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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 request for continued examination filed 13 May, 2026, and the associated submission filed 13 April, 2026, which includes amendments to the claims and specification, have been entered.
Response to Amendment
The amendments to the claims and specification filed 13 April, 2026, have been entered in view of the request for continued examination filed 13 May, 2026.
Claims 1, 7-13, 16, and 18-20 are amended. Claim 17 is cancelled. Claims 1-16 and 18-20 are pending and haven been fully considered.
The previously set forth objections to the specification are withdrawn in view of the amendments to the specification at paragraphs [0036], [0038], [0041], and [0046].
After review of the language of the amendments to the claims and specification, it was determined that any new language introduced to the application has support from Figs. 3-5 of the instant disclosure as originally filed, and thus does not constitute new matter.
Response to Arguments
The applicant’s arguments filed 13 April, 2026, have been fully considered. With respect to the rejections under 35 U.S.C. 103, the applicant’s arguments are persuasive insofar as the previously set fourth combination of Dayton (US 2016/0317687 A1), Li (US 2023/0089985 A1), and Matsui (US 2023/0293741 A1), does not clearly establish the obviousness of the amended scope of independent claims 1 and 16, especially with respect to the claimed second light emitting portion being disposed a distance downward and away from the underside of the cover (see applicant’s response filed 13 April, 2026, at pages 10-11). Accordingly, the previously set forth rejections under 35 U.S.C. 103 are withdrawn.
However, upon further search and consideration, a new grounds of rejection under 35 U.S.C. 103 for claims 1-6, 8-10, and 15 is set forth over the combination of Dayton (US 2016/0317687 A1) and Bettles et al. (US 9,138,499 B2), with claims 13-14, 16, and 18-20 rejected over said combination in view of additional references. The new grounds of rejection relies on the finding that Bettles teaches a cover (case 318) with a surface configured with both UV LEDs (14a) at said surface and a plurality of ultraviolet emitting optic fibers (14b) which extend downward and away from the surface, the optic fibers advantageously improving the delivery of ultraviolet light to gaps (vacancies) along a surface or object to be disinfected (see Bettles at Fig. 14B, column 12, lines 46-54). In view of these teachings, the new grounds of rejection find that it would be obvious to incorporate the optical fibers of Bettles into the system of Dayton and arrive at the system of claim 1. The rejection of independent method claim 16 and various dependent claims have similarly been adjusted to incorporate the above findings.
Claims 7 and 12 incorporate subject matter from Figs. 3-5 in accordance with a previous suggestion from the examiner; after further search and consideration, said claims were confirmed to include allowable subject matter as set forth below.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
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.
Claims 10 and 19-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
Claim 10 recites the limitation "the ultraviolet light source" at lines 1-2 of the claim. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. It is suggested that claim 10 be adjusted to depend from claim 9, which does recite “an ultraviolet light source”.
Claim 19 recites the limitation “the ultraviolet light source” at line 3 of the claim. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. It is suggested that the limitation be adjusted to read “an ultraviolet light source”.
Claim 20 recites the limitation “the ultraviolet light source” at line 2 of the claim. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. It is suggested that the limitation be adjusted to read “the light emitting system” (which has antecedent basis at line 6 of claim 16) or adjusted to read “an ultraviolet light source”.
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.
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.
Claims 1-6, 8-10, and 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Dayton (US 2016/0317687 A1) in view of Bettles et al. (US 9,138,499 B2).
Regarding claim 1, Dayton teaches a disinfection system (decontamination cover or blanket 10 is draped over an object 12 having an exposed surface 14 for decontamination of said exposed surface—see [0016], [0019]), comprising: a covering (cover or blanket 10) configured for placement over an object to be decontaminated (see [0016] and [0019]), the covering comprising a light emitting system (UVC sources 18) configured to define an ultraviolet light environment beneath the covering such that the items beneath the covering are disinfected by ultraviolet light (the blanket is draped over an object 12 to be decontaminated and the UVC sources 18 are activated to deactivate pathogens on the exposed surface 14 of the object 12—see [0028] and [0029]).
See Figs. 1-3 below, which show how the covering (blanket 10) of Dayton is placed over an object (12) with the UVC LEDs (18) arranged along the underside of the covering and directed toward an outer surface (14) of the object to disinfect the object.
PNG
media_image1.png
662
410
media_image1.png
Greyscale
It is evident that the covering (10) of Dayton is capable of being placed over a medical cart having medical items thereon and disinfecting the medical cart and the medical items by emitting UVC light from UVC sources 18 towards the cart and items underneath the covering.
As amended, claim 1 requires that the light emitting system includes: a first light emitting portion extending across an underside of the covering, the first portion configured to project ultraviolet light downward and away from the underside, and a second portion light emitting portion disposed a distance downward and away from the underside, the second light emitting portion configured to project ultraviolet in multiple directions, including downward from, upward toward, and parallel with the underside.
The UV-C LEDs (18) of Dayton, optionally in combination with the reflective inward facing surface (20) ([0021]) on the bottom side of the covering (16) (Fig. 3), fairly defining a first light emitting portion extending across an underside of the covering (16), the first light emitting portion configured to project ultraviolet light downward and away from the underside (see Dayton at Figs. 2-3 and [0010]-[0021], UVC LEDs and reflective bottom surface 20 are clearly shown extending across an underside of the covering and indicated to direct UV light downward and away from the covering).
With respect to the claimed second portion, Dayton teaches portions (spacers/supports 22; Or material 38) which are disposed downward and away from the bottom side (Fig. 3 shows spacers 22 extending downward and away from the bottom surface 20 of the covering 16—see [0021], [0025]; the spacer may be transparent to UVC light—[0026]; Fig. 4 shows material 38 extending downwardly from a bottom surface 20 of covering 16, the UV light 30 transmitting through the material 38—[0027]) and are intended to ensure complete coverage of the surface (14) with UVC light emitted from LED sources (18) ([0027], final three lines). Nonetheless, the spacers (22) or sheet (38) of Dayton do not clearly define a second light emitting portion disposed a distance downward and away from the underside, the second light emitting portion configured to project ultraviolet light in multiple directions, including downward from, upward toward, and parallel with the underside.
However, the suggestion of Dayton to completely cover the surface to be treated with UVC light ([0027], final three lines) would reasonably guide a person of ordinary skill in the art to consider different arrangements for improving the distribution of emitted UV light so that the UV light completely covers the surface(s) to be treated.
Furthermore, Bettles, in the analogous art of ultraviolet disinfection systems (title, abstract), teaches a cover (case 318) comprising ultraviolet LEDs (14A) affixed to an underside of a portion of the cover, and optical fibers (14B) extending downward and away from the underside of the portion of the cover, the optical fibers being useful to disinfect the spaces between target items (in the disclosed embedment of Bettles, the optical fibers are used to disinfect vacancies between keyboard keys—see Fig. 12B, column 12, lines 46-54). See Fig. 12B of Bettles below.
PNG
media_image2.png
108
548
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Bettles indicates the optical fibers may include light diffusers at their ends (column 6, lines 1-3) and/or may be leaky optical fibers (column 12, lines 19-35), i.e., fibers which emits some light out radially while light propagates through the fiber. Such optical fibers (i.e., a leaky fiber and/or a fiber terminating in a diffuser) would be expected to project ultraviolet light in multiple directions, especially including away from and parallel with the underside (see Fig. 12B, a diffuser at the end of optical fiber 14B would be expected to emit light downward and to the sides, and a leaky optical fiber would emit light to the sides), and can further emit light in a direction upward toward the underside (diffuser at end of optical fiber would be expected to direct at least some light upwards, especially if the optical fiber bends against a surface so the diffusive end of the fiber is pointed toward a side; consider Figs. 12B-C, and the description of a brush of optical fibers 14C at column 12, lines 54-55, which fairly imply that the optical fibers have at least some flexibility and could bend against a surface).
Therefore, it would be obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art to modify the cover of Dayton to include a plurality of optical fibers (e.g., optical fibers 14B of Bettles) extending downward and away from the underside of the cover, as seen in Bettles, for the benefit of improving the emission of light into gaps along or between the surface(s) of the object(s) being disinfected (Bettles at column 12, lines 51-52 indicates optical fibers 14B can disinfect vacancies between keyboard keys; Fig. 12B essentially shows how optical fiber can extend into a gap between keyboard keys, thus improving the delivery of UV light thereto).
Regarding claim 2, Dayton in view of Bettles teaches the system according to claim 1. Dayton further teaches the covering further comprises an opaque layer (16) coupled with the light emitting system, the opaque layer configured to contain the ultraviolet light beneath the covering (blanket 10 includes an outward-facing surface 16 that is opaque to UVC light and serves as a shield to interfere with the transmission of UVC light emitted by UVC sources in a direction away from the object 12…so that observers will not be exposed to UVC light—[0020], see Figs. 1-4).
Regarding claim 3, Dayton in view of Bettles teaches the system according to claim 1. The system of Dayton is capable of surrounding a cart (see how blanket 10 surrounds object 12 in Fig. 1; also see [0028]-[0029] discussing how the blanket is draped over or wrapped around the object 12 to be decontaminated).
Regarding claim 4, Dayton in view of Bettles teaches the system according to claim 1. Dayton further indicates the covering comprises a fabric panel (outward-facing surface 16 can be formed of a fabric—[0028]; the device 10 is referred to as a blanket—see [0016]-[0019]—which further suggests the device is formed of textile or fabric layers) configured to provide a mechanical structure to the covering, and the light emitting system (18) is coupled with the fabric panel (viewing Fig. 3, it is evident that the body of the blanket has sides 16 and 20 and inherently provides a mechanical structure to the covering, wherein the UVC light sources 18 are embedded in the blanket).
Regarding claim 5, Dayton in view of Bettles teaches the system according to claim 4. Dayton further teaches the light emitting system is integrated into the fabric panel (see Fig. 3, the UVC light sources 18 are essentially embedded in the body of the blanket between surfaces 16 and 20; as discussed with respect to claim 4 above, the blanket is indicated to include fabric layers—see [0028], and [0016]-[0019]).
Regarding claim 6, Dayton in view of Bettles teaches the system according to claim 1. Dayton further teaches the light emitting system includes a plurality of light emitting diodes configured to project the ultraviolet light beneath the covering (each UVC source 18 can include a UVC light emitting diode which are exposed at the inward-facing surface 20 of the blanket 10 to emit UVC light toward the exposed surface 14 of the object 12—Figs. 3-4, [0022]).
Regarding claim 8, Dayton in view of Bettles teaches the system according to claim 1. Claim 8 recites a “an elongate passive light projector coupled with the underside”. Dayton teaches embodiments including a UV-C light transmissive sheet of material (38) coupled to the bottom surface (20) of the covering (Fig. 4, [0027]), wherein said sheet (38) may define a passive light projector (38) coupled with the underside. Nonetheless, embodiments of Dayton comprising the sheet (38) do not clearly include an elongate passive light projector (i.e., it is not clear the sheet 38 can fairly be considered elongate) and are not clearly compatible with the modification of Dayton in view of Bettles set forth above (the sheet 38 could interfere with the optical fibers 14B incorporated from Bettles).
However, the optical fibers of Bettles incorporated into the modified deice of Dayton fairly define ate least one an elongate passive light projector coupled with the underside (see Bettles at Fig. 14, column 12, lines 46-54; also see column 12, lines 29-35); thus, Dayton in combination with Bettles fairly teaches the system of claim 8.
Regarding claim 9, Dayton in view of Bettles teaches the system according to claim 8. As indicated with respect to claim 8 above, the optical fibers (14B) of Bettles, incorporated into the system of Dayton with respect to claim 1 above, fairly define at least one elongate passive light projector. The fiber optics cables of Bettles are implied to be coupled to an ultraviolet light source (optical fibers 14B used to disinfect vacancies between keyboards—column 12, lines 51-52; in context, it is evident the optical fibers receive and emit ultraviolet light to achieve said disinfecting, thus necessitating the presence of an ultraviolet light source). In further support of this understanding of Bettles, it is noted that a related embodiment of Bettles discusses a pad (76) provided with leaky optical fibers on a surface thereof, wherein the leaky optical fibers are connected to an ultraviolet radiation source via optical fibers (column 12, lines 29-35); thus, it is evident that an optical fiber coupled with an ultraviolet radiation source can deliver disinfecting ultraviolet radiation to a surface to be disinfected. Also, Bettles discloses LEDs as exemplary ultraviolet radiation sources (ultraviolet radiation source 14 includes a set of light emitting diodes—column 5, lines 53-58; deep UV LEDs—column 6, lines 25-27; ultraviolet radiation source such as an LED—column 12, line 50). Accordingly, it would be obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art to couple the elongate passive light projector (i.e., the incorporated fiber optic cables 14B of Bettles) of modified Dayton to an ultraviolet radiation source, such as an ultraviolet LED, when performing the modification of Dayton set forth with respect to claim 1 above for the benefit of ensuring the optic fiber is provided with disinfecting ultraviolet radiation so that the optical fiber can deliver the radiation to a surface to be disinfected.
Regarding claim 10, Dayton in view of Bettles teaches the system according to claim 8. As discussed with respect to claim 9 above, Dayton in combination with Bettles teaches the system wherein the ultraviolet light source includes a light emitting diode optically coupled with the elongate passive light projector (see rejection of claim 9 above).
Regarding claim 15, Dayton in view of Bettles teaches the system according to claim 1. Dayton further teaches the light emitting system includes a battery power source (power supply 24 can be a rechargeable or replaceable battery which is portable, self-contained and provides electric energy to the UVC sources 18—[0023]; battery pack can be connected to the blanket—[0024]).
Claims 11 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Dayton (US 2016/0317687 A1) in view of Bettles et al. (US 9,138,499 B2), as applied to claim 8 above, and further in view of Matsui et al. (US 2023/0293741 A1).
Regarding claim 11, Dayton in view of Bettles teaches the system according to claim 8. Dayton in combination with Bettles further teaches the elongate passive light projector includes at least: an optical fiber configured to project the ultraviolet light radially away from the optical fiber (as modified, the system of Dayton incorporates the optical fibers 14B of Bettles, which Bettles fairly suggest may comprise leaky optical fibers—see column 12, lines 29-35—leaky optical fibers being characterized by projecting light out of their sides, i.e., radially away from the optical fiber). Dayton and Bettles do not particularly suggest that the leaky optical fiber is provided with a plurality of fiber optic gratings to achieve the projection of UV light radially outwards.
However, in the analogous art of ultraviolet decontamination systems employing optical fiber/waveguides (abstract), Matsui teaches a UV light emitting sheet (12) which is attached to a surface and activated to emit UV light to decontaminate the surface (claim 8, [0054]). The sheet (12) includes an optical waveguide (15), such as an optical fiber, extending across the sheet (Figs. 1-3, [0049], [0051]), wherein the waveguide includes at least one of a scattering material, gratings, or bends, which cause lateral (i.e., radial) emission of light traveling through the waveguide ([0052]; also see [0084]-[0086]). Thus, Matsui teaches an optical fiber having a plurality of fiber optic gratings configured to project the ultraviolet light away from the optical fiber (lateral radiation realized by applying a grating 38 to an optical fiber—[0084]; also see abstract, [0033], [0052], claim 6; strong radiation can be obtained in the direction where the scratch/grating 38 exists to improve the decontamination effect of the sheet 12—[0086]). Therefore, it would be obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art to further modify the system of Dayton such that the optical fiber of the modified system (i.e., the fiber optic 14B of Bettles incorporated into the system of Dayton) includes a plurality of fiber optic gratings, as seen in Matsui (see Matsui at abstract, [0033], [0052], [0084], and claim 6), for the benefit of defining regions of strong radial emission of ultraviolet radiation along the length of the fiber optic to achieve an improved decontamination effect (see Matsui at [0086]).
Claims 13-14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Dayton (US 2016/0317687 A1) in view of Bettles et al. (US 9,138,499 B2), as applied to claim 9 above, and further view of Pressler et al. (US 8,246,666 B2).
Regarding claim 13, Dayton in view of Bettles teaches the system according to claim 9. Dayton does not teach that the ultraviolet light source is detachably coupled with the passive light projector via an optical connector. As discussed with respect to claims 9 and 10 above, Bettles fairly suggests modifying Dayton to include a passive light projector (optical fiber 14B of Bettles) extending downwardly from an underside of the cover and coupled to an ultraviolet LED via an optical fiber (see rejection of claim 9 above, and Bettles at column 12, lines 29-35 and 51-52). Bettles also suggests the passive light projector (emitting optical fiber) can be positioned on a structure different from that of the ultraviolet radiation source associated with the passive light projector (see column 12, lines 32-35). Nonetheless, Dayton and Bettles do not particularly suggest the ultraviolet light source is detachably coupled with the elongate passive light projector via an optical connector.
However, in the analogous art of phototherapy garments, Pressler teaches a covering (bodysuit 10) comprising a flexible textile layer (shell 11 made from a stretchable material such as polyester/spandex) and a layer of cross-woven side-glow optical fibers 12 disposed within the textile layer (column 4, lines 1-9). Light is transmitted into the layer of cross-woven optical fibers (12) from light emitting diodes (14) contained within a base unit (20) that clips into a housing dock (21) of the covering (10) (column 4, lines 13-17). Light is transmitted out of the optical fibers (31) of the optical fiber layer (12) and directed toward a surface (skin) covered by the covering (column 4, lines 19-22), the light being guided by a reflective liner (32) and transparent liner (34) (column 5, lines 52-58). Fig. 4 shows how lenses (23) and ports (33) form an optic coupling between the LEDs (14) and the optical fibers (31) (column 5, lines 19-26). The lighting arrangement of Pressley does not transfer heat to the illuminated surface, reducing the risk of overheating and fire hazards (optical fibers do not transfer heat—column 5, lines 40-42; LEDs do not produce significant heat—column 5, lines 34-35; eliminating potential fire hazards or overheating of the unit—column 3, lines 3-6; fiber optic system does not transmit heat—column 2, lines 53-54).
Therefore, it would be obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art to further modify the lighting system of Dayton such that an ultraviolet radiation source is arranged in a base unit which is detachably attached to the optical fibers of the covering via an optical connector which couples the UV LEDs to the optical fibers of the modified cover—as seen in Pressley (see paragraph above)—for the benefit of improving the safety of the system by reducing the risk of fire and overheating (see Pressley at: column 5, lines 34-35; column 3, lines 3-6; and column 2, lines 53-54) and enabling easy replacement of the ultraviolet light source (inherent result of detachable connection). Also see MPEP 2144.05(V.)(C.) regarding the obviousness of making parts separable.
Regarding claim 14, Dayton in view of Bettles teaches the system according to claim 13. As further modified in view of Pressley with respect to claim 13 above, the system of Dayton is configured such that the ultraviolet light source is detachably coupled with the covering (see rejection of claim 13 above).
Claims 16 and 18-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Dayton (US 2016/0317687 A1) in view of Bettles et al. (US 9,138,499 B2), as similarly applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Yuds et al. (US 2022/0203007 A1).
Regarding claim 16, Dayton teaches the covering (blanket 10) identified with respect to claim 1 above. Regular use of the covering of Dayton defines a method including placing the covering over the object to be disinfected and defining an ultraviolet light environment beneath the covering by activating the ultraviolet light sources (in use, blanket 10 is draped over or wrapped around the object 12 to be decontaminated, with the inward-facing surface opposing the surface 14 of the object 12—[0028]; UVC sources 18 emit the UVC light to deactivate an acceptable portion of the biologically active contagions on the surfac3e 14—[0029]).
Claim 16 further indicates that the ultraviolet light environment beneath the covering is defined by a light emitting system having: a first light emitting portion disposed along an underside of the covering, the first light emitting portion configured to project ultraviolet light at least downward away from the underside; and a second light emitting portion disposed a distance downward and away from the underside, the second portion configured to project ultraviolet light in multiple directions, including toward from, upward toward, and parallel with the underside.
As discussed with respect to claim 1 above, the UV-C LEDs (18) of Dayton, optionally in combination with the reflective inward facing surface (20) ([0021]) on the bottom side of the covering (16) (Fig. 3), fairly defining a first light emitting portion extending across an underside of the covering (16), the first light emitting portion configured to project ultraviolet light downward and away from the underside (see Dayton at Figs. 2-3 and [0010]-[0021], UVC LEDs and reflective bottom surface 20 are clearly shown extending across an underside of the covering and indicated to direct UV light downward and away from the covering).
Dayton does not clearly teach the light emitting system further comprising a second light emitting portion consistent with the claim.
However, as discussed with respect to claim 1 above, it would be obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art to incorporate the optical fibers (14B) of Bettles into the system of Dayton, with the optical fibers positioned extending downward and away from the underside of the covering, for the benefit of improving the emission of light into gaps between the surfaces to be disinfected (see rejection of claim 1 above, and Bettles at Fig. 12B, column 12, lines 51-52). As discussed with respect to claim 1 above, said optical fibers of Bettles fairly define second light emitting portion configured to project ultraviolet light in directions downward from, upward toward, and parallel with the underside of the covering (see rejection of claim 1 above, Bettles at Figs. 12B-C, column 6, lines 1-3, and column 12, lines 19-35).
Claim 16 further requires that the objects to be disinfected by the covering are medical devices which have been placed on a cart, and that the covering is placed over the cart.
Dayton recognized the importance of disinfecting surfaces within a medical environment ([0004]-[0005]), and the blanket of Dayton is clearly capable of disinfecting the surface of any object which is it placed over.
Nonetheless, Dayton and Bettles does not explicitly suggest method steps of placing the medical devices on a cart, and placing the covering over the cart.
However, in the analogous art of carts, Yuds teaches a medical cart (mobile cart for a medical device—abstract) designed to transport a medical device, wherein the cart includes UV light sterilization features (abstract). In one embodiment, a light (228) is positioned to direct UV light toward a top surface (206) of a cart on which a medical device is disposed (light 228 can include a UV light source to help sterilize the medical device or top surface 206 of the cart—[0058]; a top surface 206 of the cart 200 provides sufficient surface area to place a medical device—[0048]; see Fig. 3). Thus, Yuds essentially teaches placing a medical device on a cart ([0048]), positioning an ultraviolet light source (228) over the cart, and activating the ultraviolet light source to disinfect the medical device on the cart ([0058]). See Fig. 3 of Yuds below.
PNG
media_image3.png
394
418
media_image3.png
Greyscale
It is evident that the covering of [modified] Dayton can be used in place of the light (228) of Yuds to achieve the same result of disinfecting the top surfaces of the medical cart and the medical devices placed thereupon. Furthermore, such use of the covering of [modified] Dayton would advantageously improve the confinement of the ultraviolet light to reduce the risk of exposing persons near the cart to UV rays (Dayton at paragraph [0020] discusses how the blanket is configured so that observers will not be exposed to UVC light emitted by UVC sources 18; comparing Fig. 1 of Dayton to Fig. 3 of Yuds, it is evident that the blanket 10 of Dayton better confines UV radiation to a region where humans are not present).
Therefore, it would be obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to adapt the method of using the modified covering (10) of Dayton such that the method comprises placing medical items on a cart, placing the covering of modified Dayton over the cart, and activating the light emitting system of the covering (based on the suggestion of Yuds to disinfect medical devices placed on a medical cart with UV light—see [0048] and [0058]) for the benefit of disinfecting said medical items while reducing the exposure of observers to UV radiation (see Dayton at [0020]).
Thus modified in view of Bettles and Yuds, the method of using the system of Dayton is consistent with instant claim 16.
Regarding claim 18, Dayton in view of Bettles and Yuds teaches the method according to claim 16. The invention of Dayton as modified with respect to claim 16 incorporates the optical fibers (14B) of Bettles, which Bettles indicates are configured to be positioned between keys of a keyboard (optical fibers 14B can be used to disinfect the vacancies between keyboard keys—column 12, lines 51-52). A related embodiment of Bettles configures the optical fibers as brush type filaments (brush of optical fibers—column 12, lines 53-54), reasonably capable of extending between objects targeted for disinfection. Accordingly, when using the modified covering of Dayton to perform the method of claim 16, it would be obvious to position the second light emitting portion thereof (optical fibers incorporated from Bettles) between adjacent target surfaces for the benefit of improving the disinfection thereof (consider Bettles suggesting positioning optical fibers 14B in vacancies between keys of a keyboard—Fig. 12B, column 12, lines 51-52). Furthermore, when adapting the invention of modified Dayton for use with medical devices disposed on a cart (as described with respect to claim 16 above), it would be obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art to try positioning the second light emitting portions between adjacent medical devices for the benefit of improving the disinfection of surfaces of the medical devices (consider Bettles at Fig. 12B, column 12, lines 51-52).
Regarding claim 19, Dayton in view of Bettles and Yuds teaches the method according to claim 16. As modified with respect to claim 16, the invention of Dayton incorporates the optical fibers (14B) of Bettles, which fairly define an elongate passive light projector optically coupled with [an] ultraviolet light source, the elongate passive light projector including an optical fiber (see rejections of claims 8-11 above).
Regarding claim 20, Dayton in view of Bettles and Yuds teaches the method according to claim 17. Dayton indicates that control circuitry of the lighting system can be configured to create a timer that terminates operation of the UVC sources 18 after a predetermined period of time elapses ([0023]—lines 20-24); the operation of the control circuitry thus defines a step of automatically deactivating the ultraviolet light source after a defined activation time period.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 7 and 12 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Regarding claim 7, Dayton in view of Bettles teaches the system according to claim 6. Claim 7 requires the first light emitting portion includes a first subset of the plurality of light emitting diodes, and the second light emitting portion includes a second subset of the plurality of light emitting diodes suspended by wires. While the diodes (18) of Dayton (see [0020]-[0029], Figs. 2-4) fairly define a first subset of a plurality of light emitting diodes of the first light emitting portion, Dayton does not teach the second light emitting portion includes a second subset of the plurality of light emitting diodes suspended by wires. Bettles similarly does not teach a second subset of light emitting diodes as claimed.
US 9,974,877 B2 teaches a device (110) with a plurality of LEDs (114), including LEDs located at different distances relative to a case structure (18) (see Fig. 16A, column 20); nonetheless, US 9,974,877 B2does not teach a subset of UV LEDs positioned downward and away from an underside of a covering and being suspended by wires.
No prior art was found which teaches the claimed lighting system, comprising a first light emitting portion having a first subset of ultraviolet LEDs arranged on the underside of a cover, and a second light emitting portion having a second subset of ultraviolet LEDs suspended a distance downward and away from the underside of the cover by wires. Accordingly, the subject matter of claim 7 is novel and non-obvious over the prior art.
Regarding claim 12, Dayton in view of Bettles (US 9138499 B2) teaches the system according to claim 8. Claim 12 requires a first plurality of length segments of the elongate passive light projector disposed along the underside define the first light emitting portion; and a second plurality of U-shaped length segments of the passive light projector extending downward and away from the underside define the second light emitting portions.
Dayton does not teach the elongate passive light projector comprising the claimed segments. Although Bettles teaches an optical fiber (14B) extending downward and away from a surface (see Fig. 12B), Bettles does not teach the optical fiber defines a U-shaped bend, or that the optical fiber includes first length segments disposed along the underside of a cover.
Matsui et al. (US 2023/0293741 A1) teaches a cover (sheet 12) with an elongate passive light projector (optical waveguide 15) disposed thereon in a bending pattern ([0051], Figs. 1 and 3-7), but does not teach the elongate passive light projector including U-shaped portions which extend downward and away from the cover.
Generally, it is understood that at least some of the different length segments recited in claim 12 are interconnected, to yield a substantially continuous elongate passive light projector as seen in instant Figs. 4-5.
Ultimately, no prior art was found which teaches the claimed elongate passive light projector, which includes portions disposed along the underside of the cove and portions extending downward and away from the cover in the form of U-shaped bends. Accordingly, the subject matter of claim 12 is novel and non-obvious over the prior art.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Dobrinsky et al. (US 10,314,928 B2) teaches an ultraviolet illuminator for footwear treatment (title, abstract), embodiments thereof comprising a wave guiding structure (18) which receives light emitted form a UV radiation source (16) and disperses the light via diffusive elements (42) configured as knobs protruding from a surface of the structure; the diffusive elements are able to uniformly diffuse received light (Fig. 3, column 7, lines 31-61). Such teachings may be sufficient to motivate a person having ordinary skill in the art to configure the spacers (22) of Dayton (see Fig. 3 of Dayton) to operate as diffusive elements which diffusely emit received UV light, and thus fairly defining second light emitting portions consistent with claim 1.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to BRADY C PILSBURY whose telephone number is (571)272-8054. The examiner can normally be reached M-Th 7:30a-5:00p.
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.
/BRADY C PILSBURY/Examiner, Art Unit 1799 /JENNIFER WECKER/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1797
Prosecution Insights