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 .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
2. A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 15 May 2026 has been entered.
Response to Amendment
3. The amendment filed 15 May 2026 has been received and considered for examination. Claims 11-16, 18, 20-22, 24-25 and 31-36 are presently pending, with claims 24-25 withdrawn from consideration and claims 11-16, 18, 20-22, and 31-35 being examined herein.
4. All rejections from the previous Office action are withdrawn in view of Applicant’s amendment.
5. New grounds of rejection under 35 U.S.C. 112(a), 35 U.S.C. 112(b), and 35 U.S.C. 103 are detailed below.
Claim Objections
6. Claim 18 is objected to because of the following informalities: in lines 8 and 12, “causes” should read --cause--, for grammatical agreement with the preceding “controller that is configured to”. Likewise, in line 14, “stops” should read --stop--.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Interpretation
7. 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.
8. 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.
9. 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:
“sensing device” in claims 11, 18, and their dependents, interpreted as a “human sensor that detects presence of a person by infrared rays, ultrasonic waves, or visible light” per Specification par 0021.
“irradiation device” in claims 11, 18, and their dependents.
“imaging device” in claim 32, interpreted to cover “a camera or the like” per Specification par 0022.
“warning unit” in claim 36.
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. The irradiation device and warning unit are not assigned a specific structure anywhere in the specification as detailed in rejections under 35 U.S.C. 112 below, though the warning unit is described functionally a device that produces a sound as per par 0071 of the 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
10. The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
11. Claims 11-16, 18, 20-22, and 31-36 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention. Namely, the specification fails to provide adequate written description for the specific structure of the limitations interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
“irradiation device” in claims 11, 18, and their dependents.
“warning unit” in claim 36.
12. Regarding the irradiation device, the Specification describes a first irradiation device and a second irradiation device (pars 0021, 0024-0027, 0041-0044) but does not provide adequate written description for the structure of a single irradiation device that would perform the claimed functions (e.g., a single ultraviolet lamp or multiple ultraviolet lamps, a single or multiple LEDs, etc.), thus it is not clear that the claimed invention having a single irradiation device unifying all functions was envisioned at the time of filing. Examiner notes that the description of the UV emitter only as a “first irradiation device” or “second irradiation device” throughout is problematic because the Specification makes no mention of a concrete implementation of either/any of these devices, improperly forcing a skilled artisan to find a suitable ultraviolet emitter on their own presumption of what will work and further introducing doubt as to possession of the claimed invention at the time of filing.
13. Regarding the warning unit, the Specification fails to describe any such ‘unit’ but identifies that it is desirable to cause a person to easily recognize that entry to the room is dangerous by sounding a warning sound before performing irradiation (par 0071). Therefore, it is unclear what structure, if any, was envisioned for this warning unit at the time of filing and raises doubt as to possession of the claimed invention at the time of filing.
14. 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.
15. Claims 11-16, 18, 20-22, and 31-36 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.
16. Regarding claims 11 and 18, the limitation “an irradiation device” invokes 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. However, the written description fails to disclose the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the entire claimed function and to clearly link the structure, material, or acts to the function. Accordingly, the scope of the claim is unclear, as one of ordinary skill in the art would not understand the metes and bounds of possible ultraviolet emitters and associated electrical controls, module structures, etc., that are covered by the claim. See MPEP 2181(III). Therefore, the claim is indefinite and is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, second paragraph.
Applicant may:
(a) Amend the claim so that the claim limitation will no longer be interpreted as a limitation under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph;
(b) Amend the written description of the specification such that it expressly recites what structure, material, or acts perform the entire claimed function, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)); or
(c) Amend the written description of the specification such that it clearly links the structure, material, or acts disclosed therein to the function recited in the claim, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)).
If applicant is of the opinion that the written description of the specification already implicitly or inherently discloses the corresponding structure, material, or acts and clearly links them to the function so that one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize what structure, material, or acts perform the claimed function, applicant should clarify the record by either:
(a) Amending the written description of the specification such that it expressly recites the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function and clearly links or associates the structure, material, or acts to the claimed function, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)); or
(b) Stating on the record what the corresponding structure, material, or acts, which are implicitly or inherently set forth in the written description of the specification, perform the claimed function. For more information, see 37 CFR 1.75(d) and MPEP §§ 608.01(o) and 2181.
17. Claims 12-16 and 31-33 are indefinite by virtue of their dependence on claim 11. Claims 20-22 and 34-36 are indefinite by virtue of their dependence on indefinite claim 18.
18. Regarding claim 36, the limitation “a warning” similarly invokes 35 U.S.C. 112(f) but there is insufficient disclosure of structure for performing the claimed functions. Thus, the scope of the claim is unclear, as one of ordinary skill in the art would not understand the metes and bounds of possible sound producing structures and associated connections that comprise the “warning unit” as intended by the claim. See MPEP 2181(III) and the above rejection of claims 11 and 18 under 35 U.S.C. 112(b).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
19. 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.
20. Claims 11-12 and 14-16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wabst et al (US 20210363767 A1) in view of Kim et al (US 10894104 B1).
21. Regarding claim 11, Wabst discloses a disinfection apparatus (irradiation devices emit UVC light that disinfects the room and the surfaces from bacteria and viruses, pars 0109-0111) comprising:
a sensing device configured to sense a presence or an absence of a person in a disinfection area (presence sensor 6 which detects the presence and/or absence of a person in the interior space 2, Abstract, pars 0110-0111, FIG. 1);
an irradiation device (irradiation devices 71 and 72, FIG. 1, pars 0110-0111) capable of irradiating the disinfection area with invisible light of a first wavelength (first irradiation device 71 is designed as a UV LED lamp and emits UVC radiation with a wavelength of approximately 222 nm into the interior space 2, par 0110) and with invisible light of a second wavelength different from the first wavelength (second irradiation device 72 is also designed as a UV LED lamp and emits UVC radiation with a wavelength of 250 nm to 290 nm into the interior space 2, par 0111);
a controller (control unit which controls the existing irradiation devices and which detects signals from the presence sensor, par 0023) that causes the irradiation device to irradiate with the first wavelength when the sensing device detects the presence of the person in the disinfection area (first irradiation device 71 emits UVC radiation when at least one person is present in the interior space 2, par 0110), and causes the irradiation device to irradiate with the second wavelength when the sensing device does not sense the person in the disinfection area (second irradiation device 72 emits UVC radiation when a person is absent from the interior space 2, par 0111); and
a visual indicator that includes a monitor (modular shelter according to the invention has a screen, par 0062).
The limitation wherein the monitor is configured to display that irradiation is harmful to the person constitutes nonfunctional descriptive material, directed toward conveying a message or meaning to a human reader independent of the supporting product. See MPEP 2111.05. As such, no functional relationship exists to elevate the message that the second wavelength is harmful above the general display capability of the monitor of Wabst. Wabst teaches that the irradiation at the higher second wavelength is harmful to a person and that it is important to ensure that no person comes into contact with the potentially harmful UVC radiation in the higher wavelength range (pars 0029 and 0033), for this reason Wabst teaches that irradiation time by the second irradiation device can be indicated by a signal lamp (par 0034).
However, Wabst fails to teach that the monitor would be configured to, in response to irradiation by the irradiation device with the invisible light of the second wavelength, display any such message or warning, as the monitor of Wabst is primarily purposed for videoconferencing though has interfaces for a laptop (par 0062), which would be capable of inputting and displaying such a warning.
Kim teaches an analogous lighting device for sterilizing a surface or space (Abstract) employing multiple wavelengths including UV-C from the third light emitting element 216 (col 9 line 54 to col 10 line 2) that includes a display such as a display panel for displaying audiovisual information indicating a driving state of the sterilizing device (col 10 lines 59-65), the driving state being an on/off state of each of the light emitting elements 212,214,216 (col 10 lines 40-46), which reads upon a display configuration indicating that the UVC light is on displayed in response to irradiation with the UVC light.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to configure the monitor of Wabst to display that harmful UVC irradiation is occurring in response to irradiation by the irradiation device with the invisible light of the second wavelength as taught by Kim, because conveying this irradiation state would predictably inform a user that the invisible wavelength is active in the same manner and involves combining prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results. See MPEP 2143(I)(A). The specific warning that irradiation is harmful to the person represents conveying nonfunctional descriptive material, directed toward conveying a message or meaning to a human reader independent of the supporting product (see MPEP 2111.05), but would be an obvious message to display in conjunction with the indication that the harmful wavelength is active.
22. Regarding claim 12, Wabst as modified by Kim teaches the disinfection apparatus of claim 11, wherein the visual indicator includes a monitor that is capable of interfacing with a laptop (Wabst par 0062) and displaying audiovisual information indicating a driving state of the sterilizing device (Kim col 10 lines 40-46 and 59-65). The limitation displays information corresponding to irradiation with the first wavelength and irradiation with the second wavelength is recited as an intended use of the apparatus, which is not given patentable weight. See MPEP 2114(II). Examiner notes that as the information displayed by the combined device includes on/off state of each of the light emitting elements (Kim lines 40-46 and 59-65), the prior art device is capable of displaying the information as claimed. The added limitation wherein the visual indicator displays in different modes does not change this intended use recitation, as it is known from claim 11 above that the device can be operated in different modes, i.e., a mode of irradiation with the first wavelength and a mode of irradiation with the second wavelength.
23. Regarding claim 14, Wabst as modified by Kim teaches the disinfection apparatus of claim 11, wherein the controller sets an irradiation time for irradiating with the second wavelength (timer coupled to the control device which switches off the at least one second irradiation device after a predetermined time interval, Wabst pars 0030-0031). Though Wabst teaches that the timer enables the delivery of a dose that would completely destroy bacteria and viruses (par 0091), the combination does not specifically teach that the controller would set an irradiation time for irradiating with the first wavelength.
However, Wabst does teach that viruses can be completely destroyed by UVC light at a lower dose after a correspondingly long time (par 0091), this teaching of low dose UVC light corresponding to irradiation with the first wavelength. 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 controller to set an irradiation time as taught by Wabst for irradiating with the first wavelength as well, as doing so would predictably enable timed dosing of the first wavelength in a way that effects full disinfection similarly to the application of the second wavelength with a reasonable expectation of success. See MPEP 2143(I)(G).
24. Regarding claim 15, Wabst as modified by Kim teaches the disinfection apparatus of claim 11, wherein the irradiation device irradiates ultraviolet light with a wavelength of around 222 nm as the first wavelength (first irradiation device 71 is designed as a UV LED lamp and emits UVC radiation with a wavelength of approximately 222 nm into the interior space 2, Wabst par 0110).
25. Regarding claim 16, Wabst as modified by Kim teaches the disinfection apparatus of claim 11, wherein the irradiation device irradiates a fixture in the disinfection area (disinfects the room and the surfaces from bacteria and viruses, Wabst par 0111; Wabst FIG. 1, e.g. surface 9) by the first wavelength (emits UVC radiation with a wavelength of approximately 222 nm into the interior space, Wabst par 0110) and the second wavelength (emits UVC radiation with a wavelength of 250 nm to 290 nm into the interior space, Wabst par 0111).
26. Claim 13 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wabst et al (US 20210363767 A1) and Kim et al (US 10894104 B1) as applied to claim 11 above, and further in view of Deal (US 20090191100 A1).
Regarding claim 13, Wabst as modified by Kim teaches the disinfection apparatus of claim 11, wherein the motion detector sensing device enables the apparatus to irradiate with the second wavelength when no occupants are detected (Wabst par 0111) but that a door to the space remains locked while irradiating with the second wavelength (Wabst par 0113). The combination above does not teach that when the sensing device detects a person while the irradiation device is irradiating with the second wavelength, the controller stops irradiation with the second wavelength by the irradiation device.
Deal teaches an analogous area sterilizer using UV-C light (Abstract, pars 0017-0020 and 0031-0032, FIGS. 1-3) wherein motion detectors similarly enable the system to irradiate when no occupant is detected (par 0047) using a UV-C wavelength shown to be harmful to humans (pars 0040 and 0047). During the sterilization cycle even while the operator is assumed to be out of the room, the device automatically deactivates itself should the device detect motion (pars 0032 and 0039-0040).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to further configure the controller of modified Wabst to stop irradiation with the second wavelength when the sensing device detects the presence of a person in the disinfection area as taught by Deal, because this would predictably protect the user from harmful UV-C radiation in all scenarios in which people could be present in the disinfection area as advantageously taught by Deal (pars 0031-0032) with a reasonable expectation of success. See MPEP 2143(I)(G).
27. Claims 18 and 20-22 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wabst et al (US 20210363767 A1) in view of Deal (US 20090191100 A1).
28. Regarding claim 18, Wabst discloses a disinfection apparatus (irradiation devices emit UVC light that disinfects the room and the surfaces from bacteria and viruses, pars 0109-0111) comprising:
a sensing device configured to sense a presence or an absence of a person in a disinfection area (presence sensor 6 which detects the presence and/or absence of a person in the interior space 2, Abstract, pars 0110-0111, FIG. 1);
an irradiation device (irradiation devices 71 and 72, FIG. 1, pars 0110-0111) capable of irradiating the disinfection area with invisible light of a first wavelength (first irradiation device 71 is designed as a UV LED lamp and emits UVC radiation with a wavelength of approximately 222 nm into the interior space 2, par 0110) and with invisible light of a second wavelength different from the first wavelength (second irradiation device 72 is also designed as a UV LED lamp and emits UVC radiation with a wavelength of 250 nm to 290 nm into the interior space 2, par 0111);
and a controller (control unit which controls the existing irradiation devices and which detects signals from the presence sensor, par 0023) that is configured to:
cause the irradiation device to irradiate with the first wavelength when the sensing device detects the presence of the person in the disinfection area (first irradiation device 71 emits UVC radiation when at least one person is present in the interior space 2, par 0110),
by setting a second irradiation time for irradiation with the second wavelength (timer which switches off the at least one second irradiation device after a predetermined time interval, Wabst pars 0029-0031), causes the irradiation device to irradiate with the second wavelength when the sensing device does not sense the person in the disinfection area (second irradiation device 72 emits UVC radiation when a person is absent from the interior space 2, Wabst par 0111).
Though Wabst teaches that the timer enables the delivery of a dose that would completely destroy bacteria and viruses (par 0091), Wabst does not specifically teach that the controller would set an irradiation time for irradiating with the first wavelength. However, Wabst does teach that viruses can be completely destroyed by UVC light at a lower dose after a correspondingly long time (par 0091), this teaching of low dose UVC light corresponding to irradiation with the first wavelength. 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 controller to set an irradiation time as taught by Wabst for irradiating with the first wavelength as well, as doing so would predictably enable timed dosing of the first wavelength in a way that effects full disinfection similarly to the application of the second wavelength with a reasonable expectation of success. See MPEP 2143(I)(G).
Wabst teaches that the presence sensing device enables the apparatus to irradiate with the second wavelength when no occupants are detected (par 0111) but that a door to the space remains locked while irradiating with the second wavelength (par 0113). Wabst does not teach that the controller stops irradiation with the second wavelength when the sensing device detects the presence of the person, irrespective of the first irradiation time and the second irradiation time that is set.
Deal teaches an analogous area sterilizer using UV-C light (Abstract, pars 0017-0020 and 0031-0032, FIGS. 1-3) wherein motion detectors similarly enable the system to irradiate when no occupant is detected (par 0047) using a UV-C wavelength shown to be harmful to humans (pars 0040 and 0047). During the sterilization cycle even while the operator is assumed to be out of the room, the device automatically deactivates itself at any time during the operation of the device should the device detect motion (pars 0032 and 0039-0040).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to further configure the controller of Wabst to stop irradiation with the second wavelength when the sensing device detects the presence of a person as taught by Deal because this would predictably protect the user from harmful UV-C radiation in all scenarios in which people could be present in the disinfection area as advantageously taught by Deal (pars 0031-0032) with a reasonable expectation of success. See MPEP 2143(I)(G).
29. Regarding claim 20, Wabst as modified by Deal teaches the disinfection apparatus of claim 18, wherein the controller is configured to, irrespective of the first irradiation time that is set for irradiating with the first wavelength (viruses and bacteria introduced by a user, Wabst par 0010; dosage time to completely destroy viruses, Wabst par 0091), cause the device to irradiate with the second wavelength when the sensing device no longer detects the person (absence of a person is also detected by the presence sensor 6 so that after the person leaves the room… the UVC light with a frequency between 250 and 290 nanometers is switched on, Wabst par 0111).
30. Regarding claim 21, Wabst as modified by Deal teaches the disinfection apparatus of claim 18, wherein the irradiation device irradiates ultraviolet light with a wavelength of around 222 nm as the first wavelength (first irradiation device 71 is designed as a UV LED lamp and emits UVC radiation with a wavelength of approximately 222 nm into the interior space 2, Wabst par 0110).
31. Regarding claim 22, Wabst as modified by Deal teaches the disinfection apparatus of claim 18, wherein the irradiation device irradiates a fixture in the disinfection area (disinfects the room and the surfaces from bacteria and viruses, Wabst par 0111; Wabst FIG. 1, e.g. surface 9) by the first wavelength (emits UVC radiation with a wavelength of approximately 222 nm into the interior space, Wabst par 0110) and the second wavelength (emits UVC radiation with a wavelength of 250 nm to 290 nm into the interior space, Wabst par 0111).
32. Regarding claim 36, Wabst as modified by Deal teaches the disinfection apparatus of claim 18, further comprising a warning unit that is configured to provide a warning (audio system, audible warning signal can be emitted, Wabst pars 0061-0062). The combination does not teach that the warning would be configured to occur before irradiation with the second wavelength.
Deal further teaches audible voice alarms and motion detectors activate and are preferred to stay on until the entire cycle has been complete (par 0040), the cycle including a preset time such as one minute before powering the UV-C bulbs (par 0041) for safety of operator and occupants present (pars 0031 and 0040).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to configure the warning unit of Wabst to provide a warning before irradiation with the second wavelength as taught by Deal, because this audible warning would similarly ensure that people are alerted to the harmful UV radiation (Deal pars 0040 and 0047) with a reasonable expectation of success. See MPEP 2143(I)(G).
33. Claim 31 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wabst et al (US 20210363767 A1) and Kim et al (US 10894104 B1) as applied to claim 11 above, and further in view of Deal (US 20090191100 A1).
Regarding claim 31, Wabst as modified by Kim teaches the disinfection apparatus of claim 11, wherein the motion detector sensing device enables the apparatus to irradiate with the second wavelength when no occupants are detected (Wabst par 0111) but that a door to the space remains locked while irradiating with the second wavelength (Wabst par 0113). The combination above does not teach wherein the controller stops irradiation with the second wavelength when the sensing device detects the presence of the person.
Deal teaches an analogous area sterilizer using UV-C light (Abstract, pars 0017-0020 and 0031-0032, FIGS. 1-3) wherein motion detectors similarly enable the system to irradiate when no occupant is detected (par 0047) using a UV-C wavelength shown to be harmful to humans (pars 0040 and 0047). During the sterilization cycle even while the operator is assumed to be out of the room, the device automatically deactivates itself should the device detect motion (pars 0032 and 0039-0040).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to further configure the controller of modified Wabst to stop irradiation with the second wavelength when the sensing device detects the presence of a person as taught by Deal, because this would predictably protect the user from harmful UV-C radiation in all scenarios in which people could be present in the disinfection area as advantageously taught by Deal (pars 0031-0032) with a reasonable expectation of success. See MPEP 2143(I)(G).
34. Claims 32 and 33 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wabst et al (US 20210363767 A1) and Kim et al (US 10894104 B1) as applied to claim 11 above, and further in view of Lloyd (US 20170246331 A1).
35. Regarding claim 32, Wabst as modified by Kim teaches the disinfection apparatus of claim 11, further comprising an imaging device (modular shelter according to the invention has a screen and/or a video conferencing system and/or a camera, par 0062; presence sensor may comprise a camera, par 0021). The limitation that captures a behavior range of the person is recited as an intended use of the apparatus, which is not given patentable weight. See MPEP 2114(II). Examiner notes that the camera of Wabst, operating continuously in a motion sensing or video conferencing capacity, is capable of capturing such a behavior range of a person in the space being monitored. Wabst teaches wherein the controller controls the irradiation device to perform irradiation with the second wavelength based on presence/absence detection by the presence sensor (par 0111), but the combination does not teach that this control would occur specifically based on the behavior range.
Lloyd teaches an analogous area sterilizer using UV-C light (Abstract, pars 0071 and 0123-0124, FIGS. 14-15) that includes sensors configured to track the location of persons in the area to anticipate the movements of persons throughout the area to improve both the safety of persons in the environment and the decontamination of the environment (par 0172). The UV emitter moves an ultraviolet beam in areas not occupied by the person to avoid unsafe germicidal radiation exposure (pars 0123-0124).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to further configure the controller of modified Wabst to control irradiation with the second wavelength based on a tracked behavior range as taught by Lloyd because this would predictably provide the same benefits of improving safety of the persons in the environment and the decontamination of the environment (Lloyd par 0172) with a reasonable expectation of success. See MPEP 2143(I)(G).
36. Regarding claim 33, Wabst as modified by Kim and Lloyd teaches the disinfection apparatus of claim 32, but the combination above does not teach an angle adjuster that adjusts an angle of the irradiation device, wherein the controller controls the angle adjuster to irradiate with the second wavelength based on the behavior range.
Lloyd further teaches an ultraviolet LED or laser that is mounted on head that is electromechanically controlled by the controller to rotate about vertical and horizontal axes (par 0097, FIG. 6), to control the direction of the emitter (par 0097) to enable a decontamination sweep of various angles as depicted in FIGS. 14-15.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to further configure the controller of modified Wabst to adjust the angle of the irradiation device via an angle adjuster to irradiate with the second wavelength based on the behavior range as taught by Lloyd because this would predictably enable angle control of the emitter to execute a controlled sweep of the area not inhabited by the person, protecting the person from harmful ultraviolet exposure (Lloyd pars 0123-0124) with a reasonable expectation of success. See MPEP 2143(I)(A) and MPEP 2143(I)(G).
37. Claims 34 and 35 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wabst et al (US 20210363767 A1) and Deal (US 20090191100 A1) as applied to claim 18 above, and further in view of Lloyd (US 20170246331 A1).
38. Regarding claim 34, Wabst as modified by Deal teaches the disinfection apparatus of claim 18, further comprising an imaging device (modular shelter according to the invention has a screen and/or a video conferencing system and/or a camera, Wabst par 0062; presence sensor may comprise a camera, Wabst par 0021). The limitation that captures a behavior range of the person is recited as an intended use of the apparatus, which is not given patentable weight. See MPEP 2114(II). Examiner notes that the camera of Wabst, operating continuously in a motion sensing or video conferencing capacity, is capable of capturing such a behavior range of a person in the space being monitored. Wabst further teaches wherein the controller controls the irradiation device to perform irradiation with the second wavelength based on presence/absence detection by the presence sensor (par 0111), but the combination does not teach that this control would occur specifically based on the behavior range.
Lloyd teaches an analogous area sterilizer using UV-C light (Abstract, pars 0071 and 0123-0124, FIGS. 14-15) that includes sensors configured to track the location of persons in the area to anticipate the movements of persons throughout the area to improve both the safety of persons in the environment and the decontamination of the environment (par 0172). The UV emitter moves an ultraviolet beam in areas not occupied by the person to avoid unsafe germicidal radiation exposure (pars 0123-0124).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to further configure the controller of modified Wabst to control irradiation with the second wavelength based on a tracked behavior range as taught by Lloyd because this would predictably provide the same benefits of improving safety of the persons in the environment and the decontamination of the environment (Lloyd par 0172) with a reasonable expectation of success. See MPEP 2143(I)(G).
39. Regarding claim 35, Wabst as modified by Deal and Lloyd teaches the disinfection apparatus of claim 34, but the combination above does not teach an angle adjuster that adjusts an angle of the irradiation device, wherein the controller controls the angle adjuster to irradiate with the second wavelength based on the behavior range.
Lloyd further teaches an ultraviolet LED or laser that is mounted on head that is electromechanically controlled by the controller to rotate about vertical and horizontal axes (par 0097, FIG. 6), to control the direction of the emitter (par 0097) to enable a decontamination sweep of various angles as depicted in FIGS. 14-15.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to further configure the controller of modified Wabst to adjust the angle of the irradiation device via an angle adjuster to irradiate with the second wavelength based on the behavior range as taught by Lloyd because this would predictably enable angle control of the emitter to execute a controlled sweep of the area not inhabited by the person, protecting the person from harmful ultraviolet exposure (Lloyd pars 0123-0124) with a reasonable expectation of success. See MPEP 2143(I)(A) and MPEP 2143(I)(G).
Response to Arguments
40. Applicant’s arguments, see Remarks filed 15 May 2026, pages 8-9, with respect to the rejection(s) of claim(s) 11-12 and 15-17 under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) and claim(s) 13-14 and 31-33 under 35 U.S.C. 103 have been fully considered and are persuasive. Therefore, the rejection has been withdrawn. However, upon further consideration, a new ground(s) of rejection under 35 U.S.C. 103 is made in view of Kim, who teaches a display indicating a driving state of the device which includes the on/off status of multiple wavelengths.
41. Applicant's arguments, see Remarks filed 15 May 2026, pages 9-11, with respect to rejections of claims 18-23 and 34-35 under 35 U.S.C. 103 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Applicant asserts that the controller of Wabst as modified by Deal fails to meet a controller that stops irradiation with the second wavelength irrespective of any irradiation time that is set because Wabst uses a physical lock that does not depend on timer settings. Examiner asserts that Deal cures these deficiencies by teaching that the power to the UV bulbs is immediately disabled “at any time during the operation of the device” (Deal par 0032), which reads as irrespective of any timer settings that may be present when the disabling function is imported into the apparatus of Wabst. Further, Examiner clarifies that Deal teaches the automatic bulb shutoff in addition to door interlocks (Deal par 0032) showing that this function is beneficial to prevent UV exposure even in a system where doors can be locked to restrict access as that of Wabst.
Conclusion
42. The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Bracher et al (US 20210386894 A1) discloses an analogous UV sterilizing system wherein radiation-emitting devices 104 may be configured to emit electromagnetic radiation having a peak intensity of 222 nm when it is determined that a living subject may be irradiated and to emit electromagnetic having a peak intensity of 254 nm when the sterilizing system determines a living subject will not be irradiated (par 0032, FIGS. 1-2).
Nevitt et al (US 20210386894 A1) discloses an analogous UV sterilizing system including an in-use warning light system and motion sensors to warn users of UV radiation (par 0056) .
43. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Eric Talbert whose telephone number is (703)756-5538. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri 8:00-5:00 Eastern Time.
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.
/ERIC TALBERT/Examiner, Art Unit 1758
/MARIS R KESSEL/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1758
Prosecution Insights