DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
1. 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
2. Claims 27-39 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected invention, there being no allowable generic or linking claim.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 12/04/2025.
Applicant’s election without traverse of Group I in the reply filed on 12/04/2025 is acknowledged.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
3. 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.
4. Claim 11 is 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 11 recites the limitation "the remote control" in lines 3-4 of the claim. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
5. 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.
6. Claims 1-6, 12-18, and 24-26 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Matlin et al. (US 20150306533 A1, provided in Applicant’s IDS filed 07/16/2024).
Regarding claim 1, Matlin teaches a room treatment device having networking capabilities (air purifier 104, Fig. 2), the room treatment device comprising:
a room treatment source (subsystem 110/filtering system 118, Fig. 2 and Fig. 9, see [0063]);
a controller (106, Fig. 2) configured to control treatment output from the room treatment source ([0020]); and
a wireless communication hub (communication device 114, Fig. 2) configured to receive and propagate one or more wireless signals from other room treatment devices ([0020]).
Regarding claim 2, Matlin teaches wherein room treatment source includes one or more of an air filter (filtering system 118, Fig. 9).
Regarding claim 3, Matlin teaches wherein the controller (106, Fig. 2) includes:
a memory storage medium storing one or more operational programs thereon ([0045]), the one or more operational programs including machine readable and executable instructions for treatment output from the room treatment source (“The air purifier 104 also may include a memory device connected to, or integral with, the controller 106 for storing information, such as, for example, determined cycles, patterns and usage flows of the air purifier 104”, [0045]); and
a processor operably coupled to the memory storage medium and configured to execute the one or more operational programs (“the controller 106 may include a processor executing code”, Fig. 2 and [0044], where the controller is connected to the memory device as stated in [0045]).
Regarding claim 4, Matlin teaches wherein the one or more operational programs include machine readable and executable instructions for outputting ultraviolet light according to a schedule (subsystem 110 having filtering system 118 controlled by controller 106, Fig. 2, instructions storing schedules in [0045] will include control of the entire subsystem 110 including the UV lamps 118).
Regarding claim 5, Matlin teaches a motion detector (sensing device 108, Fig. 2 and [0033]).
Regarding claim 6, Matlin teaches wherein the one or more operational programs include instructions for ceasing treatment output if motion is detected by the motion detector ([0047], where second mode is a reduction or a sleep mode of the air purifier 104, Fig. 2).
Regarding claim 12, Matlin teaches wherein the wireless signal includes one or more of Bluetooth ([0023]).
Regarding claim 13, Matlin teaches a system for treating a plurality of enclosed spaces (air purifying system 100 having four predetermined areas 112A-D, Fig. 1), the system comprising:
a plurality of room treatment devices (air purifiers 104A-D, Fig. 1), each room treatment device of the plurality of room treatment devices including:
a room treatment source (subsystem 110/filtering system 118, Fig. 2 and Fig. 9, see [0063]);
a controller (106, Fig. 2) configured to control treatment output from the room treatment source ([0020]); and
a wireless communication hub (communication device 114, Fig. 2) configured to receive and propagate one or more wireless signals (signals CS, Fig. 1) from other room treatment devices of the plurality of room treatment devices ([0020]).
Regarding claim 14, Matlin teaches wherein room treatment source includes one or more of an air filter (filtering system 118, Fig. 9).
Regarding claim 15, Matlin teaches wherein the controller (106, Fig. 2) includes:
a memory storage medium storing one or more operational programs thereon ([0045]), the one or more operational programs including machine readable and executable instructions for treatment output from the room treatment source (“The air purifier 104 also may include a memory device connected to, or integral with, the controller 106 for storing information, such as, for example, determined cycles, patterns and usage flows of the air purifier 104”, [0045]); and
a processor operably coupled to the memory storage medium and configured to execute the one or more operational programs (“the controller 106 may include a processor executing code”, Fig. 2 and [0044], where the controller is connected to the memory device as stated in [0045]).
Regarding claim 4, Matlin teaches wherein the one or more operational programs include machine readable and executable instructions for outputting ultraviolet light according to a schedule (subsystem 110 having filtering system 118 controlled by controller 106, Fig. 2, instructions storing schedules in [0045] will include control of the entire subsystem 110 including the UV lamps 118).
Regarding claim 16, Matlin teaches wherein the one or more operational programs include machine readable and executable instructions for outputting ultraviolet light according to a schedule (subsystem 110 having filtering system 118 controlled by controller 106, Fig. 2, instructions storing schedules in [0045] will include control of the entire subsystem 110 including the UV lamps 118).
Regarding claim 17, Matlin teaches a motion detector (sensing device 108, Fig. 2 and [0033]).
Regarding claim 18, Matlin teaches wherein the one or more operational programs include instructions for ceasing treatment output if motion is detected by the motion detector ([0047], where second mode is a reduction or a sleep mode of the air purifier 104, Fig. 2).
Regarding claim 24, Matlin teaches wherein the wireless signal includes one or more of Bluetooth ([0023]).
Regarding claim 25, Matlin teaches wherein at least one of the plurality of room treatment devices (air purifiers 104, Fig. 1) is operably coupled to a wireless network outside of the plurality of room treatment devices (separate computer device as stated in [0024]), via the wireless communication hub (“wireless means” implying communication device 114, Fig. 2, where according to the master/slave configuration, the master air purifier would transmit signals to the separate computer and vice versa, exemplified by [0058]).
Regarding claim 26, Matlin teaches wherein at least one of the plurality of room treatment devices is outside of a signal area of the wireless network or not in communication with the wireless network (as stated in claim 25 rejection above, the computer device establishes network communication with the “master” air purifier, which does not include the other three “slave” air purifiers of Fig. 1, and is thus “outside of a signal area).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
7. 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.
8. Claims 7 and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Matlin et al. (US 20150306533 A1, provided in Applicant’s IDS filed 07/16/2024) as applied to claim 5 and 17 above, and further in view of Xu et al. (CN 212181550 U).
Regarding claim 7, Matlin teaches one or more operational programs (memory device of [0045]) and a microphone (audio sensing device 108, [0033]), but fails to teach wherein the one or more operational programs include instructions for recording one or more of sound via the microphone.
Xu teaches an intelligent self-sterilizing device (Fig. 1) having a microphone (sound pickup 106, Fig. 1) that records voice information of the user/person (p.4, 2nd paragraph of English translation) in order to trigger self-disinfection without physical contact (p.4, 3rd paragraph of English translation), where the information is stored in a ROM/RAM “comprising a plurality of instructions” (p.9, 3rd paragraph of English translation).
Matlin and Xu are both considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of sensor-based disinfection systems utilizing audio input from a person.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the memory device of Matlin by incorporating an operational program that includes instructions for recording one or more of sound via the microphone in order to record voice information of the user/person (Xu, p.4, 2nd paragraph of English translation) and thus trigger self-disinfection without physical contact (Xu, p.4, 3rd paragraph of English translation).
9. Claims 8 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Matlin et al. (US 20150306533 A1, provided in Applicant’s IDS filed 07/16/2024), further in view of Xu et al. (CN 212181550 U), as applied to claim 7 and 19 above, and further in view of Gupta et al. (US 20210398230 A1, provided in Applicant’s IDS filed 07/16/2024).
Regarding claim 8, the Matlin/Xu combination teaches one or more operational programs including instructions (Matlin, memory device of [0045]), wireless transmission (Matlin, [0023-0024]), and recording of sound (Xu, p.4, 2nd paragraph of English translation) but fails to teach wherein the one or more operational programs include instructions for wirelessly transmitting the one or more of the sound to a remote storage site. Similarly, Matlin teaches a separate computer ([0024]) linked to the air purifiers (104, Fig. 2), but is silent on the storage feature of this instant claim.
Gupta teaches a room treatment system (50, Fig. 3) having a plurality of spaces (rooms 56a-c, Fig. 3) containing a sanitizer (62a-c, Fig. 3), where a communication means (gateway 70, Fig. 3) allows for the communication between a remote server (54, Fig. 3) connected to a controller (72, Fig. 3) via a network (64, Fig. 3), the remote server allowing “an individual to access information available on the hotel network 64” via the controller ([0040]).
The Matlin/Xu combination and Gupta are both considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of room treatment systems utilizing network-based communication.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Matlin’s memory device in the Matlin/Xu combination by incorporating an operational program to wirelessly transmit data to a remote server connected to a network and controller/computer as taught by Gupta in order to allow “an individual to access information available on the hotel network 64” via the controller (Gupta, [0040]).
With this modification, because the recorded sound information is part of the information stored within Matlin’s memory device in the Matlin/Xu combination, the Matlin/Xu combination in view of Gupta would thus teach “wirelessly transmitting the one or more of the sound or video to a remote storage site”.
Regarding claim 20, the Matlin/Xu combination teaches one or more operational programs including instructions (Matlin, memory device of [0045]), wireless transmission (Matlin, [0023-0024]), and recording of sound (Xu, p.4, 2nd paragraph of English translation) but fails to teach wherein the one or more operational programs include instructions for wirelessly transmitting the one or more of the sound to a remote storage site. Similarly, Matlin teaches a separate computer ([0024]) linked to the air purifiers (104, Fig. 2), but is silent on the storage feature of this instant claim.
Gupta teaches a room treatment system (50, Fig. 3) having a plurality of spaces (rooms 56a-c, Fig. 3) containing a sanitizer (62a-c, Fig. 3), where a communication means (gateway 70, Fig. 3) allows for the communication between a remote server (54, Fig. 3) connected to a controller (72, Fig. 3) via a network (64, Fig. 3), the remote server allowing “an individual to access information available on the hotel network 64” via the controller ([0040]).
The Matlin/Xu combination and Gupta are both considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of room treatment systems utilizing network-based communication.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Matlin’s memory device in the Matlin/Xu combination by incorporating an operational program to wirelessly transmit data to a remote server connected to a network and controller/computer as taught by Gupta in order to allow “an individual to access information available on the hotel network 64” via the controller (Gupta, [0040]).
With this modification, because the recorded sound information is part of the information stored within Matlin’s memory device in the Matlin/Xu combination, the Matlin/Xu combination in view of Gupta would thus teach “wirelessly transmitting the one or more of the sound or video to a remote storage site”.
10. Claims 9 and 21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Matlin et al. (US 20150306533 A1, provided in Applicant’s IDS filed 07/16/2024) as applied to claim 3 and 15 above, further in view of Gupta et al. (US 20210398230 A1, provided in Applicant’s IDS filed 07/16/2024).
Regarding claim 9, Matlin teaches wherein the one or more operational programs include machine readable and executable instructions (memory device of [0045] connected to controller 106, Fig. 2) for:
propagating the alarm signal to all additional room treatment devices in communication with the wireless communication hub responsive to the alarm signal (where a master/slave arrangement of the entire air purifying system of purifiers 104 are all in communication with each other, [0023] and see [0007] for further context).
Matlin teaches an alarm signal (presence detection signal) received by the wireless communication hub (communication devices 114, Fig. 2) from an additional room treatment device (multiple air purifiers 104A-D communicating through control signals CS, Fig. 1), but fails to teach producing an alarm from said alarm signal.
Gupta teaches a room treatment system (50, Fig. 3) having a plurality of spaces (rooms 56a-c, Fig. 3) containing a sanitizer (62a-c, Fig. 3), which each space can include a visual indicator (44, Fig. 2 and [0043]) in order to “provide an inside audio and/or visual alert within the guest room to provide a warning inside the guest room” ([0043]).
Matlin and Gupta are both considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of room treatment systems utilizing presence detection to activate/deactivate the treatment system.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the room treatment system of Matlin by incorporating a visual indicator as taught by Gupta in order to “provide an inside audio and/or visual alert within the guest room to provide a warning inside the guest room” ([0043]), thus activating the alarm when the alarm signal (i.e., presence detection signal) is propagated.
Regarding claim 21, Matlin teaches wherein the one or more operational programs include machine readable and executable instructions (memory device of [0045] connected to controller 106, Fig. 2) for:
propagating the alarm signal to all additional room treatment devices in communication with the wireless communication hub responsive to the alarm signal (where a master/slave arrangement of the entire air purifying system of purifiers 104 are all in communication with each other, [0023] and see [0007] for further context).
Matlin teaches an alarm signal (presence detection signal) received by the wireless communication hub (communication devices 114, Fig. 2) from an additional room treatment device (multiple air purifiers 104A-D communicating through control signals CS, Fig. 1), but fails to teach producing an alarm from said alarm signal.
Gupta teaches a room treatment system (50, Fig. 3) having a plurality of spaces (rooms 56a-c, Fig. 3) containing a sanitizer (62a-c, Fig. 3), which each space can include a visual indicator (44, Fig. 2 and [0043]) in order to “provide an inside audio and/or visual alert within the guest room to provide a warning inside the guest room” ([0043]).
Matlin and Gupta are both considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of room treatment systems utilizing presence detection to activate/deactivate the treatment system.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the room treatment system of Matlin by incorporating a visual indicator as taught by Gupta in order to “provide an inside audio and/or visual alert within the guest room to provide a warning inside the guest room” ([0043]), thus activating the alarm when the alarm signal (i.e., presence detection signal) is propagated.
11. Claims 10 and 22 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Matlin et al. (US 20150306533 A1, provided in Applicant’s IDS filed 07/16/2024) as applied to claim 1 and 15 above, and further in view of Litvin (US 20220105228 A1, provided in Applicant’s IDS filed 07/16/2024).
Regarding claim 10, Matlin teaches the controller (106, Fig. 2) connected to the wireless communication hub (communication device 114, Fig. 2) and the room treatment source (subsystem 110, Fig. 2), but fails to teach a remote control in wireless communication with one or more of the controller or the wireless communication hub, the remote control including one or more of buttons or a receiver configured to send one or more signals to the controller based on button pushes or verbal commands to actuate one or more functions of the room treatment device.
Litvin teaches a system for disinfecting an indoor environment (Fig. 23-24) having a remote control (user app 300, Fig. 23) in wireless communication (network 20, Fig. 23, where “The network 20 could be any one of or a combination of a wireless network such as 4G, 5G, Wi-Fi or Bluetooth, or hard wired”, [0045]) with the controller (controller 150/250, Fig. 23), the remote control including one or more of buttons (GUIs of user app 300, options shown in Fig. 24) configured to send one or more signals to the controller based on button pushes to actuate one or more functions of the room treatment device (e.g., push switch 316, where “the switch could activate or deactivate a particular fixture 100, 200”, [0079] and Fig. 23-24), in order to allow the user to “remotely monitor status and operation of the hybrid fixtures” ([0057]).
Matlin and Litvin are both considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of room treatment systems utilizing network-based communication and controllers.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify room treatment system of Matlin by incorporating a remote control in wireless communication with the controller (controlling the light fixture/room treatment source) as taught Litvin in order to allow the user to “remotely monitor status and operation of the hybrid fixtures” ([0057]).
Regarding claim 22, Matlin teaches at least one room treatment device (air purifiers 104A-D, Fig. 2) the controller (106, Fig. 2) connected to the wireless communication hub (communication device 114, Fig. 2) and the room treatment source (subsystem 110, Fig. 2), but fails to teach wherein at least one room treatment device of the plurality of room treatment devices includes a remote control in wireless communication with one or more of the controller or the wireless communication hub of the at least one room treatment device, the remote control including one or more of buttons or a receiver configured to send one or more signals to the controller based on button pushes or verbal commands to actuate one or more functions of the at least one room treatment device.
Litvin teaches a system for disinfecting an indoor environment (Fig. 23-24) having a remote control (user app 300, Fig. 23) in wireless communication (network 20, Fig. 23, where “The network 20 could be any one of or a combination of a wireless network such as 4G, 5G, Wi-Fi or Bluetooth, or hard wired”, [0045]) with the controller (controller 150/250, Fig. 23), the remote control including one or more of buttons (GUIs of user app 300, options shown in Fig. 24) configured to send one or more signals to the controller based on button pushes to actuate one or more functions of the room treatment device (e.g., push switch 316, where “the switch could activate or deactivate a particular fixture 100, 200”, [0079] and Fig. 23-24), in order to allow the user to “remotely monitor status and operation of the hybrid fixtures” ([0057]).
Matlin and Litvin are both considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of room treatment systems utilizing network-based communication and controllers.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify room treatment system of Matlin by incorporating a remote control in wireless communication with the controller (controlling the light fixture/room treatment source) as taught Litvin in order to allow the user to “remotely monitor status and operation of the hybrid fixtures” ([0057]).
With this modification, the limitation of “wherein at least one room treatment device of the plurality of room treatment devices includes a remote control” is taught by Matlin from the master/slave configuration of the plurality of air purifiers 104 in the system 100 of Fig. 2, as the modification would result in the master air purifier (in control of the other slave air purifiers) being in network communication from the Litvin’s remote control feature.
12. Claim 11 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Matlin et al. (US 20150306533 A1, provided in Applicant’s IDS filed 07/16/2024) as applied to claim 3 above, further in view of Deros (US 20200397936 A1, provided in Applicant’s IDS filed 07/16/2024), further in view of Gupta et al. (US 20210398230 A1).
Regarding claim 11, Matlin teaches wherein the one or more operational programs include machine readable and executable instructions (Matlin, memory device of [0045]) for propagating an alarm signal (Matlin, presence detection signal) via the wireless communication hub (Matlin, master/slave configuration of air purifiers 104 allows the master air purifier to propagate signals to the slave purifiers, [0023], for example the presence detection signal, via communication device 114 and signal CS, Fig. 1-2).
Matlin fails to teach propagating the alarm signal responsive to input from a remote control or manual input on the room treatment device.
Deros teaches a robotic sterilization device (1700, Fig. 17, equating to robotic device 150, Fig. 1, see [0045]) incorporated into an internet-of-things (IOT) system (100, Fig. 1, see [0045]) having a remote control in connection to the controller (guest device 104 communicating with IOT module 102, which is in connection to controller 1789, Fig. 1 and 17, see [0054], where Fig. 6 shows an example of the same components of a mobile app 604 on device 602 controlling IOT module 601, see [0108]) in order to communicate and thus control the IOT module ([0102], functionally equivalent to Matlin’s communication device 114 and controller 106 of Fig. 2);
wherein an alarm signal is propagated (the proximity of the guest device 104 from the IOT module 102 is a proxy for a guest presence detection signal, specifically because “the guest device 104 communicates directly with the IOT module 102 when the guest device 104 is inside or otherwise closely proximate the hotel room” rather than communicating “with the enterprise server 106 using a cellular network” when the guest is out of network range, [0103]) responsive to input from a remote control (guest device 104, Fig. 1), in order to subsequently lock the door (i.e., prevent access) and thus prevent human exposure to cleaning agents during a sterilization cycle ([0013]).
Matlin and Deros are both considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of network-based sterilization systems utilizing occupancy detection and communication devices connected to a sterilization device controller.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the air purifying system of Matlin by incorporating a remote control in connection to the IOT hub as taught by Matlin in order to communicate and thus control the IOT module remotely (Deros, [0102], where IOT hub is functionally equivalent to Matlin’s communication device 114 and controller 106 of Fig. 2).
It would have also been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to further modify the remote control of the now-Matlin/Deros combination by incorporating a remote control feature of propagating an alarm/presence detection signal from the remote control/guest device as taught by Deros in order to detect the proximity/presence of a guest, subsequently lock room access, and thus prevent human exposure to cleaning agents during a sterilization cycle (Deros, [0013]).
Modified Matlin teaches propagating an alarm signal (presence detection via sensing device 108, Fig. 2), but fails to teach wherein the one or more operational programs include machine readable and executable instructions for initiating an alarm.
Gupta teaches a room treatment system (50, Fig. 3) having a plurality of spaces (rooms 56a-c, Fig. 3) containing a sanitizer (62a-c, Fig. 3), which each space can include a visual indicator (44, Fig. 2 and [0043]) in order to “provide an inside audio and/or visual alert within the guest room to provide a warning inside the guest room” ([0043]).
Modified Matlin and Gupta are both considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of room treatment systems utilizing presence detection to activate/deactivate the treatment system.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the room treatment system of modified Matlin by incorporating a visual indicator as taught by Gupta in order to “provide an inside audio and/or visual alert within the guest room to provide a warning inside the guest room” ([0043]), thus activating the alarm when the alarm signal (i.e., presence detection signal) is propagated.
13. Claim 23 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Matlin et al. (US 20150306533 A1, provided in Applicant’s IDS filed 07/16/2024) further in view of Litvin (US 20220105228 A1, provided in Applicant’s IDS filed 07/16/2024) as applied to claim 22 above, and further in view of Deros (US 20200397936 A1, provided in Applicant’s IDS filed 07/16/2024).
Regarding claim 23, Matlin in view of Litvin teaches wherein the one or more operational programs include machine readable and executable instructions (Matlin, memory device of [0045]) for initiating an alarm (Matlin, presence detection via sensing device 108, Fig. 2) on the room treatment device (Matlin, air purifier 104, Fig. 2) and propagating an alarm signal (Matlin, presence detection signal) to other room treatment devices of the plurality of room treatment devices via the wireless communication hub (Matlin, master/slave configuration of air purifiers 104 allows the master air purifier to propagate signals to the slave purifiers, [0023], for example the presence detection signal, via communication device 114 and signal CS, Fig. 1-2), having a remote control in communication to the controller (Litvin, user app 300, Fig. 23).
The Matlin/Litvin combination fails to teach propagating the alarm signal responsive to input from the remote control or manual input on the room treatment device.
Deros teaches a robotic sterilization device (1700, Fig. 17, equating to robotic device 150, Fig. 1, see [0045]) incorporated into an internet-of-things (IOT) system (100, Fig. 1, see [0045]), wherein an alarm signal is propagated (the proximity of the guest device 104 from the IOT module 102 is a proxy for a guest presence signal, specifically because “the guest device 104 communicates directly with the IOT module 102 when the guest device 104 is inside or otherwise closely proximate the hotel room” rather than communicating “with the enterprise server 106 using a cellular network” when the guest is out of network range, [0103]) responsive to input from the remote control (guest device 104, Fig. 1), in order to subsequently lock the door (i.e., prevent access) and thus prevent human exposure to cleaning agents during a sterilization cycle ([0013]).
The Matlin/Litvin combination and Deros are both considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of network-based sterilization systems utilizing remote control input and occupancy detection.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the remote control of the Matlin/Litvin combination by incorporating the feature of propagating an alarm/presence detection signal from the remote control/guest device as taught by Deros in order to detect the proximity/presence of a guest, subsequently lock room access, and thus prevent human exposure to cleaning agents during a sterilization cycle (Deros, [0013]).
Conclusion
14. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Aham Lee whose telephone number is (703)756-5622. The examiner can normally be reached Monday to Thursday, 10:00 AM - 8:00 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, Maris R. Kessel can be reached at (571) 270-7698. 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.
/Aham Lee/Examiner, Art Unit 1758
/MARIS R KESSEL/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1758