DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Claim Objections
Claims 7-8 are objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 7: add a space after “Claim” in line 1.
Claim 8: change “lop” to --loop-- in line 4.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Specifically, claim 6 recites “means for calibrating the device” and will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f).
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitation(s) are: “at least one animate object detecting sensor” in claim 1 and “pulse emitting sensor for measuring distance” in claim 6.
Because these claim limitation(s) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, they are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant does not intend to have these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 5 and 7-8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claim 5 recites the limitation "heat dissipating material" in line 1. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. This can be cured by amending to “heat dissipating metal.”
Claim 7 recites the term “about” which is a relative term that renders the claim indefinite. The term “about” is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention. This rejection can be cured by deleting the term.
Claim 8 recites the limitation “the microprocessor controls” of the LEDs” in line 3. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. This rejection can be cured by deleting the term “the” before the term microprocessor.
Claim 8 recites the limitation “the LEDs” in line 3. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 8 recites the term “about” which is a relative term that renders the claim indefinite. The term “about” is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention. This rejection can be cured by deleting the term.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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.
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, 5-7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 20220184251 (hereinafter “‘251’”) in view of US 20060283786 (hereinafter “‘786’”), US 11730844 (hereinafter “‘844’”), and US 20160317690 (hereinafter “‘690’”).
Regarding claim 1, ‘251 teaches an aircraft confined compartment disinfecting device (title, Fig. 1, 100, [0027-0029]) comprising:
a housing (Fig. 3, 300) having a compartment facing front face (312, [0038]), and an open interior (Fig. 3, housing 300 understood to have open interior);
a control pcBoard (Fig. 4, 370);
a subplate disposed within the interior; (Fig. 4, heat sinks 346 and 380 = subplate inside housing 300)
at least one UVC light [0039] for emitting UVC irradiance through the front face into the compartment; and wherein the front face is fabricated from a heat dissipating metal (front face made from aluminum [0038]).
‘025 does not teach a metal core pcBoard overlying the control pcBoard and disposed within the interior; wherein the subplate overlies the metal core pcBoard and wherein the at least one UVC light is mounted to the metal core pcBoard.
‘786 teaches a fluid purification system [abstract] comprising a plurality of UV light emitters 202 mounted to a metal core printed circuit board [0020], wherein the metal core printed circuit board effectively transfers heat from the emitters to a heat sink to keep the emitters within an ideal operating temperature range and increase efficiency of the system [0020, 0036].
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to overlay the metal core pcBoard as taught by ‘786 over the pcBoard as taught by ‘025 since ‘786 teaches the metal core pcBoard to effectively transfer heat away from the UV emitters and keep them within an ideal temperature range [0020]. See MPEP 2143(I)(G).
Modified ’025 does not teach at least one temperature sensor secured to the metal core pcBoard; and a microprocessor secured to the control pcBoard and in electrical communication with the temperature sensor, the microprocessor controlling the temperature of the device and wherein the metal core pcBoard and subplate (heat sink) are fabricated from a heat dissipating metal.
‘844 teaches a system for disinfecting a vehicle with UVC light [abstract] wherein the system comprises a lighting assembly (Fig. 4, 300) with a plurality of LEDs formed onto a printed circuit board (substrate 402, col 10, lines 56-66). ‘844 further teaches an aluminum or copper heat sink (404) formed on the substrate to dissipate heat (col 11, lines 12-30). The substrate also comprises a temperature sensor (428) configured to sense and regulate the thermal load caused by the LED emitters (col 12, lines 19-34) via climate control system 134 (col 11, lines 50-54), wherein the climate control system implemented by system controller 730 (understood to be a microprocessor, col 14, lines 36-46).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the pcBoard as taught by modified ‘251 to include the microprocessor and temperature sensor as taught by ‘844 since ‘844 teaches two to work in tandem to sense and regulate the thermal load caused by the LED emitters (col 12, lines 19-34). See MPEP 2143(I)(G).
It would have also been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to fabricate the metal core pcBoard and subplate as taught by Modified ‘251 from copper or aluminum as taught by ‘844 since ‘844 teaches these materials as suitable for dissipate heat from UV emitting LEDs (col 11, lines 12-30) and this involves the combination of elements to yield a predictable result with a reasonable expectation of success. See MPEP 2143(I)(A) and MPEP 2143(I)(G).
Modified ’025 does not teach at least one animate object detecting sensor mounted to the metal core pcBoard wherein the microprocessor secured to the control pcBoard is in electrical communication with the animate object detecting sensor.
‘690 teaches a room decontamination system [abstract] comprising a housing with a UVC bulb [0022] and an integrated sensor assembly (58) wherein the sensor assembly comprises a proximity sensor (understood to be an animate object sensor) that can determine the distance of an object from the sensor to determine if an area is occupied [0027] and terminate the decontamination process via controller 126 [0033].
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the metal core pcBoard and microprocessor as taught by Modified ‘025 with the proximity sensor and controller as taught by ‘690 to prevent injury to users who enter the compartment of an aircraft during UV sterilization since ‘690 teaches the proximity sensor to detect the occupancy of an enclosed space and terminate the decontamination process [0033] and this involves the combination of elements to yield a predictable result with a reasonable expectation of success. See MPEP 2143(I)(A). Accordingly, Modified ’025 teaches all the limitations of claim 1.
Regarding claim 5, Modified ‘025 teaches the device of claim 1 wherein the heat dissipating material is selected from the group consisting of aluminum and copper (‘844, col 11, lines 12-30).
Regarding claim 6, Modified ‘025 teaches the disinfecting device of claim 1 including a pulse emitting sensor for measuring distance between an animate object and the device (‘690, proximity sensor can determine the distance of an object from the sensor, wherein the sensor relies on interruption of a beam of light = understood to be pulse emitting sensor [0027].
Modified ‘025 does not teach wherein the device comprises means for calibrating the device and at least one status indicating light.
‘690 further teaches a status indicator that can be illuminated red or flash to indicate that decontamination has been terminated earlier and a reset button connected to the controller to clear the status indicator and restart the decontamination process (understood to be means for calibrating the device, [0034-0035]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the device as taught by Modified ‘025 with the status indicator light and rest button as taught by ‘690 since ‘690 teaches the components to terminate the decontamination process due to faulty conditions and allow for recalibration of the device [0034-0035]. See MPEP 2143(I)(G).
Regarding claim 7, Modified ‘025 teaches the device of claim 1 wherein the UVC emitting light is an excimer lamp emitting a wavelength from about 200 to 280 nm (‘025, [0039]) but does not teach wherein the emitter is an LED. However, Modified ‘025 contemplates embodiments where other emitter types can be used. ‘844 teaches the use of UVC LEDs for sterilization (col 8, lines 35-45).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the apparatus of Modified ‘025 to include the UVC LEDs as taught by ‘844 since UVC LEDs were a known equivalent to excimer lamps for the same purpose of emitting UVC light for sterilizing a target area. See MPEP 2144.06(I).
Claim(s) 2-4 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 20220184251 (hereinafter “‘251’”) in view of US 20060283786 (hereinafter “‘786’”), US 11730844 (hereinafter “‘844’”), and US 20160317690 (hereinafter “‘690’”), as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of US 20210299318 (hereinafter “‘318’”).
Regarding claim 2, Modified ‘025 teaches the disinfecting device of claim 1 wherein the housing is a rectangular prism (‘025, Fig. 3, housing 300) but does not teach wherein the housing is a triangular prism.
‘318 teaches UV devices for sterilization [abstract] comprising a housing and a plurality of UV emitters within a UV-C working area 422, wherein the working area is hollow and permits air to flow past the emitters [0080]. ‘318 teaches that the working area may be a hollow structure shaped as a triangular prism and recognizes that persons skilled in the art could fashion the housing surrounding the working area to be any shape [0081].
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the housing as taught by Modified ‘025 to be a triangular prism as contemplated by ‘318 and this involves the change of shape which has already been found to be obvious. See MPEP 2144.04(IV)(B).
Regarding claim 3, Modified ‘025 teaches the disinfecting device of claim 2 wherein the housing is a triangular prism (‘318, [0081]) but does not tech wherein the triangular prism is a right triangle, the front face defining the hypotenuse of the triangle.
However, one having ordinary skill in the art would recognize that shape of the housing would not affect the functionality of the disinfecting device of claim 2. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the housing as taught by Modified ‘025 to be a triangular prism that is a right triangle, wherein the front face defines the hypotenuse of the triangle since the change of shape would not affect the functionality of the device and changes of shape have already been found to be obvious. See MPEP 2144.04(IV)(B).
Regarding claim 4, Modified ‘025 teaches the disinfecting device of claim 3 wherein the housing is a triangular prism is a right triangle, the front face defining the hypotenuse of the triangle (see claim 3 rejection) but does not teach wherein the triangle is a 30°, 60°, 90° triangle.
However, one having ordinary skill in the art would recognize that angles of the of the housing would not affect the functionality of the disinfecting device of claim 3. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the housing as taught by Modified ‘025 to be a 30°, 60°, 90° triangle since the change of shape would not affect the functionality of the device and changes of shape have already been found to be obvious. See MPEP 2144.04(IV)(B).
Claim 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 20220184251 (hereinafter “‘251’”) in view of US 20060283786 (hereinafter “‘786’”), US 11730844 (hereinafter “‘844’”), and US 20160317690 (hereinafter “‘690’”), as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of US 20220096684 (hereinafter “‘684’”).
Regarding claim 8, Modified ‘025 teaches the disinfecting device of claim 1 including a temperature sensor mounted to the metal core pcBoard and in electrical communication with the microprocessor controls of the LEDs (col 12, lines 19-34) to regulate thermal load from the LEDs via climate control system 134 (col 11, lines 50-54) and system controller 730 (understood to be a microprocessor, col 14, lines 36-46).
Modified ‘025 does not teach a pair of spaced apart temperature sensors mounted to the metal core pcBoard and in electrical communication with the microprocessor controls of the LEDs, the temperature sensors and microprocessor cooperating to define a closed loop feedback temperature control to maintain the front face at a temperature below about 60° C.
‘684 teaches a vehicle disinfection system [abstract] that sterilizes an interior with a plurality of UV light emission devices [0073-0075] that may further comprise temperature sensors [0124]. ‘684 further teaches a controller in communication with the emission devices [0116] wherein the controller can receive inputs from the temperature sensor and adjust power to the emission devices to prevent temperature rising past a predetermined threshold [0123-0124, 0162].
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the metal core pcBoard as taught by Modified by ‘025 with the temperature sensor (spaced apart from the temperature sensors of Modified ‘025 to provide holistic temperature data inside the housing) and controller as taught by ‘684 since ‘684 teaches the sensor and controller to cooperate in a closed feedback loop to prevent a temperature of apparatus from exceeding a threshold [0123-0124, 0162]. See MPEP 2143(I)(G).
Modified ‘025 teaches a pair of spaced apart temperature sensors mounted to the metal core pcBoard and in electrical communication with the microprocessor controls of the LEDs, the temperature sensors and microprocessor cooperating to define a closed loop feedback temperature control to maintain the front face at a temperature. But does not teach maintaining the temperature below about 60° C.
However, one having ordinary skill in the art would have recognized the temperature as a result effective variable (i.e., a variable which achieves a recognized result) Since this particular parameter is recognized as a result-effective variable, the determination of the optimum or workable ranges of said variable can be characterized as routine experimentation. See MPEP 2144.05 (II)(A). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to regulate the temperature of the front face to be below 60° C given time to routinely experiment.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to NEBYATE SEGED whose telephone number is (703)756-4611. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8-5:00 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 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.
/N.S.S./Examiner, Art Unit 1758
/SEAN E CONLEY/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1799