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 .
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election without traverse of Invention I, Claims 1-15, drawn to a method of disinfecting an area, in the reply filed on 09 July 2025 is acknowledged.
Claims 16-20 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected invention, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Election was made without traverse in the reply filed on 09 July 2025.
Claim Objections
Claim 15 is objected to because of the following informalities:
“…in response to the applied power using a .
Appropriate correction is required.
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 6-10 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.
Regarding Claim 6, there is insufficient antecedent basis for “the plurality of array positions”. Previously, the claim had introduced “corresponding array position”. Claims 7-10 are also rejected due to their dependence on Claim 6.
Regarding Claim 6, the phrase “an optimal array position” is introduced. It is unclear what conditions render an array position “optimal” as such a term is subjective.
Regarding Claim 7, it is unclear which “optimal array position” is being referenced in the phrase “determining the optimal array position…” because two unique “optimal array position” limitations have been introduced: (1) in Claim 6 in the step of “rotating the circumferential emitter array to an optimal array position” and (2) earlier in Claim 7 in the preamble: “prior to rotating the circumferential emitter array to an optimal array position”. Please amend the preamble of Claim 7 to reference the already introduced “optimal array position”. Claims 8-10 are also rejected due to their dependence on Claim 7.
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.
Claim(s) 1-5 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over DEAL (US 6,911,177 B2) in view of DHIMAN et al. (US 2018/0369435 A1).
Regarding Claim 1, DEAL discloses a method of area sterilization using a sterilizer unit (abstract). The unit comprises a rolling base 2 upon which a central post 6 is mounted (c2/55-62); around the central post are banks of UV-C emitting bulbs 8 (c2/63-65; FIGs. 2, 3). Mounted on top of the unit is a control box containing a UV-C sensor array (c3/4-5). During operation, the UV-C bulbs are powered and given sufficient time to reach a steady state output; the control box then reads data from all individual sensors in the UV-C sensor array (c4/7-10). The UV-C sensor array measures the dose of UV-C reflected back to the unit; the data is transferred to a microcontroller to compute the cumulative exposure of UV-C reflected back from each sensor in the array (c4/11-16). Based on the sensor(s) that read the least reflective surface, the microcontroller calculates the required duration the unit would need to remain activated to reach a sufficient bactericidal dose of UV-C to be reflected back (c4/17-21). Once this UV-C dose level has been achieved, the unit powers down (c4/22-24).
DEAL is deficient in explicitly disclosing dynamically varying a power-level of each of the plurality of UV emitters and sensing reflected irradiance values corresponding to the varied power-level.
DHIMAN discloses a disinfecting system with performance monitoring (abstract) that relies on cycling circuitry to generate control signals to control the wavelength/intensity of UV radiation produced by individual devices (e.g., UV LEDs) of the system (p0003-0004; p0023). For instance, each UV LED device is associated with a separate bias source such that each device is isolated from the electrical channels of other devise; this advantageously allows for different bias currents to be used to accommodate different disinfection requirements (p0039). DHIMAN further discloses that the monitoring control circuitry determines the UV output of each device (e.g., using a separate dedicated detector circuit; p0069) and compares the output with a threshold reference value (FIG. 7; p0060); if the output is lower, then the bias current fed to the device is increased (p0060). Conversely, if the output is higher, then the bias current is decreased (p0061). Such a controlling scheme advantageously allows for greater control over disinfection methods (p0039) and further allows for the system to monitor the health of each device (p0063; p0066). Thus, prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention, one of ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to apply the control scheme of DHIMAN to dynamically vary the power level of each UV emitter as claimed for the disinfection method taught by DEAL.
The limitation “for maximizing the sensed reflected irradiance values in order of priority from lowest to highest of the initial reflected irradiance values of the plurality of UV sensors” is directed toward an intended use or result of the claimed step (c) and is not afforded patentable weight. Claim scope is not limited by claim language that suggests or makes optional but does not require steps to be performed. A “whereby clause in a method claim is not given weight when it simply expresses the intended result of a process step positively recited.” Id. (quoting Minton v. Nat’l Ass’n of Securities Dealers, Inc., 336 F.3d 1373, 1381, 67 USPQ2d 1614, 1620 (Fed. Cir. 2003); MPEP §2111.04). Where a reference discloses the terms of the recited method steps, and such steps necessarily result in the desired and recited effect, the fact that the reference does not describe the recited effect in haec verba is of no significance because the reference meets the claim under the doctrine of inherency.
Regarding Claims 2 and 3, modified DEAL makes obvious the method of Claim 1. As disclosed by DEAL, based on the sensor(s) that read the least reflective surface, the microcontroller calculates the required duration the unit would need to remain activated to reach a sufficient bactericidal dose of UV-C to be reflected back (c4/17-21). Once this UV-C dose level has been achieved, the unit powers down (c4/22-24).
The limitation “for maximizing the sensed reflected irradiance values in order of priority from lowest to highest of the sensed reflected irradiance values of certain ones of the plurality of UV sensors associated with the remaining active emitters” is directed toward an intended use or result of the claimed step (e) and is not afforded patentable weight. Claim scope is not limited by claim language that suggests or makes optional but does not require steps to be performed. A “whereby clause in a method claim is not given weight when it simply expresses the intended result of a process step positively recited.” Id. (quoting Minton v. Nat’l Ass’n of Securities Dealers, Inc., 336 F.3d 1373, 1381, 67 USPQ2d 1614, 1620 (Fed. Cir. 2003); MPEP §2111.04). Where a reference discloses the terms of the recited method steps, and such steps necessarily result in the desired and recited effect, the fact that the reference does not describe the recited effect in haec verba is of no significance because the reference meets the claim under the doctrine of inherency.
Regarding Claim 4, modified DEAL makes obvious the method of Claim 1. DEAL further discloses the control box containing the UV-C sensor array is mounted on top of the unit (c2/63-65), i.e., the sensors are vertically aligned with the UV-C bulbs.
Regarding Claim 5, modified DEAL makes obvious the method of Claim 1. DEAL further discloses that upon startup of the unit, the UV-C bulbs are powered and given sufficient time to reach a steady state output (c4/7-9).
Claim(s) 6-10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over DEAL (US 6,911,177 B2) in view of DHIMAN et al. (US 2018/0369435 A1), as applied to Claim 1 above, and further in view of CHOI et al. (US 2022/0125967 A1).
Regarding Claim 6, modified DEAL makes obvious the method of Claim 1. Modified DEAL is deficient in disclosing rotating the circumferential emitter array to an optimal array position.
CHOI disclose an indoor air/surface sterilization apparatus and method (abstract) utilizing a driving unit upon which sterilization base body is mounted holding a plurality of germicidal UV-C LED lamps (p0015; FIG. 1). The base body is further disclosed to be rotatable about a vertical rotation shaft (p0025, p0074). During a sterilization procedure, a controller rotates the base body about the vertical rotation shaft (p0031). Advantageously, such a capability to direct the emission of UV-C light allows for better compensation due to the spatial arrangement state of an object/room to be disinfected thereby promoting the efficient use of the apparatus and decreasing sterilization time (p0082-0084). Thus, prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention, one of ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to provide a sterilization apparatus with the capability to rotate the UV-C LED lamps about a vertical axis as taught by CHOI for the method made obvious by modified DEAL.
The limitation “associating the plurality of initial reflected irradiance values with corresponding array positions of the circumferential sensor array, the plurality of array positions being rotationally offset” is arbitrarily practiced; any array position of the circumferential sensor array would be considered to be associated with the initial reflected irradiance values.
Regarding Claim 7, modified DEAL makes obvious the method of Claim 6. DHIMAN further discloses comparing the detected output values of each device to a reference value during the cyclic monitoring/operation of the disinfecting system (p0061). Because the claim did not indicate how an “optimal” or optimum array position is actually determined or how the basis of such an “optimal” position can be achieved, such a limitation is arbitrary and inherent given the disclosures of the prior art.
Regarding Claim 8, modified DEAL makes obvious the method of Claim 7. DEAL further discloses identifying the least reflective surface or direction based on all the data read from individual sensors in the UV-C sensor array (c4/7-21).
Regarding Claims 9 and 10, modified DEAL makes obvious the method of Claim 7. DEAL further discloses that the control box reads data from all individual sensors located on the array (c4/7-10). While DEAL only explicitly discloses identifying the sensor that reads the least reflective surface (e.g., c4/17-21), this disclosure implies that the control box also identifies the sensor that reads the highest reflective surface and further, records all subsequent sensor data so as to identify the claimed midpoint array position.
Claim(s) 11-14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over DEAL (US 6,911,177 B2) in view of DHIMAN et al. (US 2018/0369435 A1), as applied to Claim 1 above, and further in view of SALTERS (US 2021/0154344 A1).
Regarding Claim 11, modified DEAL makes obvious the method of Claim 1. Modified DEAL is deficient in disclosing reducing the power-level of each of the plurality of UV emitters by a predetermined percentage.
However, the prior art discloses decreasing and dynamically adjusting the power-level/intensity of UV emitters for a number of advantageous reasons. For example, SALTERS discloses reducing UV intensity when a certain threshold is met or when conditions require reduction for safety (p0024; p0026; p0032). However, when conditions are appropriate, the UV intensity can be increased again to effectuate sufficient sanitization/disinfection procedures (p0035). SALTERS further disclose an arbitrary percentage delta I by which the UV intensity is reduced or adjusted (p0030). Thus, prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention, one of ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to decrease or reduce the intensity of UV radiation as taught by SALTERS and subsequently increasing the intensity of UV radiation for the method made obvious by modified DEAL.
Regarding Claims 12-14, modified DEAL makes obvious the method of Claim 11. While the prior art is deficient in explicitly disclosing increasing the power-level of two UV emitters adjacent the UV emitter identified as having the lowest sensor-measured reflected irradiance values (Claim 12) or that the power-levels of the remaining UV emitters are sequentially increased (Claim 13), such limitations are directed toward routine care and maintenance of such UV lamps, especially the UV-C lamps disclosed by DEAL. As is known to one of ordinary skill in the art, UV-C lamps require a period of warm-up (i.e., to effectively reach a steady state output, c4/7-10)—one such common method is the step-wise increase in intensity/power output of adjoining UV-C lamps or individual lamps themselves. Sudden jump increases to UV intensity invariably shortens the lifespan of such bulb devices and would require expensive replacement/maintenance. The claim would have been obvious because a particular known technique was recognized as part of the capabilities of one of ordinary skill in the art (MPEP §2143.01 D). Absent other critical reasons or unexpected results from the practice of the instantly claimed steps, such limitations would be obvious to any one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over DEAL (US 6,911,177 B2) in view of DHIMAN et al. (US 2018/0369435 A1), as applied to Claim 1 above, and further in view of SHOSTAK et al. (US 2015/0115170 A1).
Regarding Claim 15, modified DEAL makes obvious the method of Claim 1. Modified DEAL is deficient in explicitly disclosing preheating the plurality of UV emitters automatically in response to the applied power using a flux accelerator apparatus having one or more heating elements positioned proximate to each of the plurality of UV emitters.
SHOSTAK discloses the use of UV-C lamps comprising an amalgam containing mercury to advantageously provide a more efficient disinfection device (p0007; p0012). Such a device requires careful temperature regulation; SHOSTAK teaches the use of a thermoelectric device to maintain an ideal temperature range for the UV-C lamps (p0023) including rapidly warming up the lamps to the proper/preferred operating temperature (p0041, p0055). The claimed step of preheating the plurality of UV emitters would have been obvious because the technique for improving this process was part of the capabilities of one of ordinary skill in the art and would have led to otherwise predictable results (MPEP §2143.01 C). Thus, the instant claim would have been obvious over modified DEAL in view of SHOSTAK prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Double Patenting
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a nonstatutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13.
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer.
Claims 1-15 are provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over Claims 1 and 4-11 of copending Application No. 18120420 in view of DEAL (US 6,911,177 B2), DHIMAN et al. (US 2018/0369435 A1), and CHOI et al. (US 2022/0125967 A1), singly or in combination.
Claims 1 and 4 of copending ‘420 read upon Claims 1, 5, and 15 of the instant pending application.
Claims 10 and 11 of copending ‘420 read upon the instant limitations of Claims 2 and 3, respectively, of the instant pending application.
Claims 5-8 of copending ‘420 read upon the instant limitations of Claims 11-14, respectively, of the instant pending application.
Claim 9 of copending ‘420 reads upon the instant limitations of Claim 6 of the instant pending application.
Claims 4 and 7-10 of the instant application are obvious over Claims 1 and 4 of copending ‘420 in view of DEAL, DHIMAN, and CHOI as explained above in the prior art rejections.
This is a provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejection.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to RYAN B HUANG whose telephone number is (571)270-0327. The examiner can normally be reached 9 am-5 pm 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, Vickie Kim can be reached at (571)272-0579. 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.
/Ryan B Huang/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1777