The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
DETAILED ACTION
Claim Objections
Claims 1-20 are objected to because of the following informalities:
in line 3 of Claim 1, insert --ultraviolet irradiation-- before “disinfectant”;
in line 6 of Claim 1, insert --ultraviolet irradiation-- before “disinfectant’s”;
in line 8 of Claim 1, insert --of the ultraviolet irradiation disinfectant system-- after “components”;
in line 9 of Claim 1, delete “222nm” and insert --222 nm--;
in line 14 of Claim 1, insert --ultraviolet irradiation-- before “disinfectant”;
in line 1 of Claim 2, delete “claim1” and insert --claim 1--;
in line 2 of Claim 2, insert --target-- before “microorganism”;
in line 1 of Claim 3, delete “claim1” and insert --claim 1--;
in line 4 of Claim 3,
delete “190nm” and insert --190 nm--,
delete “230nm” and insert --230 nm--;
in line 1 of Claim 4, delete “claim1” and insert --claim 1--;
in line 1 of Claim 5, delete “claim1” and insert --claim 1--;
in line 1 of Claim 6, delete “claim1” and insert --claim 1--;
in line 4 of Claim 7,
insert --the-- before “room”,
delete “target location” and insert --at least one target location to be disinfected--;
in line 6 of Claim 7,
insert --the-- before “room”,
delete “target location” and insert --at least one target location to be disinfected--;
in line 1 of Claim 8, delete “claim1” and insert --claim 1--;
in line 1 of Claim 9, delete “claim1” and insert --claim 1--;
in line 2 of Claim 10, insert --manual-- before “disinfection”;
in line 4 of Claim 10, delete “a” before “continuous cycle” and insert --the--;
in line 2 of Claim 11, insert --the-- before “enclosed space”;
in line 2 of Claim 17, insert --ultraviolet irradiation disinfectant-- before “system”;
in line 3 of Claim 19, delete “222nm” and insert --222 nm--;
in line 6 of Claim 19, insert --ultraviolet irradiation-- before “disinfectant”;
in line 8 of Claim 19, insert --the-- before “enclosed”;
in line 9 of Claim 19, insert --of-- before “a duration”;
in line 3 of Claim 20, insert --ultraviolet irradiation-- before “disinfectant”;
in line 6 of Claim 20, insert --ultraviolet irradiation-- before “disinfectant”;
in line 8 of Claim 20, insert --ultraviolet irradiation disinfectant system’s-- before “internal”;
in line 9 of Claim 20, delete “222nm” and insert --222 nm--;
in line 10 of Claim 20, delete “.” and insert --,-- after “configuration”;
in line 15 of Claim 20, insert --ultraviolet irradiation-- before “disinfectant”;
in line 17 of Claim 20, insert --ultraviolet irradiation disinfectant-- before “system”;
in line 20 of Claim 20,
delete “cycle” and insert --cycles--,
insert --target-- before “microorganism”;
in line 24 of Claim 20,
delete “190nm” and insert --190 nm--,
delete “230nm” and insert --230 nm--;
in line 32 of Claim 20,
insert --the-- before “room”,
insert --at least one-- before “target”;
in line 34 of Claim 20,
insert --the-- before “room”,
insert --at least one-- before “target”;
in line 36 of Claim 20,
insert --one or more-- before “disinfection”,
delete “cycle” and insert --cycles--;
in line 39 of Claim 20,
insert --one or more-- before “disinfection”,
delete “cycle” and insert --cycles--;
in line 40 of Claim 20, delete “a” before “continuous” and insert --the--;
in line 43 of Claim 20, delete “source” and insert --sources--;
in line 49 of Claim 20, insert --of-- before “a duration”.
Appropriate correction is required.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to because Figure 9 is labeled as another Figure 8. Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
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.
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) is/are: “localization apparatus” in claims 1 and 20.
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof. Specifically, corresponding structure(s) for “a localization apparatus” comprises laser and/or ultrasonic and/or LiDAR technologies such as light/laser pulses from a laser/ultrasonic wave emitter and sensor or scanner (see p. 15 [0029] and p. 18 [0037] of Specification).
If applicant does not intend to have this/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 it/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 it/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 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claim 1 recites the limitation "the disinfection system" in line 12. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
The term “determining an optimal placement” in claims 1, 7 and 19-20 is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “optimal placement” 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. In particular, while the Specification in para. [0038] discloses “[t]he optimal placement is calculated to enable the disinfectant system to deliver efficient dosage of UV-C radiation, based on the room size and selected pathogen the user chooses to target,” this does not appear to be a definition or provide a person of ordinary skill in the art a discernable degree as to whether a position is optimal or not.
A broad range or limitation together with a narrow range or limitation that falls within the broad range or limitation (in the same claim) may be considered indefinite if the resulting claim does not clearly set forth the metes and bounds of the patent protection desired. See MPEP § 2173.05(c). In the present instance, claim 7 recites the broad recitation “determining an optical placement” as per dependence on claim 1, and the claim also recites “wherein the optimal placement is based on at least one of room size and room shape and a selected target microorganism, wherein room size equates to square footage when the target location is a surface location, and wherein room size equates to cubic dimension when the target location is an airborne location” which is the narrower statement of the range/limitation. The claim(s) are considered indefinite because there is a question or doubt as to whether the feature introduced by such narrower language is (a) merely exemplary of the remainder of the claim, and therefore not required, or (b) a required feature of the claims.
Claim 8 recites the limitation "the disinfection cycle" in line 2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 9 recites the limitation "the disinfection system" in line 2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 14 recites the limitation "the target dosage" in line 3. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claims 2-7, 10-13 and 15-18 are rejected due to their dependence on a rejected claim.
Claim 19 recites the limitation "the optimal placement" in line 6. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 19 recites the limitation "the target dosages" in line 10. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 20 recites the limitation "the disinfection system" in lines 13-14 and 38. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
In Claim 20, it is not clear which one of the “one or more disinfection cycles” is “a continuous cycle” with respect to the limitation “the disinfection cycle” as set forth in line 39.
In Claim 20, it is not clear whether “a plurality of UV-C light sources” in line 43 is the same or different than “a plurality of UV-C light sources” as set forth in line 10.
In Claim 20, it is not clear to which of the UV-C light sources (i.e. “a UV-C light source” in line 8 or “one or more UV-C light source” in lines 42-43 or “a plurality of UV-C light sources” in lines 10 and 43) the limitation “the UV-C light source” as set forth in line 47 is attempting to point to.
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.
Claim(s) 19 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ruiter (WO2019139743) in view of Childress (20210346539).
Ruiter (‘743) discloses a disinfectant method (see entire document, particularly Figures 1A-5C and 8-11), comprising:
maneuvering an ultraviolet irradiation disinfectant system (100) into an enclosed space (I) (i.e. during assembly of V - see Figures 1A-2E and 5A-5C),
wherein a UV-C light source (20) emits radiation between 200-300 nm wavelength (see entire document, particularly p. 9 [0035] – lines 1-4),
wherein the enclosed space (I) comprises at least one target location to be disinfected (see entire document, particularly p. 9 [0035] – lines 8-10 and 16-22);
selecting a target microorganism for disinfection (i.e. steps “select target biomatter (bacteria, virus, etc.) to determine…”, “select bacteria and/or virus to target…” and “determine biomatter (e.g. bacteria, virus, etc.)…” – see Figures 9-11);
positioning the ultraviolet irradiation disinfectant system (100) to an optimal placement within the enclosed space (I) (i.e. steps “define movement of mechanism/radiation source to provide desired energy/dosing on selected surface(s)”, “direct movement of radiation source to provide desired irradiation on selected surfaces” and “direct movement of radiation source to apply treatment of irradiation for surfaces…” – see Figures 9-11);
running a disinfection cycle within enclosed space (i) (i.e. step “monitor operation of radiation source/irradiation” – see Figure 11); and
shutting down the disinfection cycle upon completion a duration of the disinfection cycle or a match of an actual dosage with the target dosages (i.e. step “operate controller to direct radiation source to apply radiation/energy …with dose selected to sanitize surfaces” and/or steps “determine dose of irradiation (e.g. intensity, duration, etc.) …” and “monitor operation of radiation source/irradiation (according to control program and path/cycle)”) (see entire document, particularly Figures 8 and 11, p. 15 [0046] - last 8 lines, pp. 15-16 [0048], p. 16 [0050] – 3rd – 6th lines from the bottom).
Ruiter (‘743) does not appear to specifically teach that the UV-C light source emits radiation at 222 nm wavelength.
It was known in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide UV-C radiation at 222 nm wavelength for disinfection. Childress (‘539) discloses a disinfection method comprising:
maneuvering an ultraviolet irradiation disinfectant system (100) into an enclosed space (218/230; 280; 300; 330) (see entire document, particularly Figures 1-14 and 19-22, p. 5 [0083]),
wherein a UV-C light source (140) emits radiation at 222 nm wavelength (see entire document, particularly Figure 23, p. 2 [0042], p. 3 [0059], p. 5 [0078] and [0080]),
wherein the enclosed space (218/230; 280; 300; 330) comprises at least one target location to be disinfected (see entire document, particularly Figures 1-14 and 19-22, p. 2 [0043] – lines 1-3);
positioning the ultraviolet irradiation disinfectant system (100) to an optimal placement within the enclosed space (218/230; 280; 300; 330) (see entire document, particularly p. 5 [0076]-[0077], p. 6 [0094]); and
running a disinfection cycle within the enclosed space (218/230; 280; 300; 330) (see entire document, particularly Figure 23),
in order to provide sanitizing UV light/UV-C light source that is safe for human exposure and kills pathogens as well as to enable a full power within one millisecond or less compared to a traditional UV-C light source which may take seconds or even minutes to reach full power (see entire document, particularly Figure 23, p. 2 [0042], p. 5 [0078]-[0080]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in this art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide a UV-C light source that emits radiation at 222 nm wavelength in the disinfectant method of Ruiter as a known alternate UV-C radiation wavelength for disinfection in order to provide safety to humans as well as to enable faster disinfection/treatment (due to faster power up of the UV-C light source to full power) so as to kill pathogen(s) as shown by Childress.
Thus, Claim 19 would have been obvious within the meaning of 35 U.S.C. 103 over the combined teachings of Ruiter (‘743) and Childress (‘539).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 1 and 20 would be allowable if rewritten or amended to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 2nd paragraph, set forth in this Office action.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter: the primary reason for indication of allowable subject matter is due to combination of limitations “an ultraviolet irradiation disinfectant system into an enclosed space, wherein the [ultraviolet irradiation] disinfectant system comprises a cylindrical housing and a plurality of omnidirectional wheels, wherein the cylindrical housing comprises a bivalve opening, wherein the bivalve opening permits access to the [ultraviolet irradiation] disinfectant system’s internal components, wherein the [ultraviolet irradiation disinfectant system’s] internal components comprises a UV-C light source and an optical filter, wherein the UV-C light emits radiation at 222 nm wavelength” with the steps of “activating a localization apparatus for determining an optimal placement of the [ultraviolet irradiation] disinfectant system within the enclosed space” and “positioning the [ultraviolet irradiation] disinfectant system to the optimal placement within the enclosed space” where the structure of “a localization apparatus” is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f). While prior art of Ruiter (WO2019139743) discloses a disinfection method (see Figures 1A-5C and 9-11) comprising maneuvering an ultraviolet irradiation disinfectant system (100) into an enclosed space (I = vehicle interior) (i.e. during assembly of V, for example - see Figures 1A-2E and 5A-5C), determining an optimal placement of the ultraviolet irradiation disinfectant system (100) (i.e. radiation source 20) within the enclosed space (I) (i.e. steps “determine maximum distance from radiation source to surface(s) to be irradiated” and/or “determine parameters for irradiation path/cycle…” and “determine configuration of radiation source (e.g. distance/range, path/movement, angle/reflection, etc.)” - see Figures 9-11), selecting a target microorganism for disinfection (i.e. steps “select target biomatter (bacteria, virus, etc.) to determine…”, “select bacteria and/or virus to target…” and “determine biomatter (e.g. bacteria, virus, etc.)…” – see Figures 9-11), and positioning the ultraviolet irradiation disinfectant system (100) to the optimal placement within the enclosed space (I) (i.e. steps “define movement of mechanism/radiation source to provide desired energy/dosing on selected surface(s)”, “direct movement of radiation source to provide desired irradiation on selected surfaces” and “direct movement of radiation source to apply treatment of irradiation for surfaces…” – see Figures 9-11), Ruiter (‘743) does not specifically teach that the ultraviolet irradiation disinfectant system “comprises a cylindrical housing and a plurality of omnidirectional wheels, wherein the cylindrical housing comprises a bivalve opening, wherein the bivalve opening permits access to the [ultraviolet irradiation] disinfectant system’s internal components, wherein the [ultraviolet irradiation disinfectant system’s] internal components comprises a UV-C light source and an optical filter, wherein the UV-C light emits radiation at 222 nm wavelength” nor a step of “activating a localization apparatus for determining an optimal placement of the [ultraviolet irradiation disinfectant] system within the enclosed space” (see Figures 1A-5C). It would not have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide an ultraviolet irradiation disinfectant system comprised of components in the configuration as set forth in the claims or a disinfection method of using the ultraviolet irradiation disinfectant system comprised of steps as set forth in the claims.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. The following references relate either to the field of the invention or subject matter of the invention, but are not relied upon in the rejection of record: 20240033387 (a disinfection system and method for an enclosed space using a visual simultaneous localization and mapping module), CN114383251 (indoor air and surface disinfection system and method), WO2021195003 (UV disinfection system and method of a space and/or air with use of LiDAR sensors), 20210379222 (UV disinfection system and method with immobilized UV light source and determining disinfection parameters based on (a type of) target contaminant).
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to REGINA M YOO whose telephone number is (571)272-6690. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday, 9:00 am - 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.
/REGINA M YOO/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1758