FINAL REJECTION
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, see pages 6-8, filed 1/19/2026, with respect to the objections and rejections under 35 USC 112 have been fully considered and are persuasive. The objections and rejections stated of the respective claims has been withdrawn.
Applicant's arguments filed 1/19/2026 regarding the 35 USC 103 prior art rejections have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
None of the amendments or arguments properly overcome the prior art rejections as applied given that the claims as amended do not overcome any of the prior art given the current interpretation. Although the specification is considered under a broadest reasonable interpretation (BRI) during examination, explicit definitions or limitations from the original specification may not be incorporated into the BRI for prior art consideration or rejection purposes (i.e. MPEP 2111.01 (II), (III)).
Applicant’s argument such as:
“It is indicated on page 5 of the Office Action that the specification defines a predefined pattern as a single action/data signal and that the claim does not define the term "predefined pattern" as "any specific type of data pattern generated by a user, door, lock or any other mechanism". Within this context, the Examiner interprets Shen's body temperature detection as the first predefined pattern indicating starting of the sanitization process and interprets Shen's door lock control receiving information when the primary disinfection operation is complete as the second predefined pattern indicating completion of the sanitization process. However, this interpretation does not comport with the disclosures of the specification of the present application to which the claims must be interpreted in light of. MPEP 2111.
The specification of the present application defines the predefined patterns as as user-initiated inputs received at the lock to indicate sanitization status, not passive sensor readings or automated system signals. In one embodiment of the application which involves a physical lock, these patterns are implemented as counted physical manipulations of the lock components: the first predefined pattern comprises "turning a handle of the lock downwards for a first count" and the "second predefined pattern comprises turning ON/OFF a dead bolt of the lock for a second count". For example, "the cleaning person depresses the lock handle 102 three times" to indicate sanitization start, and press the deadbolt for a predefined count to indicate completion.". See [0044] of the present application. The interpretation presented in the Office Action, that reads "predefined pattern" to encompass passive sensor readings (body temperature detection) or automated system signals (disinfection completion notifications), extends beyond the broadest reasonable interpretation of the present claims and contradicts the specification's express teaching that patterns are user-initiated inputs deliberately performed to communicate sanitization status. Such an interpretation would improperly render the specification's detailed disclosure of user-initiated lock manipulations mere surplusage.
With the claims properly constructed, neither reference teaches or suggests using user-initiated lock patterns as input mechanisms for sanitization status communication. SHEN teaches patterns exclusively for access control authentication. The body temperature detection serves to determine whether to grant door access, not to receive user communications about sanitization work performed. Shen's disinfection operations are automated and triggered by access events. Shen does not teach or suggest that users would actively input patterns to the lock to communicate that they have started or completed sanitization work. Stewart teaches sanitization status tracking through centralized computer systems, not through user-initiated inputs at individual door locks.
An administrator may request that a room be cleaned" through the centralized system, and "a computer interface" connected to the central processor monitors status. Stewart does not disclose how cleaning personnel indicate completion of sanitization work, and provides no teaching or suggestion that they would communicate sanitization status through user- initiated pattern input at individual door locks. The Shen/Stewart combination would require fundamental modifications to both references.
The stated motivation that it would be obvious "to provide a proper means of informing an authorized user" does not explain why Shen's access authentication patterns would be repurposed for cleaning personnel to communicate sanitization status or why a skilled artisan would abandon the centralized administrative interfaces taught by Stewart in favor of lock-based pattern input.”
In response to applicant's argument that the references fail to show certain features of the invention, it is noted that the features upon which applicant relies (i.e., “user-initiated inputs received at the lock to indicate sanitization status, not passive sensor readings or automated system signals”) are not recited in the rejected claim(s). Although the claims are interpreted in light of the specification, limitations from the specification are not read into the claims. See In re Van Geuns, 988 F.2d 1181, 26 USPQ2d 1057 (Fed. Cir. 1993).
A person having ordinary skill in the art (PHOSITA) would not be limited to interpret such patterns as performed only by a user or a device, or that such patterns include specific type of data.
For instance, a simple BRI definition of limitation term “pattern” could be:
a regular and intelligible form or sequence discernible in certain actions or situations. (i.e. Google definition)
None of these further details are amended into the claims. There is no indication that the first or second predefined patterns, do not include measurements, numbers, movement, etc.
The claims should be amended to indicate what type of pattern is being obtained from a user, and/or in what manner a pattern is obtained from a user if it is also predefined.
SHEN explicitly discloses various forms of patterns such as [0005] detecting a person’s intention to pass through a door, [0006] a body temperature (with a temperature threshold) of the person attempting to pass through the door, [0007] and an identification of person qualified to pass through door based on unlocking judgement procedure [0045].
Any unlocking judgement procedure would be interpreted as a pattern of actions, movements and/or data based on such actions or movements or other data obtained.
The limitations of patterns need to further indicate what is or what is not included within the patterns, such as including patterns of user movements or actions etc.
STEWART is further applied to teach concept of simply indication to user(s) about the status of operation of sanitization functions.
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.
Claim(s) 1-3, 5, 8, 10-16, and 19-22 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over SHEN (US 20220005298 A1) in view of STEWART (US 20210308311 A1).
Re claim 1. SHEN discloses (abstract) a method (claim 1, FIG.2-4) comprising:
configuring a sanitization mode for a predetermined time interval (i.e. primary disinfection operation) for sanitizing a premises; [0037-38, 49] (claim 1, FIG.2-4)
receiving a first predefined pattern (under broadest reasonable interpretation – given that predefined pattern (i.e. specification appears to define predefined pattern as a comprising a single action/data signal) is not further defined by the claim as any specific type of data pattern generated by either a user, door, lock or any other mechanism – a detection of a person’s body temperature as they are intending to pass through door claim 1 is interpreted as a data pattern received) on a lock associated with the premises from a user within the predetermined time interval to indicate starting of the sanitization process (claim 1 [0009, 0049] – a primary disinfection operation starts during unlocking judgement procedure which corresponds to when a person is attempting to gain access through door);
[0009] In an example, the door access control method further includes identifying whether a primary disinfection operation is completed before lifting the unlocking state of the door access control device. The primary disinfection operation starts during the unlocking judgment procedure and is identified whether completed or not. The locking state of the door access control device is not lifted before the primary disinfection operation is completed.
[0049] While executing the unlocking judgement procedure, a primary disinfection operation is carried out and identified whether completed or not (step S135). Specifically, the primary disinfection operation starts while the control device 30 executes the unlocking judgement procedure. During execution of the primary disinfection operation, the first handle disinfection device 34 and/or the second handle disinfection device 38 of the control device 30 operate to generate ultraviolet rays that radiate the first handle 32 and/or the second handle 36 for 5-15 seconds. For example, during execution of the primary disinfection operation, the first handle disinfection device 34 and the second handle disinfection device 38 operate to generate ultraviolet rays that radiate the first handle 32 and the second handle 36 for 10 seconds. When the first handle disinfection device 34 and the second handle disinfection device 38 generate the ultraviolet rays for a period of time less than 10 seconds, it is identified that the primary disinfection operation is not complete. On the other hand, when the first handle disinfection device 34 and the second handle disinfection device 38 generate the ultraviolet rays for a period of time not shorter than 10 seconds, it is identified that the primary disinfection operation is complete.
receiving a second predefined pattern (under broadest reasonable interpretation, door lock control receives information when primary disinfection operation is complete (claim 1, FIG.3-4 – S135)) on the lock within the predetermined time interval to indicate a completion of the sanitization process (door access is only lifted when primary disinfection operation is complete – FIG.3-4).
However, SHEN fails to explicitly disclose:
displaying an indicator based on the first predefined pattern and the second predefined pattern indicating a sanitization status and simultaneously communicating the sanitization status to an authorized user.
STEWART teaches (abstract) in similar field of invention (FIG.1, 9) a decontamination system and method used with a door lock including the function of displaying [0026-0027] using an indicator (based on at least two different conditions – prior to cleaning process and after cleaning process is confirmed – i.e. two different patterns), in the form of a blinking or red light, arranged outside of a room, for the purpose of indicating to people that a disinfecting operation is occurring (i.e. sanitation status) and simultaneously communicating (i.e. [0027] – administrator may receive indicator signal once the room is decontaminated i.e. once cleaning process is completed properly) such sanitation status to an authorized user (i.e. given that an administrator may be in control of sanitization operations [0027] and would receive sanitization status data).
[0026] In example embodiments additional features may be found to be included in the inventive concepts. For example, a sensor 530 may be installed in each room to detect whether a person is present in a room. In example embodiments, if the sensor 530 detects a person in a room, the microprocessor 610 may determine the room should not be disinfected. In addition to being unoccupied, the microprocessor 610 may require that other predisinfecting conditions be satisfied. For example, the disinfecting process may require a manual activation before the processor 610 can execute operations to disinfect a room. As yet another example, the disinfecting operations may be constrained by certain time periods which may be predetermined by a user. For example, a disinfecting operation may only be allowed during certain times of the day. As yet another example, the doors associated with the rooms may include locks which are operatively connected to the processor 610 so that the processor 610 can control the doors to lock and remain locked during a disinfecting operation to prevent people from entering the room while the room is being disinfected. As yet another example, an indicator, for example, a blinking light and/or red light arranged outside of the room may be operatively connected to the processor 610 and the processor 610 may control the indicator to operate during a disinfecting operation to warn people the room is undergoing a disinfecting operation. Example embodiments, of course, anticipate other arrangements. For example, in another nonlimiting example embodiment a sensor may be provided which indicates whether a door is open or becomes opened. For example, the sensor may take the form of an electrical contract having one trace connected to a door frame and another connected to a door so that if the door is swung open the sensor would detect someone entering the room and the processor 610 would use this data to shut off any decontamination operations occurring in that room. In this latter embodiment, the processor 610 may execute disinfecting operations without having a door be required to be locked. In another embodiment, the sensor may include a magnet which may be in one of the door and a door frame and a circuit in the other of the other of the door and the door frame. In this version, the magnet is magnetically coupled to the circuit so that as the circuit is moved from the magnet, for example, by opening the door, the circuit sends a signal to the controller 600 indicating the door is open and the controller 600 may use this signal to cease any active decontamination operations.
[0027] By way of example only, an administrator may request that a room be cleaned by entering the request from a computer interface (for example, a wall control, a table, a desk top computer, or a smart phone) to processor 610. The computer interface may be provided outside of the room to be cleaned or inside the room to be cleaned. The request may be sent wirelessly, over a wire, or through a network. Regardless, the inventive concepts anticipate many ways in which the processor 610 may receive the message from the computer interface. The processor 610 may check to ensure the room is not occupied by using data from the aforementioned sensor. If the room is not occupied and the request was made during an authorized time period, the processor 610 may cause the doors of the room to lock and may turn on an indicator so people understand the room is being disinfected. The indicator may be a blinking light, a light emitting a certain color, for example, red, a sound, and/or a message sent to the administrator and the indicator may be placed in the vicinity of the room. The processor 610 may then activate one or more decontamination apparatuses (example, UV light, gas vaporizer, air purifier) to decontaminate the room. The processor 610 may end operations of the decontamination equipment when a timer ends or a target dosage is met. The dosage may be indicated by one or more sensors that may be in a room, for example, a light sensor 500 (which may measure light intensity at an appropriate wavelength) or a chemical sensor 510 that may be placed in the room, for example, under a bed, under a desk, or wherever dosages need to be confirmed. The decontamination apparatuses may be operated simultaneously or sequentially or a combination of the two. For example, rooms that have each of a UV light, a gas vaporizer, and an air purifier may have the UV light operated first and then terminated followed by the gas vaporizer operated and then terminated followed by the air purifier operated and then terminated. In the alternative, all three apparatuses may be run at once. As yet another alternative, two of the apparatuses may be run simultaneously while the third apparatus is run either before the other two apparatus are run or afterwards. When the decontamination operations end the processor 610 may cause the doors to unlock and the room indicator change to show the room is decontaminated. For example, the indicator may generate a green light or may not generate a light at all when decontamination is complete. When decontaminated, the processor 610 may send a signal to the administrator that the room is decontaminated. In the event the door on the room is opened after decontamination, the processor 610 may cause the indicator to provide an indication the room has been compromised, for example, by generating a yellow light or providing a warning to the operator that the room is compromised.
Furthermore, one of ordinary skill in the art would understand that providing user(s) with instant sanitization operations updates, facilitates the overall operation of the door lock(s) by providing sanitization confirmation.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to try displaying an indicator of the sanitation status and simultaneously communicating status to an authorized user as taught by STEWART in order to provide a proper means of informing an authorized user, such as an administrator or guest, of the sanitization mode progress as desired.
Re claim 2. SHEN discloses [0046-0047] the method as claimed is claim 1, wherein a mobile device of the authorized person is configured to communicate with the lock of the premises.
However, SHEN fails to explicitly disclose:
fetch the sanitization status of the premises.
STEWART further teaches [0027] the function of fetching or obtaining sanitization status of the premises (i.e. locked room which is being disinfected).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to try fetching the sanitization status as taught by STEWART for the method of SHEN in order to properly inform an authorized user of the sanitization progress as needed.
Re claim 3. SHEN discloses [0042-0046] the method as claimed in claim 2, wherein the mobile device of the authorized person uses a client application to communicate with the lock.
Re claim 5. SHEN discloses [0018, 0049] the method as claimed in claim 1, wherein the first predefined pattern and the second predefined pattern are configured to enable the sanitization status (i.e. sanitization status would be limited to only from when sanitization process is occurring up until the process ends) of the premises only within the predetermined time interval.
Re claim 8. However, SHEN fails to explicitly disclose:
the method as claimed in claim 1, wherein the premises comprises a sensor configured to sense a level of sanitization inside the premises.
STEWART further teaches [0020] the use of sensor(s) 500 configured to sense a level of sanitization inside the premises, for the purpose of determining an appropriate level of sanitization.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to try adding a sensor to sense a level of sanitization as taught by STEWART in order to determine when enough sanitization is obtained during the cleaning process and thereby properly terminate such sanitization mode.
Re claim 10. However, SHEN fails to explicitly disclose:
the method as claimed in claim 8, wherein the sensor wirelessly communicates the level sanitization to the lock of the premises.
STEWART further teaches [0029] the sensor is capable of sending information to another device such as a controller for controlling decontamination method, which would require processing some level of sanitization to a 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 use sensor to communicate wirelessly with a door lock controller as suggested by STEWART in order to properly provide sanitization level data to a controller to control when to operate sanitization mode.
Re claim 11. SHEN discloses [0042] (under broadest reasonable interpretation any authorized user could be defined as a guest) the method as claimed in claim 1, wherein the authorized user is a guest.
Re claim 12. SHEN discloses (FIG.3-4) the method as claimed in claim 1, wherein on indication that the sanitization process is completed (i.e. S135 – determines disinfection operation is complete, such that lock can now be unlocked for authorized user(s)), the lock is only accessible by the guest and restricted to other authorized users [0045-47] (under broadest reasonable interpretation it is interpreted that before locking state is lifted S139, only an authorized user is allowed to pass through door, otherwise the functions of determining a proper authorization for a user would be irrelevant as performed in [0045-46]).
Re claim 13. SHEN discloses (as applied for claim 1 – given the similarity in scope of the functional limitations) a system comprising:
a lock (control device 30 operates as a door lock) [0038] associated with a premises and configured with a sanitization mode for a predetermined time interval for sanitizing the premises [0037-38] (claim 1, FIG.2-4), the lock further configured to:
receive a first predefined pattern on a lock associated with the premises from a user within the predetermined time interval to indicate starting of the sanitization process;
receive a second predefined pattern on the lock within the predetermined time interval to indicate a completion of the sanitization process.
However, SHEN fails to explicitly disclose:
display an indicator based on the first predefined pattern and the second predefined pattern indicating a sanitization status and simultaneously communicate the sanitization status to an authorized user.
STEWART teaches (abstract) in similar field of invention (FIG.1, 9) a decontamination system and method used with a door lock including the function of displaying [0026-0027] using an indicator (based on at least wo different conditions – prior to cleaning process and after cleaning process is confirmed – i.e. two different patterns), in the form of a blinking or red light, arranged outside of a room, for the purpose of indicating to people that a disinfecting operation is occurring to other people about the sanitation status and simultaneously communicating (i.e. [0027] – administrator may receive indicator signal once the room is decontaminates i.e. once cleaning process is completed properly) such sanitation status to an authorized user (i.e. given that an administrator may be in control of sanitization operations [0027]).
[0026] In example embodiments additional features may be found to be included in the inventive concepts. For example, a sensor 530 may be installed in each room to detect whether a person is present in a room. In example embodiments, if the sensor 530 detects a person in a room, the microprocessor 610 may determine the room should not be disinfected. In addition to being unoccupied, the microprocessor 610 may require that other predisinfecting conditions be satisfied. For example, the disinfecting process may require a manual activation before the processor 610 can execute operations to disinfect a room. As yet another example, the disinfecting operations may be constrained by certain time periods which may be predetermined by a user. For example, a disinfecting operation may only be allowed during certain times of the day. As yet another example, the doors associated with the rooms may include locks which are operatively connected to the processor 610 so that the processor 610 can control the doors to lock and remain locked during a disinfecting operation to prevent people from entering the room while the room is being disinfected. As yet another example, an indicator, for example, a blinking light and/or red light arranged outside of the room may be operatively connected to the processor 610 and the processor 610 may control the indicator to operate during a disinfecting operation to warn people the room is undergoing a disinfecting operation. Example embodiments, of course, anticipate other arrangements. For example, in another nonlimiting example embodiment a sensor may be provided which indicates whether a door is open or becomes opened. For example, the sensor may take the form of an electrical contract having one trace connected to a door frame and another connected to a door so that if the door is swung open the sensor would detect someone entering the room and the processor 610 would use this data to shut off any decontamination operations occurring in that room. In this latter embodiment, the processor 610 may execute disinfecting operations without having a door be required to be locked. In another embodiment, the sensor may include a magnet which may be in one of the door and a door frame and a circuit in the other of the other of the door and the door frame. In this version, the magnet is magnetically coupled to the circuit so that as the circuit is moved from the magnet, for example, by opening the door, the circuit sends a signal to the controller 600 indicating the door is open and the controller 600 may use this signal to cease any active decontamination operations.
[0027] By way of example only, an administrator may request that a room be cleaned by entering the request from a computer interface (for example, a wall control, a table, a desk top computer, or a smart phone) to processor 610. The computer interface may be provided outside of the room to be cleaned or inside the room to be cleaned. The request may be sent wirelessly, over a wire, or through a network. Regardless, the inventive concepts anticipate many ways in which the processor 610 may receive the message from the computer interface. The processor 610 may check to ensure the room is not occupied by using data from the aforementioned sensor. If the room is not occupied and the request was made during an authorized time period, the processor 610 may cause the doors of the room to lock and may turn on an indicator so people understand the room is being disinfected. The indicator may be a blinking light, a light emitting a certain color, for example, red, a sound, and/or a message sent to the administrator and the indicator may be placed in the vicinity of the room. The processor 610 may then activate one or more decontamination apparatuses (example, UV light, gas vaporizer, air purifier) to decontaminate the room. The processor 610 may end operations of the decontamination equipment when a timer ends or a target dosage is met. The dosage may be indicated by one or more sensors that may be in a room, for example, a light sensor 500 (which may measure light intensity at an appropriate wavelength) or a chemical sensor 510 that may be placed in the room, for example, under a bed, under a desk, or wherever dosages need to be confirmed. The decontamination apparatuses may be operated simultaneously or sequentially or a combination of the two. For example, rooms that have each of a UV light, a gas vaporizer, and an air purifier may have the UV light operated first and then terminated followed by the gas vaporizer operated and then terminated followed by the air purifier operated and then terminated. In the alternative, all three apparatuses may be run at once. As yet another alternative, two of the apparatuses may be run simultaneously while the third apparatus is run either before the other two apparatus are run or afterwards. When the decontamination operations end the processor 610 may cause the doors to unlock and the room indicator change to show the room is decontaminated. For example, the indicator may generate a green light or may not generate a light at all when decontamination is complete. When decontaminated, the processor 610 may send a signal to the administrator that the room is decontaminated. In the event the door on the room is opened after decontamination, the processor 610 may cause the indicator to provide an indication the room has been compromised, for example, by generating a yellow light or providing a warning to the operator that the room is compromised.
Furthermore, one of ordinary skill in the art would understand that providing user(s) with instant sanitization operations updates, facilitates the overall operation of the door lock(s) by providing sanitization confirmation.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to try displaying an indicator the sanitation status and simultaneously communicate status to an authorized user as taught by STEWART for the method of SHEN in order to provide a proper means of informing an authorized user, such as an administrator or guest, of the sanitization mode progress as desired.
Re claim 14. As for claim 2.
Re claim 15. As for claim 3.
Re claim 16. As for claim 5.
Re claim 19. As for claim 8.
Re claim 20. As applied for claims 9 and 10.
Re claim 21. As for claims 11 and 12.
Re claim 22. SHEN as modified by STEWART discloses (as applied for claim 1 – given the similarity in scope of the functional limitations) a computer readable medium comprising a memory (i.e. memories or storage devices such as described by STEWART [0021] are required for any of the claimed functions to be performed properly by the methods as in FIG.3-4 of SHEN) storing instructions executed by one or more processors, the one or more processors configured to: configure a sanitization mode for a predetermined time interval for sanitizing a premises; receive a first predefined pattern on a lock associated with the premises from a user within the predetermined time interval to indicate starting of the sanitization process; receive a second predefined pattern on the lock within the predetermined time interval to indicate a completion of the sanitization process; and display an indicator based on the first predefined pattern and the second predefined pattern indicating a sanitization status and simultaneously communicating the sanitization status to an authorized user.
Claim(s) 4 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over SHEN (US 20220005298 A1) in view of STEWART (US 20210308311 A1) further in view of ARUMUGAM et al. (US 20210257085 A1).
Re claim 4. SHEN discloses [0047] using a smart mobile device to communicate with door lock system.
However, SHEN as modified by STEWART fails to explicitly disclose:
the method as claimed in claim 1, wherein the first predefined pattern and the second predefined pattern are enabled on a virtual lock rendered on a client application of a user device associated with the user.
ARUMUGAM teaches (abstract) in a similar field of invention, a door lock operation [0126], wherein detection/communication of user patterns are enabled on a virtual lock rendered on a client application (mobile application) of a user device associated with a user (i.e. permitted users).
The prior art also teaches the known technique of giving the user control/communication functions by using a virtual lock on an associated mobile device carried by user such as taught by ARUMUGAM. A person of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that applying the known technique of giving users the ability to control door lock functions from a mobile device needed would have yielded predictable results and would have improved the speed and ease in which a user communicates with a door lock.
Claim(s) 6-7, 9 and 17-18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over SHEN (US 20220005298 A1) in view of STEWART (US 20210308311 A1) further in view of KELLOG, JR. (US 10369242 B1).
SHEN further discloses using a period of time for a disinfection process. [0018]
Re claim 6. However, SHEN as modified by STEWART fails to explicitly disclose:
the method as claimed in claim 1, wherein the sanitization status comprises a count of the first predefined pattern and the second predefined pattern within a predetermined time.
Re claim 17. However, SHEN as modified by STEWART fails to explicitly disclose:
the system as claimed in claim 13, wherein the sanitization status comprises a count of the first predefined pattern and the second predefined pattern within a predetermined time.
KELLOGG, JR teaches (abstract) in a similar field of invention, wherein an actual countdown timer is used to determine when to start and end a sanitization mode operation (c.11, l.34-39 and c.12, l.42-45).
A person of ordinary skill in the art would have had good reason to pursue the known options of adopting a countdown timer (a count between beginning of sanitization and end) to determine when to start and when to end (i.e. first and second predefined patterns) the sanitization mode given a predetermined time and using sensed sanitization levels. It would require no more than "ordinary skill and common sense," to apply the concept of using a countdown timer to further control sanitization mode and any other related functions.
Re claim 7. SHEN discloses (FIG.2) the method as claimed in claim 1, wherein the first predefined pattern comprises turning a handle 32 of the lock downwards (handles for door locks can be turned in either direction based on desired design) for a first count (i.e. interpreted to indicate user intent to pass through door).
However, SHEN as modified by STEWART fails to explicitly disclose:
the second predefined pattern comprises turning ON/OFF a dead bolt of the lock for a second count.
Deadbolts being used to further secure a door lock are well known in the art. One of ordinary skill in the art would understand that the function of turning ON/OFF a dead bolt of a lock, could indicate the opening of a door.
A person of ordinary skill in the art would have had good reason to pursue the known options of using a dead bolt to further secure a door lock. It would require no more than "ordinary skill and common sense," to give provide a dead bolt to set the second count, wherein such count is interpreted as the end of the time for sanitization mode, thereby controlling the sanitization mode time period of SHEN, given that the claim does not require that the second count actually opens the door.
Re claim 9. However, SHEN fails to explicitly disclose:
the method as claimed in claim 7, wherein the sensor is configured to compare the level of sanitization with a predefined value.
STEWART further teaches [0020] the use of sensor(s) 500 is configured to compare the level of sanitization with a predefined value (i.e. sensed carbon dioxide accumulation exceeds a preset value).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to try configuring the sensor to compare the level of sanitization as taught by STEWART in order to determine when sanitization is necessary or not further needed.
Re claim 18. Same as for claim 7.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 CARLOS E GARCIA whose telephone number is (571)270-1354. The examiner can normally be reached M-Th 9-6pm F 9-5pm.
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, Brian Zimmerman can be reached at (571) 272-3059. 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.
CARLOS E. GARCIA
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 2686
/Carlos Garcia/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2686 1/28/2026