have been well within the purview of one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention that one of the applications in the user device of Ji (‘851) as modified by Gutowski (‘712) would be include of a ride-share application. Only the expected results would be attained.
As to Claim 34, while Ji (‘851) does not appear to specifically teach that the occupancy sensor is disposed in the disinfecting module, it was known in the art to combine an occupancy sensor with a disinfection module and it would have been well within the purview of one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the occupancy sensor in the disinfecting module of Ji as a known alternate configuration as a matter of engineering choice in order to provide a simpler system for installation and use (see MPEP 2144.04(V)(B)). Only the expected results would be attained.
As to Claim 38, the surface is a vehicle interior (see Figure 5) in Ji (‘851) and said user device (i.e. external device - see English translation, p. 9 lines 2-5) is capable of receiving confirmation that the surfaces in the vehicle interior (1) is in process of being disinfected or has been disinfected.
As to Claim 39, the surface is a vehicle interior (see Figure 5) and wherein said disinfecting module (100; 100’) of Ji (‘851) is capable to selectively disinfect portions of the surfaces in said vehicle interior where occupants were located r anticipated to be located.
As to Claim 40, Ji (‘851) discloses that the trim panel (10, 11 , 12, 20, 31, 32, 40, 41, 42, 43, 50) includes a cover layer (120; 120a) and backing material (130; 130a), wherein the plurality of heating elements (2; 2a) are positioned between the cover layer (120; 120a) and the backing material (130; 130a) (see Figures 2(a)-(b)).
As to Claim 41, Ji (‘851) discloses that the trim panel (10, 11 , 12, 20, 31, 32, 40, 41, 42, 43, 50) includes a cover layer (120; 120a) and backing material (110; 110a) and a substrate (130; 130a, wherein the plurality of heating elements (2; 2a) are laminated within the substrate (130; 130a) (see Figures 2(a)-(b)).
As to Claim 42, the surfaces in said space (1) in the system of Ji (‘851) are selectively heated (via 100; 100a, and 200) (see entire document, particularly Figures 3(b) and 5-6) capable for disinfection.
As to Claim 44, Ji (‘851) discloses that the disinfecting module (100; 100a) includes at least one of one or more ambient or radiant heat disinfecting module (2) within a vehicle interior (see English translation, p. 3 line 14, p. 4 – 15th line from the bottom, p. 7 5th and 19th – 20th lines from the bottom), wherein said controller (200) is configured to control the operation of the one or more ambient or radiant heat disinfecting modules (2) (see entire document, particularly Figures 3(b) and 6; English translation, p. 3 lines 13-14).
As to Claim 45, Ji (‘851) discloses that the plurality of heating elements (2) include at least one of wire (see English translation, p. 3 line 14, p. 5 lines 6-31).
Thus, Claims 23, 25-27, 29, 34, 38-42 and 44-45 would have been obvious within the meaning of 35 U.S.C. 103 over the combined teachings of Ji (‘851) and Gutowski (‘712).
Claim(s) 30-37 and 43 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ji (KR20180113851) in view of Gutowski (20210339712) as applied to claim 23 above, and further in view of Holub (20150273092) and Shur (20180185529).
Ji (‘851) and Gutowski (‘712) are relied upon for disclosure described in the rejection of claim 23 under 35 U.S.C. 103.
As to Claim 30, neither Ji (‘851) nor Gutowski (‘712) appears to specifically teach that the disinfecting module further comprises a lighting module including at least one light source configured to emit UVC light having dominant wavelength between 200 nm and 280 nm.
It was known in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide a disinfecting module in the form of a lighting module which includes at least one U light source configured to emit UVC light. Holub (‘092) discloses a system for disinfecting surfaces in a vehicle interior (see Figures 1-7) comprising:
a disinfecting module (22, 24, 26) in the form of a lighting module (34, 94) configured to provide UVC light (72) having dominant wavelength between 200 nm and 280 nm (see entire document, particularly p. 4 [0040]) and includes at least one light source (48) (see Figures 2-3);
an occupancy sensor (184) configured to detect the presence of an occupant within the space (see Figure 6); and
a controller (172) configured to provide a signal to the disinfecting module (34, 94) (see Figure 7);
in order to disinfect an interior surface of the space (vehicle) (see entire document, particularly Figure 1, Abstract – last 3 lines, p. 1 [0004] – last 3 lines)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in this art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide a lighting module including at least one light source as a component of the disinfecting module in the system of Ji as modified by Gutowski as a known disinfecting means in order to disinfect an interior surface of a space such as a vehicle as shown by Holub.
However, Holub (‘092) does not appear to specifically teach that the at least one light source itself is configured to emit UVC light having dominant wavelength between 200 nm and 280 nm.
Shur (‘529) discloses a system (10; 100; 300; 400; 500; 600; 700) for disinfecting surfaces in a space comprising:
a disinfecting module (412 – 46A, 46B) configured to disinfect surfaces in the space;
a user device (426B; 426A; 566);
a controller (405, 420) configured to provide a control signal to the disinfecting module (412) (see Figure 9); and
an occupancy sensor (414 – 20, 22, 24)configured to detect the presence of an occupant within the space;
said user device (426B) wirelessly coupled to said controller (405, 420) (see entire document, particularly p. 5 [0052], pp. 5-6 [0053], p. 6 [0056] – last 7 lines) and configured to provide a user output to said controller (405, 420) to activate or deactivate the disinfecting module (412) (see entire document, particularly Figure 9, p. 5 [0051]-[0052]).
wherein the user device (426B; 426A; 566) in the form of a smart phone/device capable of including a ride-share application (see entire document, particularly p. 6 [0060] – lines 10-11 and 17-19) and wherein the user output is capable of being provided by the ride-share application (see entire document, particularly p. 6 [0056] – last 7 lines and [0060] – lines 15-19).
wherein the disinfecting module (12; 412, 42) comprises a lighting module (12; 44) including at least one light source (16; 46A) configured to emit UVC light having dominant wavelength between 200 nm and 280 nm (see entire document, particularly p. 2 [0029], p. 4 [0043] – lines 7-8),
in order to disinfect any surface or a liquid (see entire document, particularly pp. 4-5 [0044], p. 5 [0045]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in this art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide a lighting module including at least one UVC light source in the disinfecting module for the system of Ji as modified by Gutowski and Holub as a known alternate configuration for a lighting module in order to disinfect any surface as shown by Shur.
As to Claim 31, Shur (‘529) discloses that the lighting module (12; 44) comprises at least one ambient lighting LED (18; 48, 49) and the at least one light source (16; 46A) on a common substrate (see entire document, particularly Figures 3B-5, p. 3 [0035]).
As to Claim 32, Shur (‘529) discloses that the lighting module (12; 44) comprises the at least one light source (16, 18) and the occupancy sensor (20, 22, 24) on a common substrate (see Figure 3B).
As to Claim 33, Shur (‘529) discloses that the controller (405, 420) is configured to provide a control signal to cause the at least one light source (16, 18; 412) to emit the UVC light in response to an output of the occupancy sensor (414 – 20, 22, 24) (see Figure 9), whereby the UVC light is capable of being emitted when an output of the occupancy sensor (412 – 20, 22, 24) indicates the space is unoccupied.
As to Claim 34, Shur (‘529) discloses that the occupancy sensor (414 – 20, 22, 24) is disposed on the disinfecting module (412 – 16, 18) (see Figure 3B).
As to Claim 35, Shur (‘529) also discloses that the system (600) further comprises an occupant device (additional 426B; 426A; 566) configured to receive a notification for notifying an occupant that disinfection of the space has been completed where the occupant device is one of one or more indicator lights, or other mobile device (see entire document, particularly p. 5 [0052] – lines 8-26, p. 7 [0062] – lines 9-10).
As to Claim 36, Shur (‘529) discloses that the occupant device (additional 426B; 426A; 566) is wirelessly connected (e.x. via 562) to the system (10; 100; 300; 400; 500; 600; 700) (see entire document, particularly p. 6 [0056] – last 7 lines and [0060] – lines 15-19) and capable of including a ride-share application configured to receive said notification and to provide transportation by a driver in said vehicle to one or more occupants for a subscription or service fee (see entire document, particularly p. 6 [0060] – lines 9-11 and 19).
As to Claim 37, Shur (‘529) discloses that the notification is provided to the occupant device (i.e. 426A) from the user device (426B) or from the controller (405, 420) (see Figure 9).
As to Claim 43, said surfaces in said space (see Figure 1) of Shur (‘529) are capable of being selectively exposed to said UVC light for disinfection (see Figure 6).
Thus, Claims 30-37 and 43 would have been obvious within the meaning of 35 U.S.C. 103 over the combined teachings of Ji (‘851), Gutowski (‘712), Holub (‘092), and Shur (‘529).
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 23, 25-27 and 29-45 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on the same combination of references applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. The following references relate either to the field of the invention or subject matter of the invention, but are not relied upon in the rejection of record: WO2004040943 and 20040100131 and WO2007091538 (apparatus for heating seat(s) of a vehicle with heating elements), DE102016110547 (German equivalent to 20150273092).
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to REGINA M YOO whose telephone number is (571)272-6690. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday, 9:00 am - 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.
/REGINA M YOO/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1758
Prosecution Insights