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 .
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.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 6-22 and 68 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.
Claim 6 recites “cast the redistributed UV light toward the target surface of the touch display in the form of a UV energy pattern having to provide generally uniform UV intensity at the target surface.” It is unclear how the word “having” affects the meaning of the limitation, and, as such, the limitation is indefinite. The claim will be examined as though it recited ““cast the redistributed UV light toward the target surface of the touch display in the form of a UV energy pattern providing generally uniform UV intensity at the target surface.”
Claim 11 recites, “the UV LED driver is configured to selectively active and control power level of individual ones of the two or more UV LEDS…” It is unclear what is meant by the limitation “selectively active.” As such, the claim is indefinite. The claim will be interpreted as best understood in light of the specification.
Claim 12 recites, controlling UV LEDs to create “corresponding spatial variation of UV intensity across the target surface.” This contradicts claim 6, from which claim 12 depends, wherein the a uniform UV intensity is provided at the target surface. It is unclear how to resolve this contradiction without ignoring one limitation or the other. Accordingly, claim 12 is indefinite. The claim will be interpreted as best understood in light of the specification.
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.
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 6, 10-12, 14, 15, 18, 19, 22, 68 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over WO 2020/146137 A1 [Baarman] in view of US 2015/0069265 A1 [Smetona].
Regarding Claim 6:
Baarman teaches a system for UV delivery to a target surface of a touch display (abstract, Fig. 5), the system comprising:
a reflective UV channel configured to mount along an edge of the touch display (Fig. 4 (420)), wherein the reflective UV channel is configured to provide different UV reflective properties in different directions (para 53);
one or more UV LEDs configured to project UV light toward the reflective UV channel at a predetermined angle to the channel (para 45);
a variable UV LED driver for driving power to the one or more UV LEDs (para 45);
one more sensors for sensing (para 45);
a controller (paras 47, 54, Fig. 2) configured to control the UV LED driver and to respond to sensor output from the one or more sensors (para 45);
wherein the reflective UV channel is configured to redistribute UV light projected from the one or more UV LEDs longitudinally along the channel (as shown in Fig. 4; para 53) and to cast the redistributed UV light toward the target surface of the touch display in the form of a UV energy pattern having t provide generally uniform UV intensity at the target surface (para 53).
However, Baarman fails to teach that the reflective UV channel is anisotropic with respect to UV reflectivity.
Smetona teaches a reflective surface that is made anisotropic with respect to UV reflectivity by adding diffusive reflective elements in a reflective cavity in various shapes and sizes in order to promote diffusive UV reflection (Fig. 15 (740), para 62) which in turn allows for improved intensity uniformity and distribution (paras 59- 60). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective time of filing to add the diffusive reflective elements of Smetona to the reflective UV channel surface of Baarman, thus making the reflective UV channel is anisotropic with respect to UV reflectivity. One would have been motivated to do so in order to further improve UV intensity uniformity and distribution at the touch display
Regarding Claim 10:
The above modified invention teaches the system of claim 6 wherein the controller is configured to respond to sensor output from the sensors to provide for one or more of proximity based shutoff, movement shutoff, and maintenance shutoff. Baarman Claim 20, paras 34, 36, 48, 50.
Regarding Claim 11:
The above modified invention teaches the system of claim 6 including two or more UV LEDs configured to project UV light toward the anisotropic reflective UV channel at a predetermined angle to the channel (See Baarman Fig. 4 (403), para 52-53),
Wherein the target surface comprises quadrants (all surfaces can be considered as quadrants, since this is arbitrary and abstract fashion in which to artificially label a surface), and
wherein the driver is configured to control activation and power level to the UV LEDs driver to position UV energy on the target surface of the display within a quadrant of the target surface (Baarman paras 44, 45. The drivers power the LEDs, which in turn irradiate the entire display, including all of its quadrants.).
Regarding Claim 12:
The above modified invention teaches the system of claim 6 including two or more UV LEDs configured to project UV light toward the anisotropic reflective UV channel at a predetermined angle to the channel (See Baarman Fig. 4 (403), para 52-53), and
wherein the driver is configured to control activation and power level of individual ones of the two or more UV LEDs such that selective activation of the individual UV LEDs results in directionally dependent redistribution of UV energy along the anisotropic reflective UV channel and corresponding spatial variation of UV intensity across the target surface of the display (Baarman paras 44, 45. The drivers power the LEDs, which in turn irradiate the entire display, including all of its positions. The irradiation is adjusted across the target surface to achieve uniformity of irradiation, but can be targeted. Baarman Para 53).
Regarding Claim 14:
The above modified invention teaches the system of claim 6 but does not specify that the anisotropic reflective UV channel is U-shaped including two side walls connected by a bottom wall, wherein the bottom wall is diffuse reflector and the two side walls are specular reflectors.
Smetona teaches a UV illuminator (abstract) comprising an U-shaped anisotropic reflective UV channel (Fig. 4b) including two side walls (Fig. 4b (106B)) connected by a bottom wall (Fig. 4B (106A)), wherein the bottom wall is diffuse reflector and the two side walls are specular reflectors (para 49). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective time of filing to use the shape and reflectivities of Smetona to in the reflective channel of Baarman. One would have been motivated to do so in order to control the reflection of UV radiation upon the target, as is described at length by both Smetona (e.g. paras 49-50) and Baarman (para 53).
Regarding Claim 15:
The above modified invention teaches the system of claim 14, but fails to specify that the bottom wall is a 94% reflective diffuse reflector and the two side walls are each 90% reflective specular reflectors.
Optimizing the reflectivity of the diffuse and specular reflectors is well within the bounds of normal experimentation. See MPEP 2144.05 II (A). "[W]here the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation." In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955). Furthermore, "[a] particular parameter must first be recognized as a result-effective variable, i.e., a variable which achieves a recognized result, before the determination of the optimum or workable ranges of said variable might be characterized as routine experimentation." In re Antonie, 559 F.2d 618, 195 USPQ 6 (CCPA 1977). In the case at hand, Smetona (e.g. paras 49-50) teaches adjusting reflectivity for diffuse and specular elements in order to optimize UV output on a target. As such, Smetona identify these reflectivities as variables which achieves a recognized result, i.e., improving UV illumination. Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective time of filing to optimize the reflectivity of the diffuse and specular reflectors to meet the claimed limitation since it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation.
Regarding Claim 18:
The above modified invention teaches the system of claim 6 wherein the anisotropic reflective UV channel includes selectively diffuse portions and selectively specular portions configured to provide homogenous UV intensity over the target surface. Smetona Fig. 15 (740), as described at para 62, are the selectively diffuse portions, and the areas without those portions are the specular portions. As noted above, the combination provides homogenous UV intensity over the target surface.
Regarding Claim 19:
The above modified invention teaches the system of claim 18 wherein the anisotropic reflective UV channel comprises a plurality of reflective segments arranged along the channel (flat surfaces of Baarman and elements of Smetona Fig. 15 (740)), a first subset of the plurality of reflective segments having diffuse UV reflectivity (Smetona Fig. 15 (740)) and a second subset of the plurality of reflective segments having specular UV reflectivity (flat flat surfaces of Baarman).
Regarding Claim 22:
The above modified invention teaches the system of claim 6 wherein the anisotropic reflective UV channel is segmented. Smetona Fig. 15 (740), as described at para 62, are the segmented portions.
Regarding Claim 68:
The above modified invention teaches the system of claim 22 wherein a first segment defines a reflective surface disposed at a first angle relative to a longitudinal axis of the anisotropic reflective UV channel and a second segment defines a reflective surface disposed at a second, different angle relative to the longitudinal axis. The areas defined by the elements of Smetona Fig. 15 (740) have a first angle defined by the elements, the areas lacking those elements have a second angle.
Claims 7, 13, and 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over WO 2020/146137 A1 [Baarman] in view of US 2015/0069265 A1 [Smetona] as applied to claim 1, and further in view of US 2017/0290934 A1 [Dobrinsky].
Regarding Claim 7:
The above modified invention teaches the system of claim 6 but fails to teach that the uniform UV intensity is provided between 2 uW/cm2 and 10 uW/cm2.
Dobrinsky teaches applying such UV intensities. Table 1. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective time of filing to use the UV irradiation intensities taught by Dobrinsky in the above modified invention. One would have been motivated to do so in order to effectively sanitize a surface.
Regarding Claim 13:
The above modified invention teaches the system of claim 6, but fails to teach that the anisotropic reflective UV channel is parabolic.
Dobrinsky teaches a parabolic reflective UV channel . Fig. 4a (41), para 46. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective time of filing to use the reflector geometry taught by Dobrinsky in the above modified invention. One would have been motivated to do so in order to effectively collimate and direct the UV light to the surface. Dobrinsky para 46.
Regarding Claim 17:
The above modified invention teaches the system of claim 6, but fails to teach that the anisotropic reflective UV channel includes diffuse channels perpendicular to a longitudinal axis of the anisotropic reflective UV channel.
Dobrinsky teaches a reflective UV channel including diffuse channels perpendicular to a longitudinal axis of the anisotropic reflective UV channel. Para 47. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective time of filing to use the laterally varying diffuse reflector properties taught by Dobrinsky in the above modified invention. One would have been motivated to do so in order to provide a more uniform diffusive reflection. Dobrinsky para 47.
Claim 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over WO 2020/146137 A1 [Baarman] in view of US 2015/0069265 A1 [Smetona] as applied to claim 1, and further in view of US 2021/0386887 A1 [Colvin].
Regarding Claim 8:
The above modified invention teaches the system of claim 6, but fails to specify that it is integrated with a kiosk computer, kiosk touch interface, and kiosk power system.
Colvin teaches a UV sterilizing system (Fig. 1 (150)) integrated with a kiosk computer, kiosk touch interface, and kiosk power system (all shown in Fig. 1). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective time of filing to use the UV irradiation system of the above modified invention as the UV system of Colvin. One would have been motivated to do so in order to effectively and uniformly irradiate target areas.
Claim 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over WO 2020/146137 A1 [Baarman] in view of US 2015/0069265 A1 [Smetona] as applied to claim 1, and further in view of US 2020/0009280 A1 [Kupa].
Regarding Claim 9:
The above modified invention teaches the system of claim 6, but fails to teach the system including a communications interface for communicating with a cloud database configured to store UV delivery system information.
Kupa teaches a UV disinfection system (abstract) including a communications interface for communicating with a cloud database configured to store UV delivery system information. See Figs. 4,5; para 70. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective time of filing to add communication interface and cloud storage of Kupa to the above modified invention. One would have been motivated to do so in order to allow for convenient access of any information about UV irradiation.
Claim 16 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over WO 2020/146137 A1 [Baarman] in view of US 2015/0069265 A1 [Smetona] as applied to claim 1, and further in view of US 2015/0041679 A1 [Deal].
Regarding Claim 16:
The above modified invention teaches the system of claim 6, including a UV transmissive window. Baarman Fig. 4 (430).
However, the above modified invention does not teach protective louvers. Deal teaches a UV sanitizing system (abstract) including protective louvers (paras 29- 30). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective time of filing to add the protective louvers of Deal to above modified invention. One would have been motivated to do so in order to protect people from inadvertent irradiation, while also protecting the UV lights, and discouraging service or replacement by unauthorized persons. Deal paras 29-30.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 20 and 21 would be allowable if rewritten to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 2nd paragraph, set forth in this Office action and to include all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 6-22 and 68 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
The indefiniteness and written description rejections of the previous action are withdrawn in light of applicant’s amendments.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to WYATT A STOFFA whose telephone number is (571)270-1782. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 0700-1600 EST.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, ROBERT KIM can be reached at 571 272 2293. 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.
WYATT STOFFA
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 2881
/WYATT A STOFFA/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2881
Prosecution Insights