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 .
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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 12 February 2026 has been entered.
Response to Amendment
Claim amendments filed 12 February 2026 are acknowledged. Claims 1-5, 7-19 and 21 are pending with claims 6 and 20 being cancelled.
The cancellation of claim 6 results in any and all rejections directed at claim 6 to be withdrawn.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, see section 3 of the applicant’s response, filed 12 February 2026, with respect to the rejections of claims 1, 19, and 21 under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) have been fully considered and are persuasive. Therefore, the rejection has been withdrawn. However, upon further consideration, new grounds of rejection are made in view of 35 U.S.C. 103 with respect to Benner and Ufkes (US 20200206375 A1).
The addition of the limitations “at the controller, monitor an amount of time that the light source has been emitting the far-UVC light; and at the controller, calculate an effective disinfection rate of the far-UVC light based on the monitored amount of time” is sufficient to overcome the 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) rejection with respect to Benner. However, Ufkes teaches that the UV dose is the product of UV intensity and exposure time (paragraph [0003]), the controller is configured to calculate a radiation dose according to the kinetic model (paragraph [0070]), and shows examples of measuring the amount of time require to reach the effective kill dosage of radiation (Figures 6 and 13B). Therefore, a combination of Benner and Ufkes would render the current invention obvious.
Following the above the 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) rejections of claims 2-3, 7, 9-17, 19, and 21 are withdrawn. However, upon further consideration, new grounds of rejection are made in view of 35 U.S.C. 103 with respect to Benner in view of Ufkes.
Additionally, the 35 U.S.C. 103 rejections of claims 8 and 18 with respect to Benner are withdrawn. However, upon further consideration, new grounds of rejection are made in view of 35 U.S.C. 103 with respect to Benner in view of Ufkes.
The U.S.C. 103 rejections of claims 4-5 with respect to Benner in view of Gordon are withdrawn. However, upon further consideration, new grounds of rejection are made in view of 35 U.S.C. 103 with respect to Benner and Ufkes in view of Gordon.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
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.
Claims 1-3, 7-19, and 21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Benner (US 20230248862 A1) in view of Ufkes (US 20200206375 A1).
Regarding claim 1, Benner teaches a far-ultraviolet (far-UVC) disinfection device (abstract) comprising: a housing (LEDs mounted in a housing, paragraph [0044]); a light source positioned within the housing (LEDs mounted in a housing, paragraph [0044]) and configured to emit a far-UVC light having an output wavelength of between about 206 nanometers to about 230 nanometers (wavelength in the deep UVC range at about 222 nm, paragraph [0088]); one or more subject detection sensors positioned within the housing and configured to detect the presence or position of one or more subjects (light source includes an occupancy sensor, paragraph [0047]), the one or more subjects consisting of one or more of human beings, one or more domesticated animals, an one or more farm animals or a combination thereof (indicative of human occupancy in the environment, abstract); and a controller positioned within the housing and in communication with the light source and the one or more subject detection sensors (electronic typically include an electronic processor to control light source based on the occupancy sensor, paragraph [0047], and processor is integrated into the light source, paragraph [0048]), the controller configured to: receive detection data from the one or more subject detection sensors (controller collects occupancy data from the occupancy sensors, paragraph [0069]); determine, based on the received detection data, the presence or position of one or more subjects within a range of the far-UVC light emitted by the light source (distance sensor detects any object closer than the configured light source-to-head level distance, paragraph [0069]); in response to determining that the one or more subjection detection sensors detect the presence or position of the one or more subjects are within the range of the far-UVC light emitted by the light source, cause the light source to adjust emission of the far-UVC light (automatically turn off light with hazardous UV emissions, paragraph [0069]), but does not teach at the controller, monitor an amount of time that the light source has been emitting the far-UVC light; and at the controller, calculate an effective disinfection rate of the far-UVC light based on the monitored amount of time, the effective disinfection rate representing efficacy of disinfection of air and/or surfaces within the range of the emitted far-UVC light. However, Ufkes teaches at the controller, monitor an amount of time that the light source has been emitting the far-UVC light (controller has a set of instructions to measure a target dose, paragraph [0044], and Figure 6 shows measuring the amount of energy applied to the target over time to determine the target dose has been reached); and at the controller, calculate an effective disinfection rate of the far-UVC light based on the monitored amount of time, the effective disinfection rate representing efficacy of disinfection of air and/or surfaces within the range of the emitted far-UVC light (controller configured to calculate aggregate amount of radiation received by target surface and determine if radiation threshold or target dose of radiation has been delivered, paragraph [0070]).
Benner and Ufkes are considered analogous to the current invention because all are in the field of UV disinfection devices. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to combine the disinfection device taught by Benner with the controller configured to calculate effective disinfection rate taught by Ufkes because Ufkes teaches such a feature will help reduce UV overexposure to target surfaces (abstract).
Regarding claim 2, the combination of Benner and Ufkes teaches wherein the one or more subject detection sensors includes at least one of an infrared sensor, a motion sensor, and a proximity sensor (includes motion sensor or infrared motion sensor, paragraph [0047], and can include a proximity sensor, paragraph [0069], Benner).
Regarding claim 3, the combination of Benner and Ufkes teaches wherein the controller is further configured to cause the light source to cease emitting the far-UVC light prior to an exposure limit being reached for the one or more subjects being exposed to the far-UVC light emitted by the light source (if actinic does is exceeded for an individual the controller shuts off the UV sources, paragraph [0071], Benner).
Regarding claim 7, the combination of Benner and Ufkes teaches wherein the controller is configured to transmit the determined effective disinfection rate to at least one of: a smart phone, a tablet, a laptop, and a desktop computer (control input is provided via a control application running on a mobile device such as a cellular telephone, paragraph [0074], Benner), each of which being external to the far-UVC disinfection device (server computer connected with light source network via WIFI or ethernet, paragraph [0059], Benner).
Regrading claim 8, while the combination of Benner and Ufkes does not explicitly disclose wherein the one or more subject detection sensors includes two infrared sensors and four motion sensors, Benner teaches one or more occupancy sensors which can include motion and infrared sensors (paragraph [0047]). Additionally, it has been well established that the duplication of parts does not hold patentable significance unless a new or unexpected result is produced. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to duplicate the occupancy sensors to achieve the desired amount of environmental monitoring (See MPEP 2144.04 VI (C)).
Regarding claim 9, the combination of Benner and Ufkes teaches wherein the controller is configured to cause the one or more subject detection sensors to generate the detection data and transmit the detection data to the controller at a predetermined detection interval (motion sensor is monitored for a set time interval to determine if motion in the environment has ceased, paragraph [0057], Benner).
Regarding claim 10, the combination of Benner and Ufkes teaches wherein the predetermined detection interval is less than or equal to one second (time interval may be set to zero, paragraph [0057], Benner).
Regarding claim 11, the combination of Benner and Ufkes teaches wherein the controller is configured to delay causing the light source to emit the far-UVC light in response to the one or more subject detection sensors detecting no subject within the range of the far-UVC light emitted by the light source by a predetermined amount of delay time (light sources are switched back on after time interval that may be set to a value to allow for some error in occupancy sensing, paragraph [0058], Benner).
Regarding claim 12, the combination of Benner and Ufkes teaches wherein the predetermined amount of delay time is between about one second and six minutes (time interval is two minutes, paragraph [0058], Benner).
Regarding claim 13, the combination of Benner and Ufkes teaches wherein the controller is further configured to: in response to the light source emitting the far-UVC light continuously for a predetermined maximum emission amount of time, causing the light source to cease emitting the far-UVC light (light source can stay on for a predetermined time interval before triggering switch off, paragraph [0117], Benner).
Regarding claim 14, the combination of Benner and Ufkes teaches wherein the predetermined maximum emission amount of time is about sixty minutes (achieve 90% inactivation in preferably less than about one hour, paragraph [0043], Benner).
Regarding claim 15, the combination of Benner and Ufkes teaches wherein the light source is configured to emit a far-UVC light having an output wavelength of about 222 nanometers (wavelength in the deep UVC range at about 222 nm, paragraph [0088], Benner).
Regarding claim 16, the combination of Benner and Ufkes teaches wherein the controller is configured to cause the light source to cease emitting the far-UVC light in response to the one or more subject detection sensors detecting the presence of a subject within the range of the emitted far-UVC light for a threshold limit value (TLV) amount of time, wherein the TLV amount of time is based on the output wavelength of the emitted far-UVC light (dosimeters record when maximum UV dose has been received and controller shuts off the UV sources, paragraph [0071], and dose exposure limit is defined by intensity of the corresponding wavelength over the dose time period, paragraph [0037], Benner).
Regarding claim 17, the combination of Benner and Ufkes teaches wherein the controller is configured to cause the light source to cease emitting the far-UVC light is response to the one or more subject detection sensors detecting the presence of a subject within the predetermined distance of the light source (Figure 7 flow chart shows control where if an object is too close to the UV light “77” the UV will turn off “78”, Benner).
Regarding claim 18, while the combination of Benner and Ufkes does not explicitly teach wherein the predetermined distance is about three feet, Benner teaches the preprogrammed distance is approximately two meters or less (paragraph [0042]). Two meters or less would correspond to approximately 6.5 feet or less. In the case of overlapping ranges, there exists a case of prima facie obviousness. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to optimized the predetermined distance to about three feet to achieve the desired safety effect through routine optimization (See MPEP 2144.05 I – II (A)).
Regarding claim 19, Benner teaches a method of automatically disinfecting the air and surfaces within the range of a far-ultraviolet (far-UVC) disinfection device (abstract), the method comprising: causing a far-UVC disinfection device to emit a far-UVC light having an output wavelength of between about 206 nanometer to about 230 nanometers (LEDs mounted in a housing, paragraph [0044], and wavelength in the deep UVC range at about 222 nm, paragraph [0088]), the far-UVC disinfection device including: a far-UVC light source configured to emit the far-UVC light (light source configured to generate light in far-UV, paragraph [0088]); one or more subject detection sensors configured to detect the one or more subjects, (light source includes an occupancy sensor, paragraph [0047]), the one or more subjects consisting of one or more of human beings, one or more domesticated animals, an one or more farm animals or a combination thereof (indicative of human occupancy in the environment, abstract); and a controller in communication with the far-UVC light source and the one or more subject detection sensors and configured to selectively activate and deactivate each of the far-UVC light source and the one or more subject detection sensors (electronic typically include an electronic processor to control light source based on the occupancy sensor, paragraph [0047], and processor is integrated into the light source, paragraph [0048]); receiving, at the controller, the detection data from the one or more subject detection sensors (controller collects occupancy data from the occupancy sensors, paragraph [0069]), but does not teach at the controller, monitor an amount of time that the light source has been emitting the far-UVC light; and at the controller, calculate an effective disinfection rate of the far-UVC light based on the monitored amount of time, the effective disinfection rate representing efficacy of disinfection of air and/or surfaces within the range of the emitted far-UVC light. However, Ufkes teaches at the controller, monitor an amount of time that the light source has been emitting the far-UVC light (controller has a set of instructions to measure a target dose, paragraph [0044], and Figure 6 shows measuring the amount of energy applied to the target over time to determine the target dose has been reached); and at the controller, calculate an effective disinfection rate of the far-UVC light based on the monitored amount of time, the effective disinfection rate representing efficacy of disinfection of air and/or surfaces within the range of the emitted far-UVC light (controller configured to calculate aggregate amount of radiation received by target surface and determine if radiation threshold or target dose of radiation has been delivered, paragraph [0070]).
Benner and Ufkes are considered analogous to the current invention as discussed about. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to combine the disinfection device taught by Benner with the controller configured to calculate effective disinfection rate taught by Ufkes because Ufkes teaches such a feature will help reduce UV overexposure to target surfaces (abstract).
Regarding claim 21, Benner teaches a far-ultraviolet (far-UVC) disinfection system (abstract) comprising: a light source configured to emit a far-UVC light having an output wavelength of between about 206 nanometers to about 230 nanometers (LEDs mounted in a housing, paragraph [0044], and wavelength in the deep UVC range at about 222 nm, paragraph [0088]); one or more subject detection sensors configured to detect the presence of one or more subjects (light source includes an occupancy sensor, paragraph [0047]), the one or more subjects consisting of one or more of human beings, one or more domesticated animals, an one or more farm animals or a combination thereof (indicative of human occupancy in the environment, abstract); and a controller in communication with the light source and the one or more subject detection sensors (electronic typically include an electronic processor to control light source based on the occupancy sensor, paragraph [0047], and processor is integrated into the light source, paragraph [0048]), the controller configured to: receive detection data from the one or more subject detection sensors (controller collects occupancy data from the occupancy sensors, paragraph [0069]); determine, based on the received detection data, the presence or position of one or more subjects within a range of the far-UVC light emitted by the light source (distance sensor detects any object closer than the configured light source-to-head level distance, paragraph [0069]); in response to determining that the one or more subject detection sensors detect the presence or position of the one or more subjects are within the range of the far-UVC light emitted by the light source, cause the light source to adjust emission of the far-UVC light (automatically turn off light with hazardous UV emissions, paragraph [0069]); and in response to determine that no subject of the one or more subjects is within the range of the far-UVC light emitted by the light source, cause the light source to adjust emission of the far-UVC light (turn UV emission back on after is it detected that the object has moved away, paragraph [0069]), but does not teach at the controller, monitor an amount of time that the light source has been emitting the far-UVC light; and at the controller, calculate an effective disinfection rate of the far-UVC light based on the monitored amount of time, the effective disinfection rate representing efficacy of disinfection of air and/or surfaces within the range of the emitted far-UVC light. However, Ufkes teaches at the controller, monitor an amount of time that the light source has been emitting the far-UVC light (controller has a set of instructions to measure a target dose, paragraph [0044], and Figure 6 shows measuring the amount of energy applied to the target over time to determine the target dose has been reached); and at the controller, calculate an effective disinfection rate of the far-UVC light based on the monitored amount of time, the effective disinfection rate representing efficacy of disinfection of air and/or surfaces within the range of the emitted far-UVC light (controller configured to calculate aggregate amount of radiation received by target surface and determine if radiation threshold or target dose of radiation has been delivered, paragraph [0070]).
Claims 4-5 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Benner and Ufkes in view of Gordon (US 20170080117 A1).
Regarding claim 4, the combination of Benner and Ufkes teaches all aspects of the current invention including wherein response to the one or more subject detection sensors detecting the presence or position of a subject within range of the emitted far-UVC light, the controller is configured to cause the light source to cease emitting the far-UVC light (when motion is detected, light source is switched off, paragraph [0058], Benner), but does not teach wherein the subject is allowed exposure for between one minute to about 10 minutes. However, Gordon teaches the insertion of a hand into the device triggers a movement sensor to initiate a sanitation episode (paragraph [0076]) and that the light source would be turned on for a set period of time before being turned off (paragraph [0082]). While Gordon does not explicitly teach that the set period of time is one to ten minutes, Gordon shows that a five minute exposure time is successful is reducing pathogens by 90% (paragraph [0093]). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to optimize the exposure time to between one and ten minutes to achieve the desired sterilization effect (See MPEP 2144.05 II (A)).
Benner, Ufkes, and Gordon are considered analogous to the current invention because all are in the field of sensor controlled ultraviolet disinfection systems. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to combine the disinfection system of Benner and Ufkes with the predetermined exposure time limit taught by Gordon because Gordon teaches UV disinfection of the hands is advantageous over traditional methods as light exposure can be less damaging to the skin than soap or alcohol (paragraph [0078]).
Regarding claim 5, the combination of Benner and Ufkes teaches all aspects of the current invention including wherein response to the one or more subject detection sensors detecting the presence or position of a subject within range of the emitted far-UVC light, the controller is configured to cause the light source to cease emitting the far-UVC light (when motion is detected, light source is switched off, paragraph [0058], Benner), but does not teach wherein the subject is allowed exposure for about six minutes. However, Gordon teaches the insertion of a hand into the device triggers a movement sensor to initiate a sanitation episode (paragraph [0076]) and that the light source would be turned on for a set period of time before being turned off (paragraph [0082]). While Gordon does not explicitly teach that the set period of time is six minutes, Gordon shows that a five minute exposure time is successful is reducing pathogens by 90% (paragraph [0093]). In the case of approaching amounts, there exists a case of prima facie obviousness (MPEP 2144.05 I). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to optimize the exposure time to six minutes to achieve the desired sterilization effect (See MPEP 2144.05 II (A)).
Benner, Ufkes, and Gordon are considered analogous to the current invention as discussed above. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to combine the disinfection system of Benner and Ufkes with the predetermined exposure time limit taught by Gordon because Gordon teaches UV disinfection of the hands is advantageous over traditional methods as light exposure can be less damaging to the skin than soap or alcohol (paragraph [0078]).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to KAYLA ROSE SARANTAKOS whose telephone number is (703)756-5524. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri 7:00-4:00.
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, Michael Marcheschi can be reached at (571) 272-1374. 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.
/K.R.S./Examiner, Art Unit 1799
/DONALD R SPAMER/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1799