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 10 March 2023, 3 May 2023, and 14 September 2023 are being considered by the examiner.
Specification
4. The disclosure is objected to because of the following informalities:
In par 0033, “distal end portions 31a and 31a” should read --distal end portions 31a and 31b-- in both instances.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Objections
5. Claim 1 is objected to because of the following informalities: in the eighth line, the limitation “the rotation caused by the horizontal angle adjustment unit and/or the vertical angle adjustment unit” should read --the rotation caused by the horizontal angle adjustment unit and/or the rotation caused by the vertical angle adjustment unit--, for clarity that the controller treats the two adjustment units in the same manner.
6. Claim 7 is objected to because of the following informalities: in the ninth line, “irradiating of the target” should read --irradiating the target--.
7. Claim 8 is objected to because of the following informalities: in the ninth line, “irradiating of the target” should read --irradiating the target--.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Interpretation
8. 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.
9. 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.
10. 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: “horizontal angle adjustment unit” and “vertical angle adjustment unit” in claim 1, which each correspond to a motor for rotating the light source (Specification pars 0033-0034) and equivalents thereof.
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.
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
11. 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.
12. Claims 5 and 7 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.
13. The term “high sterilization effect” in claim 5 is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “high sterilization effect” is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention. The specification does disclose that “wavelengths exceeding 230 nm” are considered to have a high sterilization effect (par 0059) but also that wavelengths from 190 nm to 230 nm can safely perform sterilization (par 0049). As it not clear what wavelengths may be included due to the undefined standard of high sterilization, these ranges are not construed to strictly limit the present claim, and for the purposes of examination, a broad wavelength range including UV wavelengths in considered to read upon this limitation.
14. Claim 7 recites, “a controller configured to perform for a light source…a horizontal angle adjustment unit…and/or a vertical angle adjustment unit…”. It is unclear what is meant by “perform for” in the claimed context. Further, the claim lacks a transitional phrase to clearly delineate the preamble from the body of the claim. See MPEP 2111.02 and 2111.03. For these reasons, the claim scope is indefinite. The claim will be interpreted to comprise the structure of the controller of claim 1. Examiner recommends revising the claim to recite “a controller configured to…” followed by the necessary functional limitations and structural dependencies.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
15. 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.
16. Claim 2 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. The claim recites a that the controller captures the target in the camera image “based on an artificial intelligence or deep learning based learned model”. 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 limitation of “an artificial intelligence or deep learning based learned model” qualifies as an abstract idea because software expressed as code or a set of instructions detached from any medium is an idea without physical embodiment. See Microsoft Corp. v. AT&T Corp., 550 U.S. 437, 449, 82 USPQ2d 1400, 1407 (2007); see also Benson, 409 U.S. 67, 175 USPQ2d 675 (An "idea" is not patent eligible), MPEP 2106.03(I). Accordingly, the claims recite abstract ideas (Step 2A, Prong 1: Yes). For the purposes of analysis, instances of a judicial exception are treated together in accordance with MPEP 2106.04(II)(B).
17. 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 controller uses the artificial intelligence or deep learning based learned model to capture a target in the camera image, but this use is stated with a high degree of generality (“based on”) and would be considered generally linking the abstract idea to the field of endeavor and not a particular practical application. See MPEP 2106.05(h). Further, the claim language fails to recite details of how a solution to a problem is accomplished using the artificial intelligence algorithm/neural network, simply amounting to a recitation of the words “apply it” to the stated control problem. See MPEP 2106.05(f). Examiner notes that simply adding computer components after the fact to an abstract idea does not integrate a judicial exception into a practical application or provide significantly more. Furthermore, the relevant paragraphs of the Specification (pars 0046 and 0063) do not provide a technical explanation of any asserted improvement is present in the specification, thus the claim does not recite any elements that meet the standard of reflecting an improvement to technology. See MPEP 2106.04(d)(1).
18. The claim does not recite additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because all elements are well-understood, routine and conventional within the UV disinfection arts. (Step 2B: No). See MPEP 2106.05(h). The controller and UV lighting system appear to be conventional, as Lloyd (US 20170246329 A1) teaches a similar control device that performs image analysis and directs rotation of a light source to illuminate an identified target along a path (see pars 0058-0060 and 0064, FIGS. 6 and 15). Therefore, the claims do not amount to significantly more than the judicial exception itself and, as such, are not patent eligible.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
19. 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.
20. Claims 1, 4, 5, 7, and 8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Lloyd (US 20170246329 A1).
21. Regarding claim 1, Lloyd discloses a sterilization system (system for disinfecting an area, Abstract, pars 0058-0060, FIGS. 3 and 6-9) comprising:
a light source unit configured to emit ultraviolet rays in a radiating form (germicidal radiation emitters 20 may emit continuous UV radiation, par 0068, FIG. 6);
a horizontal angle adjustment unit configured to adjust a horizontal angle of the light source unit by causing rotation of the light source unit in a horizontal direction (rotating disc 91 is electromechanically controlled and can be rotated freely and rapidly in either direction around its horizontal axis, par 0097, FIG. 6); and/or
a vertical angle adjustment unit configured to adjust a vertical angle of the light source unit by causing rotation of the light source unit in a vertical direction (base 90 is electromechanically controlled and able to rotate freely and rapidly around its vertical axis in either direction, par 0097, FIG. 6); and
a controller (processing circuitry 51 controls germicidal radiation emitter and image capture/analysis functions, pars 0058-0060) configured to capture a target of sterilization in a camera image (computer analysis of the image by a computing device 50 that includes processing circuitry 51 will determine where a person in the environment 100 is located, par 0060, wherein the target is the environment), control the rotation caused by the horizontal angle adjustment unit and/or the vertical angle adjustment unit (control of the direction of the radiation is provided by both the moving head 90 as well as the laser scanner 92, each of which are controlled by the processing circuitry 51, par 0097), and irradiate the target with the ultraviolet rays from the light source unit (processing circuitry directs the radiation to areas and surfaces in the environment that do not contain unprotected skin of persons, par 0060), wherein the controller stores a movement path of the target (path that the processing circuitry 51 might choose for decontaminating the image is most efficient manner, par 0124; FIG. 15, path e.g. 1a to 1b is complex therefore would be stored in working memory, pars 0151-0152) and irradiates the movement path with the ultraviolet rays from the light source unit (pathway for decontaminating the environment with direction controlled germicidal radiation, par 0121).
22. Regarding claim 4, Lloyd discloses the sterilization system according to claim 1, wherein when the target is a person or a pet (emitter 20 projects radiation in direction of persons, par 0097), a wavelength not affecting the human body is used for the ultraviolet rays from the light source unit (excimer lasers e.g. ArF at 193 nm and KrCl at 222 nm could be used for the emitter 20, par 0071). Both of these excimer light source options disclosed by Lloyd are in the range presented in the present specification as safe for the human body, 190 nm to 230 nm (Specification par 0049), thus the structure of the system of Lloyd reads upon the limitation wherein “a wavelength not affecting the human body is used”.
23. Regarding claim 5, Lloyd discloses the sterilization system according to claim 1, wherein for the ultraviolet rays from the light source unit, a wavelength providing a high sterilization effect is used without influence on the human body (excimer lasers e.g. ArF at 193 nm and KrCl at 222 nm could be used for the emitter 20, par 0071; germicidal UV-C radiation with a wavelength of between 180-280 nm has been found to be particularly effective, pars 0003 and 0067). Both of these excimer light source options disclosed by Lloyd are in the range presented in the present specification as safe for the human body, 190 nm to 230 nm (Specification par 0049), thus the structure of the system of Lloyd reads wherein “a wavelength is used without influence on the human body”.
24. Regarding claim 7, Lloyd discloses a controller configured to perform for (processing circuitry 51 controls germicidal radiation emitter and image capture/analysis functions, pars 0058-0060) a light source unit configured to emit ultraviolet rays in a radiating form (germicidal radiation emitters 20 may emit continuous UV radiation, par 0068, FIG. 6), and a horizontal angle adjustment unit configured to adjust a horizontal angle of the light source unit by causing rotation of the light source unit in a horizontal direction (rotating disc 91 is electromechanically controlled and can be rotated freely and rapidly in either direction around its horizontal axis, par 0097, FIG. 6), and/or a vertical angle adjustment unit configured to adjust a vertical angle of the light source unit by causing rotation of the light source unit in a vertical direction (base 90 is electromechanically controlled and able to rotate freely and rapidly around its vertical axis in either direction, par 0097, FIG. 6),
capturing of a target of sterilization in a camera image (computer analysis of the image by a computing device 50 that includes processing circuitry 51 will determine where a person in the environment 100 is located, par 0060, wherein the target is the environment), controlling of the rotation caused by the horizontal angle adjustment unit and/or the vertical angle adjustment unit (control of the direction of the radiation is provided by both the moving head 90 as well as the laser scanner 92, each of which are controlled by the processing circuitry 51, par 0097), and irradiating of the target with the ultraviolet rays from the light source unit (processing circuitry directs the radiation to areas and surfaces in the environment that do not contain unprotected skin of persons, par 0060), and
storing of a movement path of the target (path that the processing circuitry 51 might choose for decontaminating the image is most efficient manner, par 0124; FIG. 15, path e.g. 1a to 1b is complex therefore would be stored in working memory, pars 0151-0152) and irradiating of the movement path with the ultraviolet rays from the light source unit (pathway for decontaminating the environment with direction controlled germicidal radiation, par 0121).
25. Regarding claim 8, Lloyd discloses a control method (method of disinfecting an environment, par 0034) comprising, by a computer, executing for (automated computer analysis of an image…enable the computer to control the direction and intensity of radiation by the emitter, par 0059) a light source unit configured to emit ultraviolet rays in a radiating form (germicidal radiation emitters 20 may emit continuous UV radiation, par 0068, FIG. 6), and a horizontal angle adjustment unit configured to adjust a horizontal angle of the light source unit by causing rotation of the light source unit in a horizontal direction (rotating disc 91 is electromechanically controlled and can be rotated freely and rapidly in either direction around its horizontal axis, par 0097, FIG. 6), and/or a vertical angle adjustment unit configured to adjust a vertical angle of the light source unit by causing rotation of the light source unit in a vertical direction (base 90 is electromechanically controlled and able to rotate freely and rapidly around its vertical axis in either direction, par 0097, FIG. 6),
capturing of a target of sterilization in a camera image (computer analysis of the image by a computing device 50 that includes processing circuitry 51 will determine where a person in the environment 100 is located, par 0060, wherein the target is the environment), controlling of the rotation caused by the horizontal angle adjustment unit and/or the vertical angle adjustment unit (control of the direction of the radiation is provided by both the moving head 90 as well as the laser scanner 92, each of which are controlled by the processing circuitry 51, par 0097), and irradiating of the target with the ultraviolet rays from the light source unit (processing circuitry directs the radiation to areas and surfaces in the environment that do not contain unprotected skin of persons, par 0060), and
storing of a movement path of the target (path that the processing circuitry 51 might choose for decontaminating the image is most efficient manner, par 0124; FIG. 15, path e.g. 1a to 1b is complex therefore would be stored in working memory, pars 0151-0152) and irradiating of the movement path with the ultraviolet rays from the light source unit (pathway for decontaminating the environment with direction controlled germicidal radiation, par 0121).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
26. 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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
27. Claim 2 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lloyd (US 20170246329 A1) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Dijkstra et al (US 20200101183 A1).
Regarding claim 2, Lloyd discloses the sterilization system according to claim 1, wherein the controller captures the target in the camera image (computer analysis of the image by a computing device 50 that includes processing circuitry 51 will determine where a person in the environment 100 is located, par 0060, wherein the target is the environment, see discussion of claim 1 above). Although Lloyd discloses that this image analysis is successfully accomplished using processing circuitry that comprises discrete logic circuits and other programming that can execute learned instructions (par 0152), Lloyd does not specifically teach that this occurs based on an artificial intelligence or deep learning based learned model.
Dijkstra teaches an analogous UV illumination device for sterilizing an area (Abstract, pars 0013-0020, FIGS. 4 and 8) wherein a camera unit scans at least one item in the area and a control unit can identify the item using an artificial intelligence module and a machine learning module (pars 0023 and 0075), then directs the light projection unit to project a UV light beam on the identified target (par 0052). This artificial intelligence image analysis is taught as advantageous as it offers the capability to distinguish between types of target items, preventing unrecognized items from unwanted radiation (par 0052).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to further configure the controller of Lloyd to capture the target from the image based on an artificial intelligence or deep learning based model as taught by Dijkstra. Doing so would predictably provide the same advantages taught by Dijkstra, namely a capability to suitably differentiate targets from non-targets and direct the UV light beam on the targets.
Double Patenting
28. The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a nonstatutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13.
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer.
29. Claims 1, 4, and 5 are provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 1 of copending Application No. 18/044,816 in view of Lloyd (US 20170246329 A1).
Present
Application No. 18/044,816
1. A sterilization system comprising:
a light source unit configured to emit ultraviolet rays in a radiating form;
a horizontal angle adjustment unit configured to adjust a horizontal angle of the light source unit by causing rotation of the light source unit in a horizontal direction; and/or
a vertical angle adjustment unit configured to adjust a vertical angle of the light source unit by causing rotation of the light source unit in a vertical direction; and
a controller configured to capture a target of sterilization in a camera image, control the rotation caused by the horizontal angle adjustment unit and/or the vertical angle adjustment unit, and irradiate the target with the ultraviolet rays from the light source unit, wherein the controller stores a movement path of the target and irradiates the movement path with the ultraviolet rays from the light source unit.
1. A sterilization system comprising:
a light source unit configured to emit ultraviolet rays in a radiating form;
a horizontal angle adjustment unit configured to adjust a horizontal angle of the light source unit by causing rotation of the light source unit in a horizontal direction; and/or
a vertical angle adjustment unit configured to adjust a vertical angle of the light source unit by causing rotation of the light source unit in a vertical direction;
and
a controller configured to, when setting a position or a range automatically irradiated with the ultraviolet rays, receive a marker signal transmitted from a marker operated by a user, via a marker sensor, control rotation of the horizontal angle adjustment unit and/or the vertical angle adjustment unit to direct an optical axis of the light source unit to the marker, and store a horizontal angle and/or a vertical angle of the light source unit as setting information on the position or the range automatically irradiated with the ultraviolet rays, in response to a setting request for setting the position or the range from the user.
30. Regarding claim 1, the reference application discloses the limitations in bold. Further, the limitation wherein the controller is configured to irradiate the target with the ultraviolet rays from the light source unit is read upon by the reference application, “direct an optical axis of the light source unit to the marker”.
The reference application fails to recite wherein the controller is configured to capture a target of sterilization in a camera image, store a movement path of the target, and irradiate the movement path with ultraviolet rays from the light source unit. The reference application does “store a horizontal angle and/or a vertical angle of the light source unit as setting information on the position or the range automatically irradiated with the ultraviolet rays”, which at least motivates the storage of a path, a path comprising a range of angles automatically irradiated in the present claims.
Lloyd teaches an analogous UV sterilization system (Abstract, pars 0058-0060, FIGS. 3 and 6-9) wherein a controller is configured to capture a target of sterilization in a camera image (computer analysis of the image by a computing device 50 that includes processing circuitry 51 will determine where a person in the environment 100 is located, par 0060, wherein the target is the environment), to control the rotation caused by the horizontal angle adjustment unit and/or the vertical angle adjustment unit (control of the direction of the radiation is provided by both the moving head 90 as well as the laser scanner 92, each of which are controlled by the processing circuitry 51, par 0097), and irradiate the target with the ultraviolet rays from the light source unit (processing circuitry directs the radiation to areas and surfaces in the environment that do not contain unprotected skin of persons, par 0060), wherein the controller stores a movement path of the target (path that the processing circuitry 51 might choose for decontaminating the image is most efficient manner, par 0124; FIG. 15, path e.g. 1a to 1b is complex therefore would be stored in working memory, pars 0151-0152) and irradiates the movement path with the ultraviolet rays from the light source unit (pathway for decontaminating the environment with direction controlled germicidal radiation, par 0121).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to replace the marker mechanism of the present claim with an image analysis routine wherein the controller captures the target by image analysis then stores a movement path based on the image as taught by Lloyd. Doing so would predictably provide effective tracking of an object/target in the space, enabling selective irradiation of a path within the space without the need for a marker.
31. Regarding claim 4, the reference application does not recite wherein when the target is a person or a pet, a wavelength not affecting the human body is used for the ultraviolet rays from the light source unit. Lloyd discloses wherein when the target is a person or a pet (emitter 20 projects radiation in direction of persons, par 0097), a wavelength not affecting the human body is used for the ultraviolet rays from the light source unit (excimer lasers e.g. ArF at 193 nm, KrCl at 222 nm, He-Ag+ at 224.3 nm could be used for the emitter 20, par 0071). While Lloyd does not disclose “a wavelength not affecting the human body”, both of these light source options are in the range presented in the present specification as safe for the human body, 190 nm to 230 nm (Specification par 0049), thus the structure of the system of Lloyd reads upon the claim.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to choose for the ultraviolet rays in the reference invention a wavelength not affecting the human body such as 193 nm, 222 nm, or 224.3 nm as taught by Lloyd. Doing so would predictably provide effective sterilization, as Lloyd teaches that these wavelengths have germicidal properties (par 0071).
32. Regarding claim 5, Lloyd discloses the sterilization system according to claim 1, wherein for the ultraviolet rays from the light source unit, a wavelength providing a high sterilization effect is used without influence on the human body (excimer lasers e.g. ArF at 193 nm and KrCl at 222 nm could be used for the emitter 20, par 0071; germicidal UV-C radiation with a wavelength of between 180-280 nm has been found to be particularly effective, pars 0003 and 0067). While Lloyd does not disclose “a wavelength not affecting the human body”, both of these light source options are in the range presented in the present specification as safe for the human body, 190 nm to 230 nm (Specification par 0049), thus the structure of the system of Lloyd reads upon the claim.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to choose for the ultraviolet rays in the reference invention a wavelength not affecting the human body such as 193 nm, 222 nm, or 224.3 nm as taught by Lloyd. Doing so would predictably provide effective sterilization, as Lloyd teaches that these wavelengths have germicidal properties (par 0071).
33. Claim 2 is provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 1 of copending Application No. 18/044,816 in view of Lloyd (US 20170246329 A1) and Dijkstra et al (US 20200101183 A1).
Regarding claim 2, the reference patent as modified by Lloyd above discloses the sterilization system according to claim 1, wherein the controller captures the target in the camera image (computer analysis of the image by a computing device 50 that includes processing circuitry 51 will determine where a person in the environment 100 is located, Lloyd par 0060, wherein the target is the environment). The combination does not teach that this occurs based on an artificial intelligence or deep learning based learned model.
Dijkstra teaches an analogous UV illumination device for sterilizing an area (Abstract, pars 0013-0020, FIGS. 4 and 8) wherein a camera unit scans at least one item in the area and a control unit can identify the item using an artificial intelligence module and a machine learning module (pars 0023 and 0075), then directs the light projection unit to project a UV light beam on the identified target (par 0052). This artificial intelligence image analysis is taught as advantageous as it offers the capability to distinguish between types of target items, preventing unrecognized items from unwanted radiation (par 0052).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to further configure the controller of the reference invention to capture the target from the image based on an artificial intelligence or deep learning based model as taught by Dijkstra. Doing so would predictably provide the same advantages taught by Dijkstra, namely a capability to suitably differentiate targets from non-targets and direct the UV light beam on the targets.
34. Claim 7 is provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 6 of copending Application No. 18/044,816 in view of Lloyd (US 20170246329 A1).
Present
Application No. 18/044,816
7. A controller configured to perform for a light source unit configured to emit ultraviolet rays in a radiating form, and a horizontal angle adjustment unit configured to adjust a horizontal angle of the light source unit by causing rotation of the light source unit in a horizontal direction, and/or a vertical angle adjustment unit configured to adjust a vertical angle of the light source unit by causing rotation of the light source unit in a vertical direction,
capturing of a target of sterilization in a camera image,
controlling of the rotation caused by the horizontal angle adjustment unit and/or the vertical angle adjustment unit, and
irradiating of the target with the ultraviolet rays from the light source unit, and
storing of a movement path of the target and irradiating of the movement path with the ultraviolet rays from the light source unit.
6. A controller configured to perform for a light source unit configured to emit ultraviolet rays in a radiating form, and a horizontal angle adjustment unit configured to adjust a horizontal angle of the light source unit by causing rotation of the light source unit in a horizontal direction, and/or a vertical angle adjustment unit configured to adjust a vertical angle of the light source unit by causing rotation of the light source unit in a vertical direction,
when setting a position or a range automatically irradiated with the ultraviolet rays,
receiving of a marker signal transmitted from a marker operated by a user, via a marker sensor,
controlling of rotation of the horizontal angle adjustment unit and/or the vertical angle adjustment unit to direct an optical axis of the light source unit to the marker, and
storing of a horizontal angle and/or a vertical angle of the light source unit as setting information on the position or the range automatically irradiated with the ultraviolet rays, in response to a position setting request for setting the position or the range from the user.
35. Regarding claim 7, the reference application discloses the limitations in bold. Further, the limitation wherein the controller is configured to irradiate the target with the ultraviolet rays from the light source unit is read upon by the reference application, “direct an optical axis of the light source unit to the marker”.
The reference application fails to recite wherein the controller is configured to capture a target of sterilization in a camera image, store a movement path of the target, and irradiate the movement path with ultraviolet rays from the light source unit. The reference application does “store a horizontal angle and/or a vertical angle of the light source unit as setting information on the position or the range automatically irradiated with the ultraviolet rays”, which at least motivates the storage of a path, a path comprising a range of angles automatically irradiated in the present claims.
Lloyd teaches an analogous UV sterilization system (Abstract, pars 0058-0060, FIGS. 3 and 6-9) wherein a controller is configured to capture a target of sterilization in a camera image (computer analysis of the image by a computing device 50 that includes processing circuitry 51 will determine where a person in the environment 100 is located, par 0060, wherein the target is the environment), to control the rotation caused by the horizontal angle adjustment unit and/or the vertical angle adjustment unit (control of the direction of the radiation is provided by both the moving head 90 as well as the laser scanner 92, each of which are controlled by the processing circuitry 51, par 0097), and irradiate the target with the ultraviolet rays from the light source unit (processing circuitry directs the radiation to areas and surfaces in the environment that do not contain unprotected skin of persons, par 0060), wherein the controller stores a movement path of the target (path that the processing circuitry 51 might choose for decontaminating the image is most efficient manner, par 0124; FIG. 15, path e.g. 1a to 1b is complex therefore would be stored in working memory, pars 0151-0152) and irradiates the movement path with the ultraviolet rays from the light source unit (pathway for decontaminating the environment with direction controlled germicidal radiation, par 0121).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to replace the marker mechanism of the present claim with an image analysis routine wherein the controller captures the target by image analysis then stores a movement path based on the image as taught by Lloyd. Doing so would predictably provide effective tracking of an object/target in the space, enabling selective irradiation of a path within the space without the need for a marker.
36. Claim 8 is provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 7 of copending Application No. 18/044,816 in view of Lloyd (US 20170246329 A1).
Present
Application No. 18/044,816
8. A control method comprising, by a computer, executing for a light source unit configured to emit ultraviolet rays in a radiating form, and a horizontal angle adjustment unit configured to adjust a horizontal angle of the light source unit by causing rotation of the light source unit in a horizontal direction, and/or a vertical angle adjustment unit configured to adjust a vertical angle of the light source unit by causing rotation of the light source unit in a vertical direction,
capturing of a target of sterilization in a camera image,
controlling of the rotation caused by the horizontal angle adjustment unit and/or the vertical angle adjustment unit, and
irradiating of the target with the ultraviolet rays from the light source unit, and
storing of a movement path of the target and irradiating of the movement path with the ultraviolet rays from the light source unit.
7. A control method comprising, by a computer, executing, for a light source unit configured to emit ultraviolet rays in a radiating form, and a horizontal angle adjustment unit configured to adjust a horizontal angle of the light source unit by causing rotation of the light source unit in a horizontal direction, and/or a vertical angle adjustment unit configured to adjust a vertical angle of the light source unit by causing rotation of the light source unit in a vertical direction,
when setting a position or a range automatically irradiated with the ultraviolet rays,
receiving of a marker signal transmitted from a marker operated by a user, via a marker sensor,
controlling of rotation of the horizontal angle adjustment unit and/or the vertical angle adjustment unit to direct an optical axis of the light source unit to the marker, and
storing of a horizontal angle and/or a vertical angle of the light source unit as setting information on the position or the range automatically irradiated with the ultraviolet rays, in response to a position setting request for setting the position or the range from the user.
37. Regarding claim 8, the reference application discloses the limitations in bold. Further, the limitation wherein the controller is configured to irradiate the target with the ultraviolet rays from the light source unit is read upon by the reference application, “direct an optical axis of the light source unit to the marker”.
The reference application fails to recite wherein the controller is configured to capture a target of sterilization in a camera image, store a movement path of the target, and irradiate the movement path with ultraviolet rays from the light source unit. The reference application does “store a horizontal angle and/or a vertical angle of the light source unit as setting information on the position or the range automatically irradiated with the ultraviolet rays”, which at least motivates the storage of a path, a path comprising a range of angles automatically irradiated in the present claims.
Lloyd teaches an analogous UV sterilization system (Abstract, pars 0058-0060, FIGS. 3 and 6-9) wherein a controller is configured to capture a target of sterilization in a camera image (computer analysis of the image by a computing device 50 that includes processing circuitry 51 will determine where a person in the environment 100 is located, par 0060, wherein the target is the environment), to control the rotation caused by the horizontal angle adjustment unit and/or the vertical angle adjustment unit (control of the direction of the radiation is provided by both the moving head 90 as well as the laser scanner 92, each of which are controlled by the processing circuitry 51, par 0097), and irradiate the target with the ultraviolet rays from the light source unit (processing circuitry directs the radiation to areas and surfaces in the environment that do not contain unprotected skin of persons, par 0060), wherein the controller stores a movement path of the target (path that the processing circuitry 51 might choose for decontaminating the image is most efficient manner, par 0124; FIG. 15, path e.g. 1a to 1b is complex therefore would be stored in working memory, pars 0151-0152) and irradiates the movement path with the ultraviolet rays from the light source unit (pathway for decontaminating the environment with direction controlled germicidal radiation, par 0121).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to replace the marker mechanism of the present claim with an image analysis routine wherein the controller captures the target by image analysis then stores a movement path based on the image as taught by Lloyd. Doing so would predictably provide effective tracking of an object/target in the space, enabling selective irradiation of a path within the space without the need for a marker.
38. This is a provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejection.
Conclusion
39. The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Latif et al (US 20200282087 A1) teaches an analogous sanitizing light system (pars 0024-0028, FIGS. 1-6) wherein a camera system can track a user in conjunction with artificial intelligence (par 0047) then adjust the light source using a rotating robotic gantry (par 0027) based on position and velocity of a user (par 0047).
40. 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 ques