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 the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claim 14 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention. Claim 13 recites, “calculating a stage of life span of the UV lamp, by the computer system.” The applicant offers no explanation as to where this limitations is supported in the disclosure, and no original description support for such a limitation, let alone an algorithm for performing such a limitation, can be found. As such, the limitation is new matter, and the claim is rejected for failing the written description requirement.
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 15, 18-20 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 15 recites the limitation "the computer system configured to carry out the steps of." There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Further, given the “configured to” language above, it is unclear whether the recited steps of claim 15 are actually steps that must be performed, or if they are functional descriptions of how the computer is programmed.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 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.
Claims 1, 2, 4, 6, 9, 11, 13, 15, 18, 20, 24 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by US 10,010,633 B2 [Trapani].
Regarding Claim 1:
Trapani discloses an automated UV sterilization system (abstract, Fig. 1), comprising:
a first UV sterilization unit comprising a first UV lamp, the first UV sterilization unit configured to provide UV exposure (Fig. 1 (10));
a first sensor wirelessly coupled to the first UV sterilization unit (Fig. 1 (21-24), 7:14-44), the first sensor positioned at a distance from the first UV sterilization unit and configured to measure the UV exposure (2:39-42); and
the automated UV sterilization system comprising a computer system programmed (5:48-56) to:
activate the UV exposure to be provided by UV sterilization units (Fig. 2 (110));
determine a current UV exposure within the target area based on an input from the first sensor (Fig. 2 (112)); and
determine whether the current UV exposure meets a target criteria at the first sensor, and once met, to determine complete sterilization for the target area surrounding UV sterilization units (6:37-65); and
deactivate the first UV lamp (Fig. 2 (118)).
Regarding Claim 2:
Trapani discloses the automated UV sterilization system of claim 1, further comprising a second UV sterilization unit comprising a second UV lamp, the second UV sterilization unit configured to provide UV exposure (8:52-57).
Regarding Claim 4:
Trapani discloses the automated UV sterilization system of claim 1, wherein the first sensor comprises at least one of a dosimeter or a power meter (6:43-46 describes a dosimeter).
Regarding Claim 6:
Trapani discloses the automated UV sterilization system of claim 2, further comprising a second sensor coupled to the first and second UV sterilization units, the second sensor configured to measure UV exposure (Fig. 1 (21-24), 7:14-44, 2:39-42).
Regarding Claim 9:
Trapani discloses the automated UV sterilization system of claim 1, wherein the input from the first sensor comprises input from a dosimeter (6:43-46).
Regarding Claim 11:
Trapani discloses the automated UV sterilization system of claim 1, wherein determining the current UV exposure comprises detecting the UV exposure over a duration of time (6:43-46, Fig. 2).
Regarding Claim 13:
Trapani discloses the automated UV sterilization system of claim 1, wherein the target criteria is based on the dimensions of the target area (6:37-65).
Regarding Claim 15:
Trapani discloses a method (Fig. 2), comprising:
activating a first UV sterilization unit of an automated UV sterilization system (Fig. 2 (110)), the first UV sterilization unit comprising a first UV lamp (Fig. 1 (10));
the computer system (5:48-56) configured to carry out the steps of
activating the UV lamp to provide a predetermined UV exposure (Fig. 2 (110));
determining a current UV exposure within the target area using a plurality of UV sensors (Fig. 2 (112)) each positioned apart from the UV sterilization unit and in wireless communication with the computer system (Fig. 1 (21-24), 7:14-44, 2:39-42); and
determining whether the current UV exposure meets a target criteria based on input from each of the plurality of UV sensors (Fig. 2 (112)) to complete sterilization for the target area surrounding the first UV sterilization unit by the computer system identifying that the UV exposure at each of the plurality of UV sensors has met the target criteria (6:37-65); and
deactivating the first UV lamp automatically be the computer system (Fig. 2 (118)).
Regarding Claim 18:
Trapani discloses the method of claim 15, wherein the input from the plurality of sensors comprises input from a dosimeter (6:43-46 describes a dosimeter).
Regarding Claim 20:
Trapani discloses the method of claim 15, wherein determining the current UV exposure comprises detecting the UV exposure over a duration of time (6:43-46).
Regarding Claim 24:
Trapani discloses the automated UV sterilization system of claim 1 further comprising a plurality of sensors each configured to measure the UV exposure at a position of the sensor (fig. 1 (21-24)), the plurality of sensors each positioned at a distance from the first UV sterilization unit (fig. 1 (21-24)); and
wherein the computer system is further programmed
to determine the current UV exposure within the target area based on input from each of the plurality of sensors (Fig. 2 (112)), and
to determine that the current UV exposure meets the target criteria at each of the plurality of sensors, and once each of the plurality of sensors meets the target criteria, to determine complete sterilization for the target area (6:43-46), and
to deactivate the first UV lamp once the target criteria is met at each of the plurality of sensors (Fig. 2 (118)).
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 25-26 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Trapani.
Regarding Claim 25:
Trapani teaches the automated UV sterilization system of claim 24 but fails to specify that a first of the plurality of sensors is closer to the UV sterilization unit than a second of the plurality of sensors.
Trapani teaches placing the emitters and sensors at desired locations. 8:27-32.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective time of filing to place the sensors at different distances from the UV sterilization unit such that two sensors are closer than another two sensors. This is at least because Trapani teaches placing the sensors at desirable locations, which would suggest positions at different distances and angles with respect to the emitter.
Regarding Claim 26:
Trapani teaches the automated UV sterilization system of claim 1 wherein the first UV sterilization unit comprises multiple levels (8:52-57), however, it fails to specify that the first UV lamp is placed on an upper UV unit, and a second UV lamp is placed on a lower UV unit positioned below the upper UV unit.
Trapani teaches placing the emitters and sensors at desired locations (8:27-32) and using second emitters to a space to improve coverage (8:52-57).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective time of filing to place the emitters and their associated units at different heights. This is at least because Trapani teaches placing the sensors at desirable locations, and since placing emitters at different heights would improve coverage along a vertical axis.
Claims 10, 12, and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Trapani in view of US 2020/0161069 A1 [Ramanand]
Regarding Claim 10:
Trapani teaches the automated UV sterilization system of claim 1, but fails to teach that the input from the first sensor comprises input from a power meter.
Ramanand teaches a UV device (abstract) that takes input from a first sensor comprising input from a power meter (pars 41, 79-80). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective time of filing to add and use the power meters and data from said power meters of Ramanand in Trapani to monitor power consumption of the lamp. One would have been motivated to do so since this would allow one to monitor the performance of the lamp.
Regarding Claim 12:
Trapani teaches the automated UV sterilization system of claim 1, but fails to specify determining the current UV exposure comprises detecting the power consumption of the UV lamp.
Ramanand teaches a UV device (abstract) that takes input from a first sensor comprising input from a power meter (pars 41, 79-80). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective time of filing to add and use the power meters and data from said power meters of Ramanand in Trapani to monitor power consumption of the lamp. One would have been motivated to do so since this would allow one to monitor the performance of the lamp.
Regarding Claim 19:
Trapani teaches the method of claim 15, but fails to specify that the input from the first sensor comprises input from a power meter.
Ramanand teaches a UV device (abstract) that takes input from a first sensor comprising input from a power meter (pars 41, 79-80). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective time of filing to add and use the power meters and data from said power meters of Ramanand in Trapani to monitor power consumption of the lamp. One would have been motivated to do so since this would allow one to monitor the performance of the lamp.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 9/29/25 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant’s arguments with respect to Stibich are moot, as that reference is no longer used in any rejections.
The 35 USC 101 and 112(b) rejections in 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