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 Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
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.
The following prior art references are cited and relied upon in the rejections under 35 U.S.C. § 103:
Klaptchuck — CA 2,641,046 A1, Sanitization of Aircraft or Vehicle Cabin
Choe — US 2011/0264305 A1, Robot Cleaner and Remote Monitoring System Using the Same
Huang — EP 3 628 203 A1, Scheduling System for Autonomous Robots
Boast — EP 2 051 743 B1, Method for Using Ozone as a Disinfectant
Line — US 2020/0198445 A1, Air Sanitizing Apparatus for Interior of Vehicle and Method of Sanitizing Air in the Vehicle Using the Apparatus
Offutt — US 2018/0154028 A1, Bags for Sanitizing Contents Using Ozone and Ultraviolet Light
Eisenhour — US 2008/0245504 A1, Vehicle Air Recirculation Control Device
Non-Patent Literature
Wurman — Peter R. Wurman, Raffaello D’Andrea, and Mick Mountz, “Coordinating Hundreds of Cooperative, Autonomous Vehicles in Warehouses,” AI Magazine, Vol. 29, No. 1, Spring 2008, pp. 9–19. Spencer — Maureen Spencer, Michelle Vignari, Elizabeth Bryce, Helen Boehm Johnson, Loretta Fauerbach, and Denise Graham, “A Model for Choosing an Automated Ultraviolet-C Disinfection System and Building a Case for the C-Suite: Two Case Reports,” American Journal of Infection Control, Vol. 45, No. 3, 2017, pp. 288–292
Levinson — Ronnen Levinson, Hashem Akbari, George Ban-Weiss, Heng Pan, Riccardo Paolini, Pablo Rosado, Michael Spears, and Joyce Tam, Cool-Colored Cars to Reduce Air-Conditioning Energy Use and Reduce CO₂ Emission
Claims 1–4 and 8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. §103 as being unpatentable over Klaptchuck in view of Choe and Huang.
Claim 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. §103 as being unpatentable over Klaptchuck in view of Choe and Huang, and further in view of Wurman.
Claims 6–7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. §103 as being unpatentable over Klaptchuck in view of Choe and Huang, and further in view of Boast.
Claim 10 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. §103 as being unpatentable over Klaptchuck in view of Choe and Huang, and further in view of Boast, Line, Offutt, and Levinson.
Claim 11 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. §103 as being unpatentable over Klaptchuck in view of Choe and Huang, and further in view of Boast, Line, Offutt, Levinson, and Eisenhour.
Claims 13–15 and 19–20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. §103 as being unpatentable over Klaptchuck in view of Choe, Huang, an0d Spencer.
Claim 17 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. §103 as being unpatentable over Klaptchuck in view of Choe, Huang, and Spencer, and further in view of Wurman.
Claims 22–23 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. §103 as being unpatentable over Klaptchuck in view of Choe, Huang, and Spencer, and further in view of Boast, Line, Offutt, and Levinson.
Regarding Claim 1
Disclosure by Klaptchuck
Klaptchuck discloses or renders obvious:
A remote monitoring and control system
See at least:
“The sanitizing apparatus 104 can be remotely activated and monitored, either through wired or wireless communication...” ( p. 11)
Rationale: Klaptchuck expressly discloses both remote monitoring and remote activation of the sanitizing apparatus, thereby establishing the claimed remote monitoring and control environment.
for a cabin sanitization process,
See at least:
“The invention provides a method of sanitizing a passenger cabin...” ( p. 3)
Rationale: Klaptchuck expressly concerns sanitization of a passenger cabin.
the system Wherein it comprises:
See at least:
“An apparatus for practicing the method can comprise an ozone generator, a blower, and an ozone concentration sensor.” ( p. 4)
Rationale: Klaptchuck expressly provides an apparatus comprising cooperating components for performing the disclosed sanitization process.
a plurality of cabins,
See at least:
“In smaller aircraft, rail cars, buses, or like vehicles, the cabin would be sealed to the extent possible...” ( p. 11)
Rationale: Klaptchuck expressly contemplates employing the sanitization process in cabins of different aircraft and vehicles. Although Klaptchuck describes treatment of an individual cabin during a particular treatment event, employing the disclosed portable apparatus in a plurality of such cabins would have been a PHOSITA-obvious repetition of the same known apparatus for its established sanitization purpose, producing the predictable result of permitting treatment of multiple cabins without altering the apparatus's principle of operation.
where each cabin includes an interior space to be sanitized;
See at least:
“creating an ozone enriched atmosphere inside the passenger cabin...” ( p. 3)
Rationale: Klaptchuck expressly treats the enclosed interior of the passenger cabin as the space subjected to sanitization.
at least one portable sanitization device
See at least:
“the blower, sensor, and ozone generator can be incorporated into a portable unit that is placed into the cabin.” ( p. 5)
Rationale: Klaptchuck expressly incorporates the sanitization components into a portable unit.
comprising at least one reaction chamber
See at least:
“An apparatus for practicing the method can comprise an ozone generator, a blower, and an ozone concentration sensor.” ( p. 4)
Rationale: Klaptchuck expressly requires an ozone generator but does not expressly use the term “reaction chamber.” A PHOSITA implementing the disclosed ozone generator using a conventional electrical-discharge ozone-generating architecture would have provided a region through which oxygen-containing air passes and in which the ozone-forming reaction occurs. Such an ozone-generation region constitutes the claimed reaction chamber. This correspondence is relied upon as a PHOSITA-obvious structural implementation, not as an express textual disclosure.
configured to be arranged in the interior space of at least one cabin
See at least:
“the blower, sensor, and ozone generator can be incorporated into a portable unit that is placed into the cabin.” ( p. 5)
Rationale: Klaptchuck expressly places the portable sanitization unit within the cabin interior.
and to purify and sanitize said interior space
See at least:
“creating an ozone enriched atmosphere inside the passenger cabin...” and “circulating the ozone enriched atmosphere through the passenger cabin...” ( p. 3)
Rationale: Klaptchuck expressly uses ozone treatment throughout the passenger-cabin atmosphere to perform sanitization. A PHOSITA would have understood such treatment, which removes or inactivates biological and odor-producing contaminants, as also purifying the treated cabin atmosphere.
by ionizing air in said at least one reaction chamber;
See at least:
“Ozone (O3) is an unstable gas comprising three atoms of oxygen...” ( p. 2)
and
“An apparatus for practicing the method can comprise an ozone generator...” ( p. 4)
Rationale: Klaptchuck expressly requires generation of ozone but does not expressly state that air is “ionized.” A PHOSITA implementing Klaptchuck's ozone generator using the well-known electrical-discharge implementation of an ozone generator would have exposed oxygen-containing air to an energetic electrical discharge within the ozone-generating region to generate reactive oxygen species and ozone. Providing such an ionizing discharge region within the ozone generator would have been a predictable implementation of Klaptchuck's expressly required ozone-generation function. This limitation is therefore relied upon as PHOSITA-obvious, not as express or inherent disclosure.
at least one communication unit
See at least:
“The sanitizing apparatus 104 can be remotely activated and monitored, either through wired or wireless communication...” ( p. 11)
Rationale: Wired or wireless remote communication necessarily requires communication-interface circuitry at the portable apparatus. The communication unit is therefore implicit in the expressly disclosed remote-communication arrangement.
arranged in data communication with the at least one portable sanitization device;
See at least:
“The sanitizing apparatus 104 can be remotely activated and monitored...” ( p. 11)
Rationale: Remote monitoring and activation necessarily require the remote control system to exchange monitoring and command data with the portable sanitization apparatus.
at least one control unit
See at least:
“In a typical sanitization system for practicing the method of the invention, ozone and humidity monitoring, and subsequent adjustment would be controlled by a computer.” ( p. 11)
Rationale: Klaptchuck expressly provides a computer that performs monitoring and subsequent control/adjustment functions, thereby establishing the control-unit functionality.
arranged to monitor and control an operating sequence of the at least one portable sanitization device; and
See at least:
“ozone and humidity monitoring, and subsequent adjustment would be controlled by a computer.” ( p. 11)
Rationale: Klaptchuck expressly assigns both process monitoring and responsive control to the computer during the sanitization operation.
at least one server
See at least:
“ozone and humidity monitoring, and subsequent adjustment would be controlled by a computer.” ( p. 11)
Rationale: Klaptchuck expressly provides a computer for centralized monitoring and control. In view of Klaptchuck's separate teaching that the apparatus can be remotely monitored and activated, implementing the remotely located monitoring/control computer as a server would have been a conventional and predictable network architecture for providing the disclosed centralized remote services. This is relied upon as PHOSITA-obvious rather than as Klaptchuck expressly calling the computer a “server.”
remotely arranged on a wireless communications network
See at least:
“The sanitizing apparatus 104 can be remotely activated and monitored, either through wired or wireless communication...” ( p. 11)
Rationale: Klaptchuck expressly teaches remote wireless monitoring and activation. Locating the computer/server at the remote endpoint of the expressly disclosed wireless communication path would have been the ordinary and predictable implementation of that remote monitoring/control arrangement.
and in data communication with the at least one communication unit;
See at least:
“The sanitizing apparatus 104 can be remotely activated and monitored...” ( p. 11)
Rationale: The remotely located computer necessarily exchanges monitored information and control commands through the communication interface of the portable apparatus to perform the expressly disclosed remote monitoring and activation.
wherein the operating sequence of the at least one portable sanitization device comprises:
See at least:
“When the delivered time has elapsed, the air is circulated through a catalyst...” ( p. 5)
and
“When the sanitization period is finished, the ozone generator is stopped...” ( p. 10)
Rationale: Klaptchuck expressly performs the sanitization according to an ordered sequence having initiation, a treatment interval, and subsequent termination/remediation.
a power-on action of the at least one portable sanitization device;
See at least:
“The sanitizing apparatus 104 can be remotely activated...” ( p. 11)
Rationale: Activation of the electrically operated portable apparatus necessarily includes energizing/powering the apparatus to commence its sanitization operation. This feature is inherent in, or at minimum PHOSITA-obvious from, the expressly disclosed activation.
an operating time of the at least one portable sanitization device; and
See at least:
“It is contemplated that raising ozone concentrations to 4 to 5 ppm over a sanitization period of about one hour...” ( p. 11)
Rationale: Klaptchuck expressly specifies a defined sanitization operating period.
a shutdown action of the at least one portable sanitization device;
See at least:
“When the sanitization period is finished, the ozone generator is stopped...” ( p. 10)
Rationale: Klaptchuck expressly terminates operation of the ozone generator at completion of the treatment period, thereby disclosing the shutdown action.
Claim Limitations Not Explicitly Disclosed by Klaptchuck
Klaptchuck does not explicitly disclose the following:
at least one power source
arranged to power the at least one portable sanitization device;
wherein the at least one control unit is in data communication with at least one localization unit
integrated in the at least one portable sanitization device,
in order to obtain localization data of the portable sanitization device;
wherein the operation sequence and the localization data,
which are called a set of monitored operation data,
are communicated to the at least one server
by means of the at least one communication unit; and
wherein the at least one server is configured to compare the set of monitored operation data
with a set of predefined operation data,
and to execute control actions over the operation of the at least one portable sanitization device
based on said comparison
and by means of the at least one control unit, and
locking/unlocking at least one portable sanitization device, preventing/allowing the start of a new operation cycle;
assigning a predefined number of sanitizing process applications or operation cycles to the at least one portable sanitizing device, allowing said at least one portable sanitizing device to operate for a certain number of times; or
releasing at least one portable sanitization device, allowing said at least one portable sanitization device to operate in a released manner.
Disclosure by Choe
Choe discloses or renders obvious:
at least one power source
See at least:
“The power unit 197 is provided with a rechargeable power supply means to supply power within the robot cleaner.” ([0048])
Rationale: Choe expressly provides an onboard rechargeable power supply in the portable robot.
arranged to power the at least one portable sanitization device;
See at least:
“The power unit Supplies operating power while performing cleaning...” ([0048])
Rationale: Choe expressly supplies operating power to the portable device during operation. Incorporating the same known onboard-power architecture into Klaptchuck's portable sanitization apparatus would predictably power the sanitizing, communication, sensing, and control components.
wherein the at least one control unit is in data communication with at least one localization unit
See at least:
“The control unit 130 prepares a cleaning map using location information recognized through the location recognition unit 170...” ([0044])
Rationale: Choe expressly provides location information generated by location recognition unit 170 to control unit 130, thereby establishing the required data communication.
integrated in the at least one portable sanitization device,
See at least:
“a robot cleaner according to another embodiment may include one or more monitoring cameras 110, a control unit 130, a communication server 120, an obstacle detection unit 160, and a location recognition unit 170.” ([0039])
Rationale: Choe expressly incorporates the location recognition unit into the portable robot itself. Applying Choe's known onboard localization architecture to Klaptchuck's portable sanitizer would predictably permit determination of the sanitization device's physical location.
in order to obtain localization data of the portable sanitization device;
See at least:
“The location recognition unit 170 is provided with one or more distance sensors to recognize the location of the robot cleaner within the cleaning area.” ([0042])
Rationale: Choe expressly determines location information concerning the portable device itself.
wherein the operation sequence and the localization data,
See at least:
“the communication server 120 transmits information Such as a cleaned area, a non-cleaned area, a cleaning pattern, a cleaning-disabled region, a cleaning status, and the like...” ([0025])
and
“the robot cleaner may further include a storage unit 180 for storing... information on the location of the robot cleaner, and the cleaning map.” ([0045])
Rationale: Choe expressly generates operational-status information concerning the progress/state of the portable device and separately generates and stores location information concerning that same device. A PHOSITA would have understood those complementary items to describe what the portable device is doing and where it is located.
which are called a set of monitored operation data,
See at least:
“the robot cleaner may further include a storage unit 180 for storing... information on the location of the robot cleaner, and the cleaning map.” ([0045])
Rationale: Choe expressly collects multiple monitored information items concerning operation and location. Treating those associated items collectively as a “set” of monitored operation data merely characterizes the already-generated information and does not require a different technical function.
are communicated to the at least one server
See at least:
“The wireless terminal device 200 accesses the robot cleaner to receive the monitoring image and the cleaning map from the robot cleaner...” ([0056])
Rationale: Choe expressly communicates monitored information from the portable robot to a remote wireless computing device, which may itself be a computer. In the combined Klaptchuck/Choe system, where Klaptchuck's remotely located computer performs the claimed server function, transmitting Choe's monitored operating/location information to that remote computing endpoint would have been the predictable application of Choe's expressly disclosed remote-monitoring data flow.
by means of the at least one communication unit; and
See at least:
“The communication module 220 receives the monitoring image and cleaning map from the robot cleaner and transmits the control command to the robot cleaner.” ([0060])
Rationale: Choe expressly uses communication module 220 for bidirectional transfer of remotely monitored information and control commands.
wherein the at least one server is configured to compare the set of monitored operation data
See at least:
“the wireless terminal device 200 displays a cleaning map received from the robot cleaner 100 to check a cleaned area, a non-cleaned area, and the like...” ([0059])
and
“The authentication unit 150 compares information on the wireless terminal device 200 therewith to determine and permit access thereto.” ([0064])
Rationale: Choe expressly teaches both evaluation of remotely received operational information at the remote terminal and automated comparison logic within the remote-management architecture. Although Choe describes the operational check in [0059] as user-assisted, automating that routine comparison at the remote computer/server would have been a predictable automation of an existing evaluation, particularly because Choe separately demonstrates computerized comparison-and-decision functionality in [0064]. A PHOSITA implementing centralized management of multiple portable sanitizers would have had an apparent reason to automate the comparison for consistent and scalable control.
with a set of predefined operation data,
See at least:
“selects a desired location or area on the cleaning map to move the robot cleaner to the relevant location or the relevant area...” ([0059])
Rationale: Choe expressly identifies a desired operational target—the desired location or area—that is used to determine the robot's subsequent operation. Maintaining such desired target information for computerized comparison with the current monitored state would have been a predictable implementation of Choe's disclosed remote-control process.
and to execute control actions over the operation of the at least one portable sanitization device
See at least:
“The control module 230 receives the user command to generate a control command Such as a control command for the robot cleaner...” ([0067])
Rationale: Choe expressly generates remote control commands directed to operation of the portable robot. Applying this architecture to Klaptchuck's portable sanitization apparatus would predictably permit the remotely located computer/server to issue corresponding control actions to the sanitizer.
based on said comparison
See at least:
“the wireless terminal device 200 displays a cleaning map... to check a cleaned area, a non-cleaned area... and selects a desired location or area on the cleaning map to move the robot cleaner...” ([0059])
Rationale: Choe expressly determines the subsequent operating objective after evaluation of the current monitored state. Automating that known evaluate-then-command process so that the server generates the control action based on the comparison would have been a predictable substitution of computerized decision logic for Choe's disclosed routine user evaluation.
and by means of the at least one control unit, and
See at least:
“The control unit 130 controls the robot cleaner or controls the operation of each unit based on the control command...” ([0090])
Rationale: Choe expressly executes remotely supplied control commands through control unit 130.
Motivation to Combine Klaptchuck and Choe
Therefore, given the teachings as a whole, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, having Klaptchuck and Choe before them, to implement Klaptchuck's remotely monitored and computer-controlled portable cabin-sanitization apparatus using Choe's known onboard power, device-location, bidirectional communication, remote-monitoring, and control architecture, such that operating and location information generated by the portable sanitizer is communicated to the remotely located monitoring/control computer and used to determine and command subsequent operation. Klaptchuck expressly teaches a portable cabin sanitizer, remote monitoring, remote activation, computer-controlled adjustment, and a defined sanitization sequence, while Choe teaches complementary hardware and software for powering a portable device, determining its location, remotely communicating its operating status, and transmitting control commands back to an onboard controller. The combination would predictably improve centralized supervision, location awareness, traceability, and remote control while leaving Klaptchuck's underlying sanitization principle unchanged. This maintains the fundamental Klaptchuck/Choe theory applied to original Claim 1 in the non-final rejection.
Claim Limitations Not Explicitly Disclosed by the Combination of Klaptchuck and Choe
The following disjunctive control-action recitations remain:
locking/unlocking at least one portable sanitization device, preventing/allowing the start of a new operation cycle;
assigning a predefined number of sanitizing process applications or operation cycles to the at least one portable sanitizing device, allowing said at least one portable sanitizing device to operate for a certain number of times; or
releasing at least one portable sanitization device, allowing said at least one portable sanitization device to operate in a released manner.
Because these alternatives are joined by “or,” establishment of the first alternative is sufficient for this portion of Claim 1. The second and third alternatives are therefore not separately relied upon.
Disclosure by Huang
Huang discloses or renders obvious:
locking/unlocking at least one portable sanitization device, preventing/allowing the start of a new operation cycle;
See at least: “The first cleaning schedule is deactivated...”“The first cleaning schedule may be activated by selecting a toggle 1006.”“the mobile device 204 initiates a cleaning mission corresponding to the second cleaning schedule 1004 (which is activated), but not the first cleaning schedule 1002 (which is deactivated).” ([0039])
Rationale: Huang expressly provides activated and deactivated operating states and expressly ties those states to whether a new cleaning mission is initiated. Huang therefore teaches software-controlled operational gating of the portable device. A PHOSITA applying Huang's known activation/deactivation control to the Klaptchuck/Choe portable sanitization system would have recognized the activated/deactivated state as a predictable software implementation of unlocking/locking the sanitizer with respect to authorization to commence a new sanitization cycle: the deactivated state prevents initiation, whereas the activated state permits initiation. This same Huang teaching was previously applied in the non-final against the former Claim 12 control-action subject matter now incorporated into amended Claim 1.
Motivation to Combine Klaptchuck, Choe, and Huang
Therefore, given the teachings as a whole, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, having Klaptchuck, Choe, and Huang before them, to implement, within the remotely monitored and controlled portable cabin-sanitization system resulting from Klaptchuck and Choe, Huang's known activation/deactivation control for selectively preventing or allowing initiation of an operating cycle. Klaptchuck teaches a portable cabin-sanitization apparatus that may be remotely activated, monitored, and computer controlled; Choe teaches compatible power, wireless communication, localization, remote-monitoring, and onboard-control architecture; and Huang teaches selectively activating or deactivating scheduled operation such that an activated schedule initiates an operating mission while a deactivated schedule does not. Applying Huang's known operational gating to the Klaptchuck/Choe sanitizer would predictably permit the remote system to prevent initiation of an unauthorized sanitization cycle and permit initiation when operation is authorized, improving operational control and safety through use of known control functionality according to its established purpose.
Regarding Claim 2
The combination of Klaptchuck, Choe, and Huang establishes the system of Claim 1, which is the basis for Claim 2.
Disclosure by Klaptchuck
Klaptchuck does not explicitly disclose the additional integration arrangement recited by Claim 2.
Claim Limitations Not Explicitly Disclosed by Klaptchuck
Wherein the at least one communication unit
and the at least one control unit
are integrated with the at least one portable sanitization device
either independently
or in a single communication and control unit.
Disclosure by Choe
Choe discloses:
Wherein the at least one communication unit
See at least:
“The communication server 120 may include a wireless access module, for example, a Wi-Fi module...” ([0021])
Rationale: Choe expressly provides communication circuitry associated with communication server 120 for wireless data communication.
and the at least one control unit
See at least:
“a robot cleaner according to another embodiment may include... a control unit 130, a communication server 120...” ([0039])
Rationale: Choe expressly provides control unit 130 in the portable robot.
are integrated with the at least one portable sanitization device
See at least:
“a robot cleaner according to another embodiment may include one or more monitoring cameras 110, a control unit 130, a communication server 120, an obstacle detection unit 160, and a location recognition unit 170.” ([0039])
Rationale: Choe expressly identifies both the control unit and communication-server/communication circuitry as constituent components of the portable robot. Incorporating the same architecture into Klaptchuck's portable sanitizer would predictably integrate the communication and control electronics with the portable sanitization device.
either independently
See at least:
“a robot cleaner according to another embodiment may include... a control unit 130, a communication server 120...” ([0039])
Rationale: Choe identifies the control unit 130 and communication server 120 as distinct components integrated within the portable robot, thereby teaching the claimed independently integrated alternative.
Because Claim 2 recites “either independently or in a single communication and control unit,” disclosure of the independently integrated alternative is sufficient. The single-unit alternative need not separately be established.
Motivation to Combine Klaptchuck, Choe, and Huang
Therefore, given the teachings as a whole, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, having Klaptchuck, Choe, and Huang before them, to implement the communication and control functions of the combined Claim 1 system as separately identifiable components integrated within Klaptchuck's portable sanitization apparatus, as taught by Choe. Klaptchuck requires remote monitoring and control of a portable sanitizer; Choe expressly integrates distinct communication and control electronics in a portable remotely managed device; and Huang's operational-gating functionality operates through the same remote electronic-control architecture already incorporated into the Claim 1 combination. Such integration would predictably provide a compact, self-contained remotely controllable sanitizer while allowing each electronic component to perform its known function.
Regarding Claim 3
The combination of Klaptchuck, Choe, and Huang establishes the system of Claim 1, which is the basis for Claim 3.
Disclosure by Klaptchuck
Klaptchuck does not explicitly disclose assigning a unique identifier to the monitored-operation-data record and registering that record and identifier in a database.
Claim Limitations Not Explicitly Disclosed by Klaptchuck
Wherein the at least one server or the at least one control unit are configured to assign a unique identifier
to the set of monitored operation data
of the at least one portable sanitization device
and in that the at least one server is configured to register
said set of monitored operation data
and the assigned unique identifier
in at least one database.
Disclosure by Choe
Choe discloses or renders obvious:
Wherein the at least one server or the at least one control unit are configured to assign a unique identifier
See at least:
“The authentication unit 150 may be provided in the form of an authentication server. The authentication unit may store authentication information for the external device, for example, information capable of identifying the external device Such as phone number, userID, password, address, and the like.” ([0037])
Rationale: Choe expressly provides a server that handles information capable of identifying individual entities, including a userID. Choe does not expressly state that the server assigns a unique identifier to each monitored-operation-data record. However, when maintaining multiple device-specific monitored datasets, assigning a unique record, session, or device identifier to distinguish one stored dataset from another would have been a routine and predictable database-management implementation for a PHOSITA, permitting unambiguous association and retrieval of each record.
to the set of monitored operation data
See at least:
“the robot cleaner may further include a storage unit 180 for storing... information on the location of the robot cleaner, and the cleaning map.” ([0045])
Rationale: Choe expressly stores the location and operational/map information forming the monitored information relied upon in Claim 1. Associating a unique identifier with that stored record would have been a routine data-management operation.
of the at least one portable sanitization device
See at least:
“the communication server 120 transmits information Such as a cleaned area, a non-cleaned area, a cleaning pattern, a cleaning-disabled region, a cleaning status, and the like...” ([0025])
Rationale: Choe's stored/transmitted operating information concerns operation of the particular portable robot. Applying the same record-identification technique to the corresponding operational record of Klaptchuck's portable sanitizer would have been the predictable analogous use.
and in that the at least one server is configured to register
See at least:
“The authentication unit 150 may be provided in the form of an authentication server.” ([0037])
and
“The authentication unit 150 permits authentication using a database stored in the unit itself...” ([0088])
Rationale: Choe expressly provides an authentication server that operates using a database stored in the server/unit. Recording device-associated electronic information in that existing database architecture would have been a routine complementary data-management operation.
said set of monitored operation data
See at least:
“the robot cleaner may further include a storage unit 180 for storing... information on the location of the robot cleaner, and the cleaning map.” ([0045])
Rationale: Choe expressly stores the monitored location and operational information associated with the portable device.
and the assigned unique identifier
See at least:
“information capable of identifying the external device Such as phone number, userID, password, address, and the like.” ([0037])
Rationale: Choe expressly uses stored identifying information. Once a unique value is assigned to distinguish a particular monitored-data record, storing that identifier together with the record it identifies would have been the conventional and predictable way for the identifier to preserve the required record association. This is relied upon as PHOSITA-obvious rather than as an express statement by Choe that a monitored record receives a session identifier.
in at least one database.
See at least:
“The authentication unit 150 permits authentication using a database stored in the unit itself...” ([0088])
Rationale: Choe expressly discloses a database.
Motivation to Combine Klaptchuck, Choe, and Huang
Therefore, given the teachings as a whole, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, having Klaptchuck, Choe, and Huang before them, to assign a unique identifying value to each remotely monitored operating/location record generated for the portable sanitization device and register the record together with that identifying value in database storage. Klaptchuck teaches remote monitoring and computer control of a portable cabin sanitizer; Choe teaches storing device-specific operating and location information, managing identifying information including userIDs, and operating an authentication server using a database; and Huang provides the remotely scheduled operating environment already incorporated into the Claim 1 combination. In a system maintaining multiple device and treatment records, assigning and storing a unique record identifier would have been a conventional and predictable technique for preserving record association, avoiding ambiguity, enabling retrieval, and providing traceability without altering the underlying sanitization process.
Regarding Claim 4
The combination of Klaptchuck, Choe, and Huang establishes the system of Claim 1, which is the basis for Claim 4.
Disclosure by Klaptchuck
Klaptchuck does not explicitly disclose supplementing the monitored operation data with a unique identifier corresponding to each cabin.
Claim Limitations Not Explicitly Disclosed by Klaptchuck
Wherein the at least one server or the at least one control unit are configured to complement the set of monitored operation data
with a unique identifier of each cabin.
Disclosure by Choe
Choe discloses:
Wherein the at least one server or the at least one control unit are configured to complement the set of monitored operation data
See at least:
“The control unit 130 prepares a cleaning map using location information recognized through the location recognition unit 170... Furthermore, the control unit 130 modifies or complements the prepared cleaning map using the location information and the obstacle information.” ([0044])
Rationale: Choe expressly teaches that control unit 130 supplements an existing operational/map dataset with additional location-related information. Choe therefore directly teaches the concept of complementing monitored operational information with information identifying or characterizing the physical operating location.
Claim Limitation Not Explicitly Disclosed by the Combination of Klaptchuck and Choe
with a unique identifier of each cabin.
Disclosure by Huang
Huang discloses or renders obvious:
with a unique identifier of each cabin.
See at least:
“The list of rooms 726 includes room labels, e.g., label 728. Each room label on the list of rooms 726 corresponds to a room in the user’s space...”“Each room label on the list of rooms 726 that is selected is included in the schedule.” ([0037])
Rationale: Huang expressly assigns corresponding room labels to the individual physical rooms managed by the remote cleaning system and includes the selected label in the operating schedule. Although Huang does not use the words “unique identifier,” the room labels perform the identifying function of distinguishing the respective rooms so that a particular scheduled operation is associated with the intended physical space. Applying Huang's known room-identification technique to the analogous plurality of Klaptchuck vehicle cabins would have been a predictable implementation in which each cabin is assigned a respective identifier and that cabin identifier is associated with the monitored sanitization record.
Motivation to Combine Klaptchuck, Choe, and Huang
Therefore, given the teachings as a whole, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, having Klaptchuck, Choe, and Huang before them, to complement the monitored sanitization data associated with each treatment cycle with an identifier corresponding to the particular cabin in which the treatment occurred. Klaptchuck teaches a portable sanitization apparatus intended for use in vehicle cabins; Choe teaches generating monitored operating/location information and expressly complementing an operational map with location information; and Huang expressly identifies individual enclosed spaces using respective room labels and includes those labels in the operating schedule. When the combined portable sanitization system is deployed across multiple cabins, maintaining an association between each monitored treatment record and the particular treated cabin would have been an apparent data-management need. Applying Huang's individual-space labeling technique to the analogous cabins would predictably improve traceability, record retrieval, treatment verification, and avoidance of misassociation between different cabin records.
Regarding Claim 5
The combination of Klaptchuck, Choe, and Huang establishes the system of Claim 1, which is the basis for Claim 5.
Disclosure by Klaptchuck
Klaptchuck discloses or renders obvious:
Wherein it comprises at least two portable sanitization devices,
See at least:
“the blower, sensor, and ozone generator can be incorporated into a portable unit that is placed into the cabin.” ( p. 5)
Rationale: Klaptchuck expressly discloses a portable sanitization unit comprising the blower, sensor, and ozone generator. Although Klaptchuck describes a single portable unit in this passage, providing at least two such portable units in the Claim 1 system would have been PHOSITA-obvious. The parent system already encompasses a plurality of cabins, and Klaptchuck's portable-unit configuration is expressly intended to permit the sanitization apparatus to be placed into and used within vehicle cabins. Duplicating the known portable unit so that more than one cabin can be serviced, including contemporaneously, constitutes the predictable duplication of a known component performing the same established sanitization function and requires no change to the operating principle of either device.
Claim Limitations Not Explicitly Disclosed by Klaptchuck
Klaptchuck does not explicitly disclose the following additional Claim 5 limitations:
wherein the at least one server is configured to coordinate the operation of said at least two portable sanitization devices,
either in the same cabin or two different cabins of the plurality of cabins.
Disclosure by Wurman
Wurman discloses or renders obvious:
wherein the at least one server is configured to coordinate the operation of said at least two portable sanitization devices,
See at least:
“Systemwide resource allocation is centralized in the Job Manager (JM)…”“The JM receives customer orders that need to be filled and assigns drives, pods, and stations to carry out the tasks.” (AI Magazine, p. 15)
Wurman further states:
“The computational benefits include a natural decomposition of the computation that can be spread across as many servers as necessary.” (AI Magazine, p. 15)
Rationale: Wurman expressly discloses a centralized supervisory component—the Job Manager—that coordinates operation of multiple autonomous drive units by allocating system resources and assigning the drive units to tasks. Wurman additionally expressly teaches that the computational architecture can be distributed across as many servers as necessary. Thus, although Wurman refers to warehouse drive units rather than portable sanitization devices, Wurman expressly establishes the pertinent control architecture: centralized server-based coordination of multiple autonomous mobile devices. Incorporating Wurman's centralized Job Manager/server functionality into the remotely networked Claim 1 system would have been a PHOSITA-obvious implementation for coordinating the operation of the two or more portable sanitization devices, rather than controlling each device as an isolated unit.
either in the same cabin or two different cabins of the plurality of cabins.
See at least:
“the Kiva robots had expanded through doorways into three different rooms of the warehouse.” (AI Magazine, p. 16)
Wurman further describes a fielded system having:
“well over 150 robots working 24 hours day” (AI Magazine, p. 16)
Rationale: Wurman expressly demonstrates centrally managed autonomous robots operating across physically distinct rooms. When Wurman's known multi-robot coordination architecture is applied to the plurality of cabins already established by the Klaptchuck/Choe/Huang Claim 1 combination, assigning respective portable sanitization devices to respective cabins would have been a predictable analogous use of the same coordination technique. A cabin and a room are both physically distinct operating spaces from the standpoint of multi-device task allocation; substituting vehicle cabins for Wurman's different warehouse rooms does not alter the coordination principle. Accordingly, Wurman renders obvious coordination of the portable sanitization devices in two different cabins. Because Claim 5 recites “either in the same cabin or two different cabins,” establishing the two-different-cabins alternative is sufficient; the same-cabin alternative need not independently be shown.
Motivation to Combine Klaptchuck, Choe, Huang, and Wurman
Therefore, given the teachings as a whole, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, having Klaptchuck, Choe, Huang, and Wurman before them, to implement Wurman's centralized multi-device coordination architecture within the remotely monitored and controlled portable cabin-sanitization system resulting from Klaptchuck, Choe, and Huang, such that the remotely arranged server coordinates operation of two or more portable sanitization devices, including respective devices operating in different cabins.
Klaptchuck teaches the portable cabin-sanitization apparatus and its remote monitoring and activation; Choe supplies compatible remote communication, localization, status reporting, and control architecture; and Huang provides remotely scheduled operational control in the cleaning-device environment. Significantly, Huang itself expressly teaches that multiple autonomous cleaning robots may operate cooperatively and states that its interface “allows for coordinated cleaning between the first autonomous cleaning robot and the second autonomous cleaning robot,” with the mobile application and robots communicating so that the second robot performs its task after the first robot completes its task. ([0040])
Wurman provides the complementary implementation for scaling such multi-device coordination: systemwide resource allocation is centralized in a Job Manager that assigns multiple drive units to tasks, and the associated computation may be distributed across servers. A PHOSITA seeking to operate multiple portable sanitization devices within the already-networked Claim 1 system therefore would have had a recognized reason to employ Wurman's centralized coordination architecture rather than independently commanding each device. Doing so would predictably permit centralized task allocation, sequencing, and coordination of the sanitization devices; reduce conflicting or duplicative operations; improve utilization of multiple devices; and permit parallel sanitization of different cabins. The proposed combination uses each reference according to its established function and does not require a change in the underlying sanitization principle of Klaptchuck.
Regarding Claim 6
The combination of Klaptchuck, Choe, and Huang establishes the system of Claim 1, which is the basis for Claim 6.
Claim Limitations Not Explicitly Disclosed by Klaptchuck
Klaptchuck does not explicitly disclose the following additional Claim 6 limitations:
Wherein the at least one server is configured to issue an alarm
when at least one monitored operation data of the set of monitored operation data
differs from at least one respective predefined operation data
from the set of predefined operation data.
Although Klaptchuck provides remote monitoring and visual or audible indication associated with operation of its sanitization apparatus, Klaptchuck does not expressly disclose the particular mismatch-triggered alarm relationship recited by Claim 6.
Disclosure by Boast
Boast discloses or renders obvious:
Wherein the at least one server is configured to issue an alarm
See at least:
“If, after a specified time period, for example 15 minutes in a small hotel room, the desired ozone level is not reached, then the disinfection apparatus will stop generating ozone, and proceed through the rest of the process, but provide a warning to the user that the desired ozone level was not reached.” ([0032])
Rationale: Boast expressly teaches issuing a warning in response to determining that an actual monitored operating condition has failed to attain its corresponding desired operating condition. Boast performs the warning locally at the disinfection apparatus rather than expressly at a remote server. However, Claim 1 already establishes a remotely arranged server that receives monitored operation data, compares those data with predefined operation data, and executes control actions based on that comparison. Once that comparison is performed at the claimed server, configuring the same server to generate or initiate Boast's known warning when the comparison identifies a mismatch would have been a predictable allocation of Boast's known alarm function to the already-recited centralized comparison component. This is relied upon as PHOSITA-obvious as to the server actor.
when at least one monitored operation data of the set of monitored operation data
See at least:
“After the ozone concentration has reached the desired level, preferably as detected by the ozone sensor...” ([0032])
Rationale: Boast expressly monitors an actual operating parameter using a sensor during execution of the sanitization process. While Boast's monitored parameter is ozone concentration rather than the particular operation-sequence/localization information defining the Claim 1 data set, Boast establishes the known sanitization-control practice of evaluating monitored operating information against a predetermined operating requirement and triggering a warning from the result. Applying that known alarm logic to the monitored operation data already acquired and compared by the Claim 1 server would have been a predictable use of the same control technique.
differs from at least one respective predefined operation data
See at least:
“If, after a specified time period... the desired ozone level is not reached...” ([0032])
Rationale: Boast expressly identifies a discrepancy between the actual monitored condition and the corresponding desired condition. The “desired ozone level” provides the predetermined target, while failure to reach that target provides the mismatch condition that causes the warning. Thus, Boast expressly supplies the pertinent compare-and-alarm logic. In the Claim 1 combination, applying that same logic to a mismatch between the server's monitored operation data and respective predefined operation data would have been technically straightforward and would predictably identify abnormal, incomplete, or unauthorized operation.
from the set of predefined operation data.
See at least:
“the desired ozone level...” ([0032])
and
“a timer 200 to record the number of hours or minutes disinfection apparatus 1 has been operating and to turn on or off ozone generator 20 when the appropriate time has passed” ([0045])
Rationale: Boast expressly uses predetermined desired operating conditions, including a desired ozone level and an appropriate operating time, as control criteria for the sanitization apparatus. Such predetermined criteria are analogous to the predefined operation data already recited by parent Claim 1. A PHOSITA would therefore have found it predictable to generate an alarm when any respective monitored operating datum fails to conform to its corresponding predefined datum.
Boast additionally expressly discloses “further alarms included in the instrumentation that would indicate a malfunction of the disinfection apparatus,” confirming that alarm generation for abnormal sanitization-device operation was itself a known design practice. ([0045])
Motivation to Combine Klaptchuck, Choe, Huang, and Boast
Therefore, given the teachings as a whole, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, having Klaptchuck, Choe, Huang, and Boast before them, to configure the remotely arranged server of the Klaptchuck/Choe/Huang system to issue an alarm when its already-recited comparison determines that monitored operation data do not correspond to respective predefined operation data. Klaptchuck teaches remotely monitored and computer-controlled portable cabin sanitization; Choe supplies the remote communication, status-reporting, localization, and control architecture; Huang supplies remotely managed operational gating within the Claim 1 combination; and Boast, in the closely analogous portable ozone-disinfection field, expressly teaches warning the user when a monitored sanitization condition fails to reach its corresponding desired condition and further teaches alarms indicating apparatus malfunction. Incorporating Boast's known mismatch-responsive alarm functionality into the centralized Claim 1 server would have been a predictable use of known monitoring and alarm elements according to their established functions, providing prompt identification of abnormal or nonconforming operation and thereby improving safety, reliability, and remote supervision.
Regarding Claim 7
The combination of Klaptchuck, Choe, and Huang establishes the system of Claim 1, which is the basis for Claim 7.
Disclosure by Klaptchuck
Klaptchuck discloses or renders obvious:
Wherein the operating sequence of the at least one portable sanitization device
See at least:
“With an ozone generator 6 of a given capacity, the ozone concentration attainable will be higher or lower depending on the size of the cabin 2 which correlates directly to the volume of air therein.” ( p. 9)
Rationale: Klaptchuck expressly relates operating performance of the ozone sanitization apparatus to the size of the cabin and expressly equates cabin size with the volume of air contained therein.
is determined based on the volume of the interior space to be sanitized,
See at least:
“the ozone concentration attainable will be higher or lower depending on the size of the cabin 2 which correlates directly to the volume of air therein. Similarly the air moving capacity for effective circulation and flushing will vary with the size of the cabin 2.” ( p. 9)
Rationale: Klaptchuck expressly teaches that both ozone-generation performance and air-moving requirements vary with cabin size, which it expressly states correlates directly to the volume of air in the cabin. Because ozone generation, circulation, treatment duration, and flushing are constituent portions of Klaptchuck's sanitization sequence, selecting or adjusting those operating parameters according to cabin volume is expressly suggested by Klaptchuck's teaching.
wherein:
See at least:
“the size of the cabin 2 which correlates directly to the volume of air therein.” ( p. 9)
Rationale: Klaptchuck's following discussion provides the operative volume-dependent condition to which the claim's “wherein” clause pertains.
Claim Limitations Not Explicitly Disclosed by Klaptchuck
Klaptchuck does not explicitly disclose either of the following alternative implementations in the precise manner claimed:
the volume of the interior space is predefined; or
the volume of the interior space is measured by one or more volumetric sensors
arranged in the interior space.
Because these implementations are joined by “or,” establishing the first alternative is sufficient.
Disclosure by Boast
Boast discloses or renders obvious:
the volume of the interior space is predefined; or
See at least:
“It may also be necessary for the user to enter information about the room size (for example a menu of options such as ‘Suite’, ‘Single’ or ‘Double’ could be displayed from which the appropriate selection is made).” ([0030])
Boast further states:
“the disinfection apparatus will have a processor on a circuit board to automatically calculate the appropriate concentration of ozone that should be achieved...” ([0030])
Rationale: Boast expressly teaches supplying the portable disinfection apparatus with room-size information selected from predefined room-size categories and using processor-based control to determine the appropriate sanitization parameter. A PHOSITA would have understood room size in this enclosed-space sanitization context to represent the amount or volume of air requiring treatment. Providing predefined size/volume information rather than measuring it dynamically is therefore expressly suggested by Boast's selectable “Suite,” “Single,” and “Double” room-size categories. Applying that predefined-volume implementation to Klaptchuck's express volume-dependent sanitization control would have predictably allowed the operating sequence to be established from stored or selected cabin-volume information without requiring additional sensing hardware.
Because the claim recites the predefined-volume implementation or the volumetric-sensor implementation, the alternative sensor branch need not separately be established.
Motivation to Combine Klaptchuck, Choe, Huang, and Boast
Therefore, given the teachings as a whole, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, having Klaptchuck, Choe, Huang, and Boast before them, to determine the operating sequence of the remotely monitored portable sanitization device based on predefined information representing the volume of the cabin to be sanitized. Klaptchuck expressly teaches that ozone concentration and air-moving requirements vary with cabin size and expressly states that cabin size correlates directly to the volume of air therein; Choe and Huang provide the remote communication and operational-control architecture of parent Claim 1; and Boast, in the same portable ozone-disinfection field, expressly teaches entering predefined room-size information from predetermined room categories and using a processor to automatically determine the appropriate ozone operating condition. Applying Boast's known predefined-room-size input technique to Klaptchuck's expressly volume-dependent sanitization process would have been technically compatible and would predictably permit automatic adaptation of the sanitization sequence to different cabins while avoiding the cost and complexity of additional volumetric sensing hardware.
Regarding Claim 8
The combination of Klaptchuck, Choe, and Huang establishes the system of Claim 1, which is the basis for Claim 8.
Claim Limitations Not Explicitly Disclosed by Klaptchuck
Klaptchuck does not explicitly disclose the following additional Claim 8 limitations in the precise arrangement claimed:
Wherein the at least one portable sanitization device comprises a display unit,
wherein the at least one control unit is configured to deploy part or all the monitored operation data
of the portable sanitization device
in said display unit.
Disclosure by Choe
Choe discloses or renders obvious:
Wherein the at least one portable sanitization device comprises a display unit,
See at least:
“The output unit 193 may further display status information Such as a current status of each unit constituting the robot cleaner, a current cleaning status, and the like. The output unit 193 may be formed with any one of a light emitting diode (LED), a liquid crystal display (LCD), a plasma display panel, and an organic light emitting diode (OLED).” ([0053])
Rationale: Choe expressly incorporates an output/display unit into the portable robot and expressly identifies an LCD, plasma panel, OLED, or LED as implementations of that output unit. Incorporating Choe's known onboard display arrangement into Klaptchuck's portable sanitization device would therefore have been a predictable hardware implementation for presenting device-monitoring information locally.
wherein the at least one control unit is configured to deploy part or all the monitored operation data
See at least:
“The output unit 193 outputs... information on the location of the robot cleaner, and the cleaning map.” ([0052])
and
“The output unit 193 may further display status information Such as a current status of each unit constituting the robot cleaner, a current cleaning status, and the like.” ([0053])
Rationale: Choe expressly presents both device-location information and current operating/status information through the onboard output unit. These correspond directly to at least part of the location and operational information that forms the monitored operation data in the Claim 1 combination. Because the claim requires deployment of only “part or all” of the monitored operation data, Choe's display of either device location or current operating status is sufficient. Choe's control unit generates and uses the cleaning map and controls operation of the robot, making presentation of that already-available information on the onboard display a predictable control-unit output function.
of the portable sanitization device
See at least:
“The output unit 193 may further display status information Such as a current status of each unit constituting the robot cleaner, a current cleaning status, and the like.” ([0053])
Rationale: Choe expressly displays information describing the current operational state of the portable device itself. Applying this display functionality to the portable sanitizer in the combined system would display corresponding monitored operational information of that sanitizer.
in said display unit.
See at least:
“The output unit 193 may be formed with any one of a light emitting diode (LED), a liquid crystal display (LCD), a plasma display panel, and an organic light emitting diode (OLED).” ([0053])
Rationale: Choe expressly identifies physical display technologies through which the monitored information is presented.
Boast independently corroborates the technical compatibility of providing such a display specifically in a portable sanitization apparatus. Boast discloses that control panel 90 “includes displays of information, such as ozone levels, temperature and relative humidity” ([0038]) and that the apparatus has displays showing current operating conditions ([0046]). However, because Choe already accounts for the Claim 8 limitations, Boast is not required as an additional reference for the rejection of Claim 8.
Motivation to Combine Klaptchuck, Choe, and Huang
Therefore, given the teachings as a whole, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, having Klaptchuck, Choe, and Huang before them, to incorporate Choe's onboard display functionality into the portable sanitization device of the combined system so that the control unit presents at least part of the monitored operational or location information on the device itself. Klaptchuck teaches a remotely monitored portable sanitization apparatus; Choe expressly teaches a portable remotely monitored device having an onboard display capable of presenting device-location information and current operating status; and Huang provides the remotely managed operating-control functionality already incorporated into parent Claim 1. Providing the operator with the same monitored information locally that is already available electronically within the control system would have been a predictable use of known display technology, improving local status awareness, troubleshooting, verification, and safe operation without altering the underlying sanitization process.
Regarding Claim 10
The combination of Klaptchuck, Choe, and Boast establishes the system of Claim 8, which is the basis for Claim 10.
Choe is relied upon as part of the parent-claim combination. After review, Choe does not provide a stronger additional disclosure for any presently unmapped Claim 10 feature than the references used below; accordingly, its Claim 8 teachings are not redundantly remapped.
Disclosure by Klaptchuck
Klaptchuck discloses:
Wherein: each cabin corresponds to the cabin of a vehicle;
See at least:
“the ozone generator 106 could be integrated into a portable ozone sanitizing apparatus 104 ... that is placed into the vehicle cabin.” (p. 9)
Rationale: Klaptchuck expressly places the portable sanitizing apparatus in a vehicle cabin. Thus, in the Claim 1/8 system having the recited cabins, the treated cabin corresponds to a vehicle cabin.
wherein the at least one portable sanitization device comprises at least one unit for moving air,
See at least:
“An apparatus for practicing the method can comprise an ozone generator, a blower, and an ozone concentration sensor.” (p. 4)
Rationale: Klaptchuck expressly provides a blower as part of the sanitizing apparatus. A blower is structurally an air-moving unit.
wherein the at least one unit for moving air is configured to circulate air from inside the cabin
See at least:
“The blower is connected at an inlet thereof to draw air from the cabin through the blower...” (p. 4)
Rationale: Klaptchuck expressly draws cabin air into and through the blower, directly establishing circulation of air originating inside the cabin.
wherein, within each cabin
See at least:
“the portable ozone sanitizing apparatus 104 ... is placed into the vehicle cabin.” (p. 9)
Rationale: The portable apparatus is expressly located within the vehicle cabin during sanitization.
and initiate an operation cycle,
See at least:
“The sanitizing apparatus 104 can be remotely activated and monitored...” (p. 11)
Rationale: Activation of the sanitizing apparatus commences its sanitization operation and therefore constitutes initiation of an operation cycle.
recirculating air into the cabin
See at least:
“the blower outlet is connected to direct the air back into the cabin...” (p. 4)
Rationale: Klaptchuck expressly draws cabin air into the blower and returns the air to the cabin, thereby establishing a cabin-air recirculation loop.
Claim Limitations Not Explicitly Disclosed by Klaptchuck
the at least one energy source corresponds to an energy source integrated in each vehicle; and
each operation cycle includes an operating time of between 15 to 20 minutes
and a rest time of between 1 to 3 minutes,
preferably, the operation time is 18 minutes,
and the rest time is 2 minutes
for cabins of an average size of 2 m3;
through the at least one reaction chamber
and outside the portable sanitization device;
the at least one portable sanitization device is configured to connect to the vehicle's energy source
through the at least one reaction chamber; and
wherein the at least one reaction chamber is configured to ionize the air that circulates through it,
expelling ionized air into the interior space of the vehicle's cabin.
Disclosure by Boast
Boast discloses or renders obvious:
through the at least one reaction chamber
See at least:
“a ozone flow meter 140 to indicate the air flow moving through the ozone generator 20” ([0045])
Rationale: In the parent combination, the ozone-generating region corresponds to the claimed reaction chamber. Boast expressly establishes airflow through ozone generator 20 rather than merely airflow somewhere within the housing. This is stronger support than the prior mapping based only on a generic fan.
and outside the portable sanitization device;
See at least:
“Ozone exhaust vent 106 allows the ozone generated to exit disinfection apparatus 1 into the closed environment.” ([0039])
Rationale: Boast expressly discharges the treated ozone-containing airstream from the apparatus into the surrounding treated environment. In the Klaptchuck vehicle-cabin implementation, that surrounding environment is the cabin.
through the at least one reaction chamber; and
See at least:
“air flow moving through the ozone generator 20” ([0045])
Rationale: The same express airflow-through-generator disclosure applies to the later recirculation clause. This is a separate occurrence of the claim requirement and is therefore independently accounted for without remapping another micro-limitation.
wherein the at least one reaction chamber is configured to ionize the air that circulates through it,
See at least:
“Ozone generator 20 uses corona discharge...” and “The corona discharge process creates ozone using air in the closed environment...” ([0037])
Rationale: Boast expressly uses corona discharge on the air passing through its ozone-generating apparatus. Corona discharge operates by electrical ionization of the gas in the discharge region. Thus, a PHOSITA implementing Boast's expressly disclosed corona-discharge ozone generator would have understood the airflow through the ozone-generating region to undergo ionization. This correspondence is PHOSITA-obvious from the disclosed physical mechanism; it is not being represented as a verbatim disclosure of the phrase “ionize the air.”
Boast also expressly teaches that process parameters are selected based on the size of the treated space. Paragraph [0030] states that the user may enter room-size information and the generator is adjusted to produce an appropriate amount of ozone within an appropriate time. This becomes important when the 2 m³ portion is addressed with Levinson.
I would not map the claimed 15–20-minute “operation cycle” to Boast for the final rejection. Although Boast states that its overall multi-stage process may take 15–40 minutes and identifies individual 15-minute stages, Offutt is materially cleaner because Offutt expressly says “each cycle” may last 15 or 20 minutes and expressly defines waiting periods between cycles.
Motivation to Combine Klaptchuck, Choe, and Boast
Therefore, given the teachings as a whole, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, having Klaptchuck, Choe, and Boast before them, to implement the portable cabin-sanitization system of Klaptchuck and Choe using Boast's known forced-air corona-discharge ozone-generation arrangement, such that cabin air passes through the ozone-generating reaction region and the treated airstream is discharged from the apparatus back into the cabin. Klaptchuck already teaches a portable cabin ozone sanitizer having a blower and cabin-air recirculation, while Boast expressly teaches airflow through a corona-discharge ozone generator and exhaust of generated ozone into the surrounding enclosed environment. The combination uses known components according to their established functions and predictably improves circulation and distribution of the sanitizing species throughout the treated cabin.
Claim Limitations Not Explicitly Disclosed by the Combination of Klaptchuck, Choe, and Boast
the at least one energy source corresponds to an energy source integrated in each vehicle; and
each operation cycle includes an operating time of between 15 to 20 minutes
and a rest time of between 1 to 3 minutes,
preferably, the operation time is 18 minutes,
and the rest time is 2 minutes
for cabins of an average size of 2 m3;
the at least one portable sanitization device is configured to connect to the vehicle's energy source
expelling ionized air into the interior space of the vehicle's cabin.
Disclosure by Line
Line discloses or renders obvious:
expelling ionized air into the interior space of the vehicle's cabin.
See at least:
“the negative ion generator(s) 42 negatively ionize molecules such as oxygen and nitrogen in the air of the interior 12 of the vehicle 10.” ([0056])
Line additionally discloses an air sanitizing apparatus having an air-flow tube and an exhaust fan that causes air to flow through the tube ([0058]).
Rationale: Line expressly establishes negative ionization of air within the vehicle interior. Boast, already in the combination, establishes a forced treatment-airflow path and discharge of treated air from the sanitizing apparatus into the surrounding closed space. A PHOSITA incorporating Line's known negative-ion treatment into that existing forced-air treatment path would have predictably discharged the ionized treated air into the same vehicle cabin. The limitation is therefore rendered obvious by Line in the already-established Boast airflow architecture rather than being characterized as expressly disclosed by Line alone.
Motivation to Combine Klaptchuck, Choe, Boast, and Line
Therefore, given the teachings as a whole, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, having Klaptchuck, Choe, Boast, and Line before them, to incorporate Line's known vehicle-cabin negative-ion treatment into the forced-air treatment path of the Klaptchuck/Choe/Boast sanitization system. Line is specifically directed to sanitizing vehicle-interior air and expressly negatively ionizes molecules in that air, while Boast establishes a forced treatment-airflow and exhaust path. Combining the complementary teachings would predictably provide an ionized treated airstream returned to the vehicle cabin without changing the underlying operating principle.
Claim Limitations Not Explicitly Disclosed by the Combination of Klaptchuck, Choe, Boast, and Line
the at least one energy source corresponds to an energy source integrated in each vehicle; and
each operation cycle includes an operating time of between 15 to 20 minutes
and a rest time of between 1 to 3 minutes,
preferably, the operation time is 18 minutes,
and the rest time is 2 minutes
for cabins of an average size of 2 m3;
the at least one portable sanitization device is configured to connect to the vehicle's energy source
Disclosure by Offutt
Offutt discloses or renders obvious:
the at least one energy source corresponds to an energy source integrated in each vehicle; and
See at least:
“the charging interface is configured to receive power from a power supply external to a body of the bag.” ([0028])
Offutt also discloses a power source comprising a cord-and-plug arrangement or batteries. ([0046])
Rationale: Offutt establishes the known architecture of a portable sanitizer receiving electrical power through an interface from a supply external to the portable sanitizer. Line has already placed the electrically operated sanitization apparatus in and as part of a vehicle system. In that vehicle implementation, using the vehicle's existing onboard electrical supply as the external supply for the portable sanitizer would have been a predictable implementation choice, avoiding a separate mains supply while using Offutt's power-interface arrangement for its established purpose. This is PHOSITA-obvious from the combination; Offutt does not itself expressly call the source a vehicle energy source.
each operation cycle includes an operating time of between 15 to 20 minutes
See at least:
“Each cycle may last ... 15 minutes, 20 minutes...” ([0041])
Rationale: Unlike Boast's overall multi-stage process duration, Offutt expressly ties the disclosed values to “each cycle.” The expressly identified 15- and 20-minute cycle durations establish the claimed operating interval and identify cycle duration as a known selectable treatment parameter.
and a rest time of between 1 to 3 minutes,
See at least:
“Each cycle may be spaced from adjacent cycles by a waiting period” and “1 minute, 2 minutes, 3 minutes...” ([0041])
Rationale: Offutt expressly provides waiting periods between adjacent sanitization cycles and expressly lists one-, two-, and three-minute values. The claimed rest-time range is therefore directly taught.
preferably, the operation time is 18 minutes,
See at least:
“each cycle may last ... 15 minutes, 20 minutes...” ([0041])
Rationale: Offutt does not expressly state eighteen minutes. However, eighteen minutes lies squarely between Offutt's expressly disclosed 15- and 20-minute sanitization-cycle values. Offutt further explains that cycle duration may depend on the size of the treated enclosure and sanitization intensity. Selecting eighteen minutes for a selected cabin size therefore represents routine optimization of an expressly recognized treatment-time variable and yields the predictable intermediate exposure duration.
and the rest time is 2 minutes
See at least:
“The waiting period may be ... 1 minute, 2 minutes, 3 minutes...” ([0041])
Rationale: Offutt expressly identifies two minutes as a waiting period between adjacent cycles, directly establishing the recited preferred rest time.
the at least one portable sanitization device is configured to connect to the vehicle's energy source
See at least:
“the charging interface is configured to receive power from a power supply external to a body of the bag.” ([0028])
Rationale: Offutt expressly provides the portable sanitization device with a wired interface for connection to an external supply. In the Line vehicle implementation already present in the combination, substituting the vehicle's available onboard electrical supply for Offutt's generic external supply is a predictable use of the same connection architecture and gives the portable cabin sanitizer a readily available vehicle-integrated source of operating/recharging power.
Motivation to Combine Klaptchuck, Choe, Boast, Line, and Offutt
Therefore, given the teachings as a whole, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, having Klaptchuck, Choe, Boast, Line, and Offutt before them, to configure the portable vehicle-cabin sanitizer with Offutt's known external-power interface and programmable sanitization-cycle timing, using the vehicle's onboard electrical supply in the vehicle environment taught by Line and operating the sanitizer according to Offutt's expressly disclosed cycle and waiting-period parameters. Offutt teaches both the electrical interface and the specific 15/20-minute cycle and 1/2/3-minute inter-cycle timing values, while the preceding references establish the portable vehicle sanitizer, its remote control, forced treatment airflow, and ionization. The modification would improve repeatability and power integration while producing the predictable result of timed, powered sanitization cycles using known components for their established functions.
Claim Limitations Not Explicitly Disclosed by the Combination of Klaptchuck, Choe, Boast, Line, and Offutt
for cabins of an average size of 2 m3;
Disclosure by Levinson
Levinson discloses or renders obvious:
for cabins of an average size of 2 m3;
See at least:
“cabin volume (m3) 2.57” for a 2009 Honda Civic 4DR GX. (Table 1, p. 19/46)
Rationale: Levinson does not expressly disclose an exact 2.00 m³ cabin and the rejection should not state otherwise. Levinson establishes that compact passenger-vehicle cabin volumes are on the order of only a few cubic meters, expressly reporting 2.57 m³ for the tested compact sedan. Boast separately teaches that the appropriate operating time and ozone-generation conditions are selected based on room size ([0030]), while Offutt teaches that sanitization-cycle duration depends on the size of the treated enclosure ([0041]). Accordingly, a PHOSITA designing the combined sanitizer for passenger vehicles would have treated cabin volume as a known result-effective design variable and selected a nominal design volume such as 2 m³ when configuring the system for smaller passenger cabins. The 2 m³ value is therefore an optimization/design-point conclusion, not an alleged express quotation from Levinson.
Motivation to Combine Klaptchuck, Choe, Boast, Line, Offutt, and Levinson
Therefore, given the teachings as a whole, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, having Klaptchuck, Choe, Boast, Line, Offutt, and Levinson before them, to configure the portable remotely controlled vehicle-cabin sanitization system using Offutt's disclosed operating/rest-cycle parameters and power interface and to select those treatment parameters according to the vehicle-cabin volume evidenced by Levinson. Klaptchuck establishes portable vehicle-cabin sanitization and recirculation; Choe supplies the parent remote-control architecture; Boast supplies forced airflow through a corona-discharge treatment region, discharge into the treated environment, and express adjustment of treatment conditions based on enclosure size; Line supplies vehicle-specific negative-ion treatment; Offutt expressly supplies sanitization cycles of 15 and 20 minutes, inter-cycle waiting periods of one, two, and three minutes, and an external-power interface; and Levinson establishes a representative compact passenger-car cabin volume of 2.57 m³. A PHOSITA would have had reason to select an appropriate nominal cabin design volume and optimize treatment time within the disclosed ranges because both enclosure size and treatment duration were recognized result-effective variables, with a reasonable expectation that such routine scaling would predictably provide the desired sanitization exposure.
Regarding Claim 11,
The combination of Klaptchuck, Choe, Boast, Line, Offutt, and Levinson establishes the system of Claim 10, which is the basis for Claim 11.
Disclosure by Klaptchuck
Klaptchuck discloses:
Wherein each vehicle comprises an air recirculation system
See at least:
“In smaller aircraft, rail cars, buses, or like vehicles ... The vehicle air circulation system would be operated and the blower on the sanitization apparatus would cause the air inside the cabin to circulate into corners and small spaces...” ( p. 11)
Rationale: Klaptchuck expressly applies its sanitization system to aircraft, rail cars, buses, and like vehicles and expressly operates the vehicle's existing “air circulation system” during sanitization. Although Klaptchuck uses the term “air circulation system,” its disclosed system recirculates cabin air through the vehicle interior during treatment. In the Claim 10 system, in which each treated cabin corresponds to a vehicle cabin, a PHOSITA would therefore understand each such vehicle to comprise the recited air recirculation system.
configured to be activated,
See at least:
“The vehicle air circulation system would be operated...” ( p. 11)
Rationale: Klaptchuck expressly requires operation of the vehicle air circulation system during sanitization. A system expressly operated as part of the sanitization procedure is necessarily configured to be activated. This correspondence is express as to operation and inherent as to the capability for activation.
before or during each operation cycle,
See at least:
“The vehicle air circulation system would be operated and the blower on the sanitization apparatus would cause the air inside the cabin to circulate...” ( p. 11)
Klaptchuck further states:
“The air circulation system of the aircraft is operated during the sanitization process to circulate the ozone rich atmosphere through the heating and air conditioning units...” ( p. 9)
Rationale: Klaptchuck expressly operates the vehicle air-circulation system during the sanitization process. Because the Claim 10 operating cycle is the sanitization cycle, this directly establishes activation “during each operation cycle.” The claim is written in the alternative—“before or during”—so express operation during the cycle satisfies this limitation without requiring a separate showing of pre-cycle activation.
Claim Limitations Not Explicitly Disclosed by Klaptchuck
Klaptchuck does not explicitly disclose the following remaining limitations:
preferably at maximum power and minimum temperature,
where the activation is manual by means of an operator user or remotely through a signal sent to a controller of each vehicle.
Choe, Boast, Line, and Offutt have been considered in sequence. Their teachings remain part of the combination establishing Claim 10, but none provides a stronger disclosure of these two remaining Claim 11 limitations than Levinson and Eisenhour below. Accordingly, they are not redundantly remapped.
Disclosure by Levinson
Levinson discloses:
preferably at maximum power and minimum temperature,
See at least:
“Each cabin's air temperature was then reduced to about 20°C after 20 min of maximum cooling (lowest HVAC temperature setting, top fan speed, recirculation mode).” (p. 8/46)
Rationale: Levinson expressly operates a vehicle HVAC system in recirculation mode using “top fan speed” and the “lowest HVAC temperature setting.” “Top fan speed” directly corresponds to operation of the air-recirculation system at its maximum airflow/power setting, while “lowest HVAC temperature setting” directly corresponds to the claimed minimum-temperature condition. Because the same disclosed operating state expressly includes “recirculation mode,” Levinson provides particularly strong, vehicle-specific support for the entire preferred operating condition rather than requiring separate inferences from unrelated HVAC teachings.
Claim Limitations Not Explicitly Disclosed by the Combination of Klaptchuck, Choe, Boast, Line, Offutt, and Levinson
The following limitation remains:
where the activation is manual by means of an operator user or remotely through a signal sent to a controller of each vehicle.
Disclosure by Eisenhour
Eisenhour is US 2008/0245504 A1, directed to a “Vehicle Air Recirculation Control Device.”
Eisenhour discloses:
where the activation is manual by means of an operator user or remotely through a signal sent to a controller of each vehicle.
See at least:
“The operations of the climate control system are controlled by a set of operator controls 32 that are located in the cabin of the vehicle. The operator controls 32 typically will include an A/C ‘on/off’ switch 34, a temperature control 36 and a blower or fan speed control 38.” ([0022])
Eisenhour further states:
“In the case of a manual climate control system, once the passenger operates one of the controls, a circuit 62 is used to determine if the prescribed conditions are met to switch from the fresh air mode to the recirculation mode.” ([0023])
Rationale: Eisenhour expressly discloses a manually operated vehicle climate-control system in which an occupant operates cabin controls—including the A/C switch, temperature control, and blower-speed control—and the vehicle system responds by switching into recirculation mode when the prescribed conditions are satisfied. The passenger/operator therefore manually initiates the control state that activates vehicle-air recirculation. Claim 11 recites the activation alternatives disjunctively—manual activation by an operator user “or” remote activation through a signal to the vehicle controller. Accordingly, Eisenhour's express manual-operator embodiment satisfies the claimed alternative without requiring the separate remote-control branch also to be shown.
Eisenhour additionally confirms that the vehicle control device itself activates the recirculation hardware:
“The vehicle air recirculation control device 10 ... then selectively activate[s] the recirculation door actuator 56 to switch between a normal air intake mode ... and a recirculation override mode...” ([0025])
Rationale: Thus, the operator's manual input is not merely an unrelated cabin adjustment. It is processed by the vehicle's recirculation control architecture and results in actuation of the recirculation door, providing a direct functional connection between the manual operator input and activation of the vehicle-air recirculation system.
Motivation to Combine Klaptchuck, Choe, Boast, Line, Offutt, Levinson, and Eisenhour
Therefore, given the teachings as a whole, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, having Klaptchuck, Choe, Boast, Line, Offutt, Levinson, and Eisenhour before them, to configure the vehicle-cabin sanitization system established by Klaptchuck, Choe, Boast, Line, Offutt, and Levinson so that the vehicle's existing air-recirculation system is operated during each sanitization cycle using Levinson's known maximum-cooling configuration of recirculation mode, top fan speed, and lowest HVAC temperature setting, and is activatable through Eisenhour's conventional operator-controlled vehicle climate-control architecture.
Klaptchuck already expressly operates the vehicle's air-circulation system during the sanitization process to distribute the sanitizing atmosphere throughout the cabin. Levinson demonstrates that vehicle recirculation systems were conventionally operated using top fan speed and the lowest HVAC temperature setting to maximize cabin-air circulation and cooling. Eisenhour, in turn, expressly provides the conventional vehicle control architecture by which an occupant manipulates the A/C, temperature, and blower controls and the vehicle recirculation control system switches into recirculation mode. These teachings are technically compatible because each concerns ordinary vehicle cabin-air handling and recirculation. Employing the high-flow, low-temperature recirculation setting during Klaptchuck's sanitization cycle would predictably increase the rate and uniformity with which cabin air passes through and distributes the sanitizing treatment, while Eisenhour's operator-control arrangement provides a known and predictable mechanism for initiating that recirculation state. The combination therefore represents the predictable use of known vehicle-HVAC control features for their established functions rather than a change in the principle of operation.
Regarding Claim 13
Disclosure by Klaptchuck
Klaptchuck teaches:
A method
See at least:
“The invention provides a method of sanitizing a passenger cabin...” (p. 3)
Rationale: Klaptchuck expressly teaches a method.
of monitoring and controlling
See at least:
“ozone and humidity monitoring, and subsequent adjustment would be controlled by a computer.” (p. 11)
Rationale: Klaptchuck expressly monitors sanitization parameters and controls subsequent operational adjustments.
a cabin sanitization process
See at least:
“The invention provides a method of sanitizing a passenger cabin...” (p. 3)
Rationale: The disclosed process expressly sanitizes a passenger cabin.
remotely,
See at least:
“The sanitizing apparatus 104 can be remotely activated and monitored, either through wired or wireless communication...” (p. 11)
Rationale: Klaptchuck expressly provides remote activation and monitoring of the sanitization apparatus.
the method Wherein it comprises:
See at least:
“The invention provides a method of sanitizing a passenger cabin...” (p. 3)
Rationale: Klaptchuck thereafter describes the constituent operations making up the sanitization method.
a) arranging at least one portable sanitization device
See at least:
“the blower, sensor, and ozone generator can be incorporated into a portable unit that is placed into the cabin.” (p. 5)
Rationale: Klaptchuck expressly teaches arranging a portable sanitization unit within a cabin.
in a cabin of a plurality of cabins,
See at least:
“In smaller aircraft, rail cars, buses, or like vehicles, the cabin would be sealed to the extent possible...” (p. 11)
Rationale: Klaptchuck teaches application of the same portable sanitization process to cabins of multiple passenger-carrying vehicles. Repeatedly applying the disclosed portable apparatus across a plurality of such cabins would have been a predictable use of the apparatus for its established sanitization function.
wherein each cabin comprises an interior space to be sanitized,
See at least:
“creating an ozone enriched atmosphere inside the passenger cabin...” (p. 3)
Rationale: The interior passenger-cabin space is expressly the environment being sanitized.
and where the at least one portable sanitization device comprises at least one reaction chamber
See at least:
“An apparatus for practicing the method can comprise an ozone generator, a blower, and an ozone concentration sensor.” (p. 4)
Rationale: Klaptchuck expressly provides an ozone generator. A PHOSITA would have understood that an ozone generator necessarily contains an ozone-generating region in which oxygen-containing air undergoes the ozone-forming process. That region renders the claimed reaction chamber obvious.
to purify and sanitize said interior space
See at least:
“The ozone rich atmosphere inside the cabin is maintained at a high ozone concentration ... to in-activate pathogens.” (p. 3)
Rationale: Klaptchuck expressly uses the generated ozone atmosphere to sanitize the cabin by inactivating contaminants/pathogens. Purification of the treated interior follows predictably from the disclosed contaminant-removal treatment.
by ionizing air in said at least one reaction chamber;
See at least:
“An apparatus for practicing the method can comprise an ozone generator...” (p. 4)
Rationale: Klaptchuck does not expressly use the words “ionizing air.” However, electrically generating ozone from oxygen-containing air using a conventional discharge-type ozone generator was a known implementation available to a PHOSITA. Such a generator subjects air to an energetic discharge within the ozone-generation region. The limitation is therefore relied upon as a PHOSITA-obvious implementation of Klaptchuck's expressly disclosed ozone generator.
c) starting an operating sequence of the at least one portable sanitization device,
See at least:
“The sanitizing apparatus 104 can be remotely activated...” (p. 11)
Rationale: Activation commences the sanitization sequence.
which comprises:
See at least:
“When the sanitization period is finished, the ozone generator is stopped...” (p. 10)
Rationale: Klaptchuck describes a defined sequence including commencement, continued treatment for a period, and cessation.
a power-on action of the at least one portable sanitization device;
See at least:
“The sanitizing apparatus 104 can be remotely activated...” (p. 11)
Rationale: Remote activation of the electrically operated sanitization apparatus constitutes commencement of powered operation.
an operating time of the at least one portable sanitization device; and
See at least:
“a sanitization period of about one hour...” (p. 11)
Rationale: Klaptchuck expressly establishes a defined operating duration.
a shutdown action of the at least one portable sanitization device:
See at least:
“When the sanitization period is finished, the ozone generator is stopped...” (p. 10)
Rationale: Stopping the ozone generator after the treatment period expressly establishes a shutdown operation.
d) monitoring and controlling the operation sequence of the at least one portable sanitization device
See at least:
“ozone and humidity monitoring, and subsequent adjustment would be controlled by a computer.” (p. 11)
Rationale: Klaptchuck expressly monitors sanitization conditions and controls operational adjustments during the process.
through at least one control unit;
See at least:
“subsequent adjustment would be controlled by a computer.” (p. 11)
Rationale: The disclosed computer performs the recited control-unit function.
h) executing control actions on the operation of the at least one portable sanitization device
See at least:
“Monitoring the ozone concentration during the period allows the sanitization period to be extended...” (p. 11)
Rationale: Klaptchuck expressly modifies operation of the portable sanitization process by extending its operating period.
based on said comparison
See at least:
“where the concentration is below the minimum concentration desired for the sanitization period being used,” the sanitation period may be longer. (p. 11)
Rationale: Klaptchuck expressly makes the operational adjustment responsive to a comparison between monitored ozone concentration and a predetermined minimum concentration. Thus, the general concept of executing control responsive to comparison is already present in the primary reference.
and through the at least one control unit,
See at least:
“ozone and humidity monitoring, and subsequent adjustment would be controlled by a computer.” (p. 11)
Rationale: Klaptchuck expressly performs the operational adjustment through its computer/control unit.
Claim Limitations Not Explicitly Disclosed by Klaptchuck
Klaptchuck does not explicitly teach the following remaining limitations:
b) energizing the at least one portable sanitization device,
using at least one energy source;
e) obtaining location data from the portable sanitization device
by means of the at least one control unit
in data communication with at least one location unit
integrated into the at least one portable sanitization device;
f) communicating the operating sequence and location data,
which are called a set of monitored operating data,
to at least one server
through at least one communication unit
arranged in data communication with the at least one portable sanitization device,
wherein the at least one server is remotely arranged on a wireless communications network
and in data communication with the at least one communication unit;
g) comparing the set of monitored operation data
with a set of predefined operation data
using the at least one server; and
wherein the control actions comprises:
locking/unlocking at least one portable sanitization device,
preventing/allowing the start of a new operation cycle;
assigning a predefined number of sanitizing process applications or operation cycles
to the at least one portable sanitizing device,
allowing said at least one portable sanitizing device to operate for a certain number of times; or
releasing at least one portable sanitization device,
allowing said at least one portable sanitization device to operate in a released manner.
Disclosure by Choe
Choe teaches:
b) energizing the at least one portable sanitization device,
See at least:
“The power unit 197 is provided with a rechargeable power supply means to supply power within the robot cleaner. The power unit Supplies operating power while performing cleaning...” ([0048])
Rationale: Choe expressly energizes a portable remotely operated device using an onboard rechargeable power source. Incorporating that known power architecture into Klaptchuck's portable sanitizer would predictably permit untethered operation.
using at least one energy source;
See at least:
“a rechargeable power supply means...” ([0048])
Rationale: The rechargeable power supply expressly constitutes an energy source.
e) obtaining location data from the portable sanitization device
See at least:
“The location recognition unit 170 is provided with one or more distance sensors to recognize the location of the robot cleaner within the cleaning area.” ([0042])
Rationale: Choe expressly determines location information concerning the portable device.
by means of the at least one control unit
See at least:
“The control unit 130 prepares a cleaning map using location information recognized through the location recognition unit 170...” ([0044])
Rationale: Choe expressly processes the location information through control unit 130.
in data communication with at least one location unit
See at least:
“The control unit 130 prepares a cleaning map using location information recognized through the location recognition unit 170...” ([0044])
Rationale: Use by the control unit of location information generated by location recognition unit 170 requires data communication between those components.
integrated into the at least one portable sanitization device;
See at least:
“a robot cleaner according to another embodiment may include ... a control unit 130, a communication server 120 ... and a location recognition unit 170.” ([0039])
Rationale: The location-recognition subsystem is expressly incorporated into the portable robot. Applying the same integrated localization arrangement to Klaptchuck's portable sanitizer is a predictable analogous use.
f) communicating the operating sequence and location data,
See at least:
“The communication server 120 transmits information Such as a cleaned area, a non-cleaned area, a cleaning pattern, a cleaning-disabled region, a cleaning status, and the like to the external device.” ([0025])
Choe further stores “information on the location of the robot cleaner, and the cleaning map.” ([0045])
Rationale: Choe expressly generates and remotely communicates operational status/sequence information and expressly generates and stores location information. Once location information is available within the same remotely monitored device, including that location information in the remotely transmitted monitoring dataset would have been a predictable telemetry implementation for identifying where the reported cleaning operation occurred.
which are called a set of monitored operating data,
See at least:
“information on the location of the robot cleaner, and the cleaning map.” ([0045])
and
“cleaned area, a non-cleaned area, a cleaning pattern, a cleaning-disabled region, a cleaning status...” ([0025])
Rationale: These simultaneously maintained location and operational-status records collectively form the monitored operating dataset recited in the claim.
to at least one server
See at least:
“According to one embodiment, a robot cleaner is arranged to operate with a server for remote monitoring...” ([0103])
Rationale: Choe expressly teaches operation of the remotely monitored portable device with a server.
through at least one communication unit
See at least:
“The communication server 120 may include a wireless access module, for example, a Wi-Fi module...” ([0021])
Rationale: Choe expressly supplies a wireless communication component for exchange of monitoring information and control commands.
arranged in data communication with the at least one portable sanitization device,
See at least:
“a robot cleaner according to another embodiment may include ... a communication server 120...” ([0039])
Rationale: The communication subsystem is expressly incorporated with the portable device and communicates its remotely monitored information outward.
wherein the at least one server is remotely arranged on a wireless communications network
See at least:
“a robot cleaner may be controlled through a wireless terminal device from a remote place...” ([0114])
and
“the wireless terminal device 200 may include a public network accessible channel Such as a mobile communication module, a wireless communication module, a modem...” ([0080])
and Choe expressly states that the robot cleaner may operate “with a server for remote monitoring.” ([0103])
Rationale: Considered as a whole, Choe expressly teaches remote monitoring through wireless/public-network communications and expressly teaches a server for remote monitoring. A PHOSITA would therefore have understood placement of that monitoring server on the disclosed network as a conventional remote-server implementation.
and in data communication with the at least one communication unit;
See at least:
“The communication module 220 is connected to the communication server 120 to receive a cleaning map or monitoring image ... [and] transmits a control command...” ([0062])
Rationale: Choe expressly establishes bidirectional data communication through the communication module and server architecture.
I would stop Choe here. Choe also contains authentication comparisons and remote command logic, but those comparisons concern authentication information rather than the claimed comparison between monitored operating data and predefined operating data. For a final rejection, stretching Choe to that specific limitation would be weaker than moving to the next reference.
Motivation to Combine Klaptchuck and Choe
Therefore, given the teachings as a whole, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, having Klaptchuck and Choe before them, to equip Klaptchuck's portable, remotely monitored cabin-sanitization apparatus with Choe's rechargeable power source, integrated location-recognition subsystem, control-unit/location interface, wireless communication architecture, and remote-server monitoring capability. Klaptchuck already provides remote computer-controlled sanitization, while Choe provides complementary portable-device infrastructure for untethered power, location determination, operational-status reporting, wireless data communication, and remote server-based monitoring. The combination would predictably provide a self-powered, location-aware sanitization device whose operating status can be communicated and remotely supervised without altering Klaptchuck's underlying sanitization mechanism.
Claim Limitations Not Explicitly Disclosed by the Combination of Klaptchuck and Choe
g) comparing the set of monitored operation data
with a set of predefined operation data
using the at least one server; and
wherein the control actions comprises:
locking/unlocking at least one portable sanitization device,
preventing/allowing the start of a new operation cycle;
assigning a predefined number of sanitizing process applications or operation cycles
to the at least one portable sanitizing device,
allowing said at least one portable sanitizing device to operate for a certain number of times; or
releasing at least one portable sanitization device,
allowing said at least one portable sanitization device to operate in a released manner.
Disclosure by Huang
Huang teaches or renders obvious:
wherein the control actions comprises:
See at least:
“The first cleaning schedule is deactivated...” and “The first cleaning schedule may be activated by selecting a toggle 1006.” ([0039])
Rationale: Huang expressly teaches operational enable/disable control states governing whether an autonomous portable device is permitted to execute a scheduled operation.
locking/unlocking at least one portable sanitization device,
See at least:
“The first cleaning schedule is deactivated...” and “may be activated by selecting a toggle 1006.” ([0039])
Rationale: Huang does not use the literal terms “locking” and “unlocking.” However, its activated/deactivated state performs the same claimed operational-gating function: the device is disabled from acting under a deactivated schedule and enabled under an activated schedule. Applying that known software gating to the Klaptchuck/Choe sanitizer is a predictable control implementation.
preventing/allowing the start of a new operation cycle;
See at least:
“the mobile device 204 initiates a cleaning mission corresponding to the second cleaning schedule 1004 (which is activated), but not the first cleaning schedule 1002 (which is deactivated).” ([0039])
Rationale: Huang expressly allows initiation for an enabled schedule and prevents initiation for a disabled schedule. This directly teaches the functional result recited by the claimed locking/unlocking action.
Huang additionally teaches the remaining disjunctive alternatives:
assigning a predefined number of sanitizing process applications or operation cycles
See at least:
“the first set of cleaning schedule parameters includes a setting for a number of cleaning passes.” ([0018])
and the disclosed once/weekly scheduling permits one-time or recurring cleaning missions. ([0032]-[0034])
Rationale: Huang expressly allows selection of a number of cleaning passes and one-time or recurring schedules. Applying the same scheduling/count mechanism to sanitization cycles would have predictably assign a predefined number of process applications.
to the at least one portable sanitizing device,
See at least:
“the mobile device 204 transmits ... data to the autonomous cleaning robot 214 to cause the autonomous cleaning robot 214 to initiate a cleaning mission according to the cleaning schedule.” ([0029])
Rationale: Huang expressly applies the predetermined schedule to the portable autonomous device itself.
allowing said at least one portable sanitizing device to operate for a certain number of times; or
See at least:
“a one-time cleaning mission” ([0032])
and
“the schedule repeat on each of the corresponding days of the week.” ([0034])
Rationale: Huang expressly provides both single-instance and recurring operation, thereby teaching controlled operation for a predetermined number/frequency of executions.
releasing at least one portable sanitization device,
See at least:
“The first cleaning schedule may be activated by selecting a toggle 1006.” ([0039])
Rationale: Activating a previously disabled schedule releases the device from the operational restriction preventing execution of that schedule.
allowing said at least one portable sanitization device to operate in a released manner.
See at least:
“the mobile device 204 initiates a cleaning mission corresponding to the second cleaning schedule 1004 (which is activated) ...” ([0039])
Rationale: Once activated/released, Huang permits the portable device to execute the scheduled operation. This renders the claimed released-operation state obvious.
For a final rejection, however, the first control-action branch alone is sufficient because the claim expressly uses “or.”.
Motivation to Combine Klaptchuck, Choe, and Huang
Therefore, given the teachings as a whole, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, having Klaptchuck, Choe, and Huang before them, to implement Huang's remotely administered scheduling and operational-gating functionality in the Klaptchuck/Choe remotely monitored sanitization system, such that scheduled sanitization operations may be activated or deactivated, permitted or prevented from starting, and optionally configured for one-time or recurring execution. Choe already provides remote monitoring, wireless commands, and portable-device control, while Huang provides conventional scheduling logic governing when and how often a remotely controlled portable cleaning device operates. Applying that control logic to Klaptchuck's sanitizer would predictably improve centralized administration and prevent unauthorized or undesired operating cycles without altering the sanitization process.
Claim Limitations Not Explicitly Disclosed by the Combination of Klaptchuck, Choe, and Huang
Only the specific comparison recited in step (g) remains:
g) comparing the set of monitored operation data
with a set of predefined operation data
using the at least one server; and
Disclosure by Spencer
Spencer teaches or renders obvious:
g) comparing the set of monitored operation data
See at least:
“almost all the systems have software that allows them to capture utilization data, including treatment time, location usage, and operator statistics.” (p. 289)
Spencer further reports that software review identified “an operator trend of significantly shorter UV-C cycles compared with the average.” (p. 290)
Rationale: Treatment time and location usage correspond directly to the categories making up the claimed monitored operation dataset. Spencer expressly analyzes monitored cycle information by comparing actual cycle durations to a baseline average.
with a set of predefined operation data
See at least:
“the first 2 remote sensors have reached their predetermined dose...” (p. 290)
and Spencer explains that treatment parameters may be based on room dimensions and timed intervals. (p. 289)
Rationale: Spencer expressly uses predetermined treatment criteria and stored/entered room information as operational targets. A PHOSITA implementing Spencer's metrics-driven tracking software would have compared collected treatment time/location information against the corresponding stored sanitization profile or expected values to determine compliance. The exact collective phrase “set of predefined operation data” is not used, but the claimed comparison is rendered obvious by Spencer's expressly disclosed monitoring, predetermined criteria, and compliance-analysis framework.
using the at least one server; and
See at least:
“The device's robust software with a metrics-driven tracking system ... key pieces of data could be correlated...” (p. 290)
and
“regular software report reviews so that they could monitor for quality control and compliance issues...” (p. 290)
Rationale: Spencer expressly performs centralized software-based correlation, tracking, and compliance analysis. In the remote-server architecture already supplied by Choe, performing Spencer's comparison at that server is a predictable placement of the disclosed software analytics.
Motivation to Combine Klaptchuck, Choe, Huang, and Spencer
Therefore, given the teachings as a whole, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, having Klaptchuck, Choe, Huang, and Spencer before them, to modify the remotely controlled cabin-sanitization system of Klaptchuck and Choe by using Spencer's metrics-driven software framework to compare remotely collected sanitization information—including treatment time and location usage—with predetermined or stored operating criteria, and to use the result of that comparison in conjunction with Huang's known operational-gating controls to selectively permit, prevent, schedule, or release subsequent sanitization operations. Klaptchuck supplies the portable remotely controlled sanitization process; Choe supplies power, localization, wireless communications, remote monitoring, and server architecture; Huang supplies activated/deactivated scheduling and operational authorization; and Spencer supplies treatment-data capture, predetermined treatment criteria, centralized correlation, and compliance analysis. The combination would predictably provide traceable, remotely administered sanitization in which operating authorization responds to whether actual device performance satisfies established treatment requirements, improving reliability, compliance, and operational control without altering the sanitizing mechanism.
Regarding Claim 14
The combination of Klaptchuck, Choe, Huang, and Spencer establishes the method of Claim 13, which is the basis for Claim 14.
Disclosure by Klaptchuck
Klaptchuck does not explicitly teach that both the communication unit and control unit are integrated with the portable sanitization device in the claimed configuration.
Claim Limitations Not Explicitly Disclosed by Klaptchuck
Wherein the at least one communication unit
and the at least one control unit
are integrated with the at least one portable sanitization device,
either independently
or in a single communication and control unit.
Disclosure by Choe
Choe teaches:
Wherein the at least one communication unit
See at least:
“The communication server 120 may include a wireless access module, for example, a Wi-Fi module...” ([0021])
Rationale: Choe expressly provides a communication structure within the portable-device architecture.
and the at least one control unit
See at least:
“a robot cleaner ... may include ... a control unit 130, a communication server 120...” ([0039])
Rationale: Choe expressly provides control unit 130.
are integrated with the at least one portable sanitization device,
See at least:
“a robot cleaner ... may include ... a control unit 130, a communication server 120...” ([0039])
Rationale: Choe expressly incorporates both structures into the portable robot itself. Applying this same self-contained architecture to Klaptchuck's portable sanitizer would have been a predictable design implementation.
either independently
See at least:
“a control unit 130, a communication server 120...” ([0039])
Rationale: Choe identifies the communication and control structures as distinct components incorporated within the same portable device, directly satisfying the independent-integration alternative.
Because Claim 14 uses “either ... or,” the separately integrated configuration taught by Choe is sufficient. No Claim 14 limitation remains after Choe; therefore, Huang and Spencer are not redundantly remapped for the added subject matter.
Motivation to Combine Klaptchuck, Choe, Huang, and Spencer
Therefore, given the teachings as a whole, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, having Klaptchuck, Choe, Huang, and Spencer before them, to implement the communication and control functions of the Claim 13 sanitization method using Choe's separately identifiable communication and control components integrated into Klaptchuck's portable sanitization device. Choe expressly demonstrates that a portable remotely monitored device may carry its wireless communication hardware and control unit onboard. Incorporating that architecture into the sanitization system established by the parent combination would predictably provide compact, self-contained, remotely manageable operation.
Regarding Claim 15
The combination of Klaptchuck, Choe, Huang, and Spencer establishes the method of Claim 13, which is the basis for Claim 15.
Disclosure by Klaptchuck
Klaptchuck does not explicitly teach assigning a unique identifier to the monitored-operation dataset and registering that dataset and identifier in a database through the server.
Claim Limitations Not Explicitly Disclosed by Klaptchuck
Wherein it further comprises assigning a unique identifier
to the set of monitored operation data
of the at least one portable sanitization device
through the at least one server or the at least one storage unit
and in that it also comprises registering
said set of monitored operation data
and the assigned unique identifier
in at least one database
through the at least one server.
Disclosure by Choe
Choe renders the entire added limitation obvious.
Wherein it further comprises assigning a unique identifier
See at least:
“The authentication unit may store authentication information for the external device, for example, information capable of identifying the external device Such as phone number, userID, password, address, and the like.” ([0037])
Rationale: Choe expressly uses identifying values, including a user ID, to uniquely associate information with particular remotely interacting entities. Extending the same conventional identifier practice to individual monitored-operation records would have been an ordinary database-management technique for preventing record commingling and enabling retrieval.
to the set of monitored operation data
See at least:
“storage unit 180 for storing ... information on the location of the robot cleaner, and the cleaning map.” ([0045])
Rationale: Choe expressly stores the location and operational information constituting the monitored data associated with the portable device. Assigning an identifier to each such stored operational record is a predictable record-management function.
of the at least one portable sanitization device
See at least:
“The communication server 120 transmits information Such as a cleaned area, a non-cleaned area, a cleaning pattern, a cleaning-disabled region, a cleaning status...” ([0025])
Rationale: The monitored information expressly relates to operation of the portable device itself.
through the at least one server or the at least one storage unit
See at least:
“when the robot cleaner has a storage unit as a separate module, the authentication unit 150 may store authentication information for the external device in the storage unit.” ([0038])
Rationale: The claim is disjunctive. Choe expressly provides the storage-unit alternative for retaining identification information. Employing that storage subsystem to generate or associate a record identifier with stored operational data would have been a routine database implementation.
and in that it also comprises registering
See at least:
“The authentication unit 150 permits authentication using a database stored in the unit itself...” ([0088])
Rationale: Choe expressly maintains records in a database. Registering a newly identified operational record is the conventional act of entering/persisting that record in such database storage.
said set of monitored operation data
See at least:
“information on the location of the robot cleaner, and the cleaning map.” ([0045])
Rationale: Choe expressly stores the underlying operational/location information.
and the assigned unique identifier
See at least:
“information capable of identifying the external device Such as phone number, userID, password, address, and the like.” ([0037])
Rationale: Choe expressly stores identifying information. Once an operational record has been assigned an identifier, storing the identifier with the record is the predictable manner in which the identifier maintains the association.
in at least one database
See at least:
“using a database stored in the unit itself...” ([0088])
Rationale: Choe expressly discloses a database.
through the at least one server.
See at least:
“The authentication unit 150 may be provided in the form of an authentication server.” ([0037])
Rationale: Choe expressly states that the database-associated authentication unit may be implemented as a server. Using that server to register identified operational records is a predictable use of its disclosed database-management architecture.
Because Choe renders every added Claim 15 limitation obvious, the analysis stops at Choe. Huang and Spencer are not used again to remap those limitations; they remain part of Claim 15 only because Claim 15 incorporates Claim 13.
Motivation to Combine Klaptchuck, Choe, Huang, and Spencer
Therefore, given the teachings as a whole, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, having Klaptchuck, Choe, Huang, and Spencer before them, to associate the monitored sanitization records generated by the Claim 13 system with unique record identifiers and register those records and identifiers in server-accessible database storage using Choe's disclosed identification, storage, database, and server architecture. Choe expressly manages identifying information, operational/location information, storage, database records, and an authentication-server implementation. Once the parent system collects multiple remotely monitored sanitization records, uniquely identifying and registering those records would predictably improve traceability, prevent record commingling, and permit reliable retrieval and audit of each sanitization operation.
Regarding Claim 17
The combination of Klaptchuck, Choe, Huang, and Spencer establishes the method of Claim 13, which is the basis for Claim 17.
Disclosure by Klaptchuck
Klaptchuck teaches portable sanitization of vehicle cabins and remote monitoring and control of a portable sanitization apparatus. Klaptchuck, however, does not teach the following additional limitations of Claim 17:
wherein it also comprises coordinating the operation of at least two portable sanitization devices,
either in the same cabin
or in two different cabins of the plurality of cabins
by means of the at least one server.
Disclosure by Choe
Choe teaches remote monitoring and control of a portable autonomous device through a networked computing architecture.
See at least:
“According to one embodiment, a robot cleaner is arranged to operate with a server for remote monitoring...” ([0103])
See also:
“a robot cleaner may be controlled through a wireless terminal device from a remote place to check the status of the robot cleaner and collect the information thereof.” ([0114])
Rationale: Choe teaches that a portable autonomous device may communicate with remote computing equipment and may be remotely monitored and controlled. Choe therefore establishes a known network architecture suitable for remotely managing a portable device. Choe does not expressly teach coordination of the respective operations of at least two such portable devices or assignment of multiple devices to one or more separate operating spaces.
Claim Limitations Not Explicitly Disclosed by the Combination of Klaptchuck and Choe
wherein it also comprises coordinating the operation of at least two portable sanitization devices,
either in the same cabin
or in two different cabins of the plurality of cabins
by means of the at least one server.
Disclosure by Huang
Huang teaches:
wherein it also comprises coordinating the operation of at least two portable sanitization devices,
See at least:
“multiple autonomous cleaning robots may be configured to navigate a space and communicate with the mobile device 204.”
Huang further states:
“The interface 1100 allows for coordinated cleaning between the first autonomous cleaning robot and the second autonomous cleaning robot.” ([0040])
Huang additionally explains that the first and second autonomous cleaning robots communicate with the mobile application such that the second robot performs its mopping function after the first robot has completed vacuuming. ([0040])
Rationale: Huang expressly teaches coordinated operation of at least two distinct portable autonomous devices. The operation of the second robot is coordinated with completion of the first robot's assigned operation. Applying Huang's known multi-device coordination arrangement to the portable sanitization devices of Klaptchuck would have been a predictable use of an established autonomous-device coordination technique. Each portable sanitization device would continue to perform its known sanitizing function while its timing and task execution are coordinated with another device.
either in the same cabin
See at least:
“a second autonomous cleaning robot may be configured to follow a first autonomous cleaning robot and perform a different cleaning task.”
and:
“the second autonomous cleaning robot [performs] the mopping function after the first autonomous cleaning robot has completed vacuuming in the area of interest.” ([0040])
Huang further teaches:
“Each room label on the list of rooms 726 corresponds to a room in the user's space...” ([0037])
Rationale: Huang coordinates the first and second autonomous robots in a common area of interest and separately identifies individual rooms as defined operating spaces. Applying the same coordinated operation to two portable sanitization devices located within one vehicle cabin would have been a predictable analogous implementation. The coordination functionality is independent of whether the enclosed operating space is a residential room or a vehicle cabin.
Huang also teaches a cloud-computing architecture in which communication occurs among a user, mobile device, cloud computing system, and autonomous cleaning robot, and further teaches that computer-program instructions may control or coordinate the described operations. ([0028], [0042]-[0043])
However, Huang's specific multi-robot embodiment of paragraph [0040] identifies the mobile application and the first and second robots as the components performing the coordination. Huang does not expressly place that multi-robot coordination function at the cloud server.
Motivation to Combine Klaptchuck, Choe, and Huang
Therefore, given the teachings as a whole, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, having Klaptchuck, Choe, and Huang before them, to configure at least two of Klaptchuck's portable sanitization devices for coordinated operation using Huang's known multi-device coordination arrangement, including operation of the devices within the same cabin. Klaptchuck teaches portable cabin sanitization and remote control, Choe teaches compatible remote communication and control infrastructure, and Huang expressly teaches coordinated operation of first and second autonomous portable devices within a common operating area. Incorporating Huang's coordination functionality would predictably permit sequential or complementary sanitization operations, reduce conflicting device activity, and improve utilization of multiple portable sanitization devices without altering the sanitizing function of either device.
Claim Limitations Not Explicitly Disclosed by the Combination of Klaptchuck, Choe, and Huang
or in two different cabins of the plurality of cabins
by means of the at least one server.
Disclosure by Spencer
Spencer teaches remote operation and centralized monitoring of portable sanitization equipment.
See at least:
“All systems can be operated remotely with tablets or personal digital assistants...”
and:
“almost all the systems have software that allows them to capture utilization data, including treatment time, location usage, and operator statistics.” (p. 289)
Rationale: Spencer confirms that portable sanitization devices may be remotely operated and that centralized software may collect treatment and location information concerning operation of those devices. Such teachings are compatible with centralized supervision of multiple portable sanitization devices. Spencer does not expressly disclose server-based allocation or coordination of at least two portable sanitization devices operating in different cabins.
Claim Limitations Not Explicitly Disclosed by the Combination of Klaptchuck, Choe, Huang, and Spencer
or in two different cabins of the plurality of cabins
by means of the at least one server.
Disclosure by Wurman
Wurman teaches:
or in two different cabins of the plurality of cabins
See at least:
“By the end of the pilot, the Kiva robots had expanded through doorways into three different rooms of the warehouse.” (p. 16)
Wurman further describes an installation beginning with:
“30 robots and five stations”
and later operating:
“well over 150 robots working 24 hours day...” (p. 16)
Rationale: Wurman expressly teaches coordinated operation of multiple autonomous mobile devices across physically distinct rooms. The method of Claim 13 already provides a plurality of cabins as corresponding discrete operating spaces. Applying Wurman's multi-device allocation architecture to the portable sanitization devices would have predictably permitted respective sanitization devices to operate in different cabins. Substitution of vehicle cabins for warehouse rooms does not alter the underlying coordination or task-allocation principle.
by means of the at least one server.
See at least:
“Systemwide resource allocation is centralized in the Job Manager (JM)...”
and:
“The JM receives customer orders that need to be filled and assigns drives, pods, and stations to carry out the tasks.” (p. 15)
Wurman additionally teaches:
“The computational benefits include a natural decomposition of the computation that can be spread across as many servers as necessary.” (p. 15)
Rationale: Wurman expressly centralizes systemwide multi-device resource allocation in the Job Manager and expressly teaches implementation of the multiagent computation across servers. Although Wurman does not expressly identify the Job Manager itself as a server, implementing the centralized Job Manager functionality on one of the expressly contemplated servers would have been a conventional and predictable software deployment. Claim 13 already provides a remote server. Implementing Wurman's centralized coordination functionality on that existing server would therefore predictably result in coordination of the multiple portable sanitization devices by means of the claimed server.
Motivation to Combine Klaptchuck, Choe, Huang, Spencer, and Wurman
Therefore, given the teachings as a whole, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, having Klaptchuck, Choe, Huang, Spencer, and Wurman before them, to implement Wurman's centralized multi-device resource-allocation functionality in the remotely monitored sanitization method of Klaptchuck, Choe, Huang, and Spencer such that the remote server coordinates operation of at least two portable sanitization devices, including devices assigned to different cabins.
Klaptchuck teaches portable cabin sanitization and remote control; Choe teaches remote network communication and server-based monitoring of a portable autonomous device; Huang expressly teaches coordinated operation of multiple autonomous portable devices; Spencer teaches remote sanitization-device operation together with collection of treatment and location-usage information; and Wurman teaches centralized systemwide resource allocation, assignment of autonomous devices to tasks, operation of large numbers of devices across multiple rooms, and implementation of the associated computation on servers.
A PHOSITA implementing multiple portable sanitization devices across multiple cabins would have had a recognized need to allocate the available devices among the cabins and coordinate their operation. Applying Wurman's known centralized resource-allocation architecture to the existing server of Claim 13 would predictably provide centralized device assignment and sequencing, reduce conflicting or duplicative sanitization operations, permit treatment of multiple cabins, and improve device utilization and throughput while each portable device continues performing its established sanitization function.
Regarding Claim 19
The combination of Klaptchuck, Choe, Huang, and Spencer establishes the method of Claim 13, which is the basis for Claim 19.
Disclosure by Klaptchuck
Klaptchuck teaches:
wherein the sequence of operation of the at least one portable sanitization device
See at least:
“During the sanitization period, the ozone generator is operated to maintain the ozone concentration at the desired level...” and “[w]hen the sanitization period is finished, the ozone generator is stopped...” ( p. 10)
Rationale: Klaptchuck expressly teaches a defined sanitization operating sequence in which the ozone generator operates during a sanitization period to maintain the desired treatment condition and is subsequently stopped when that period is completed. The operating sequence therefore includes controlled operation over a treatment interval followed by cessation of operation.
is determined based on the volume of the interior space to be sanitized,
See at least:
“With an ozone generator 6 of a given capacity, the ozone concentration attainable will be higher or lower depending on the size of the cabin 2 which correlates directly to the volume of air therein. Similarly the air moving capacity for effective circulation and flushing will vary with the size of the cabin 2.” ( p. 9)
Rationale: Klaptchuck expressly identifies the size of the cabin as directly correlated to the volume of air therein and expressly teaches that both attainable ozone concentration and air-moving capacity vary according to that cabin size. Klaptchuck's operating sequence necessarily includes ozone generation, circulation, treatment duration, and subsequent flushing. A PHOSITA would therefore have understood that these operating parameters are selected or adjusted as a function of the volume of air requiring treatment. Determining the sequence of operation based on treated-space volume is thus expressly suggested and, at minimum, would have been obvious from Klaptchuck's stated relationship between cabin volume and the operating requirements of the sanitization apparatus.
Claim Limitations Not Explicitly Disclosed by Klaptchuck
Klaptchuck does not explicitly teach:
wherein: the volume of the interior space is predefined;
or the volume of the interior space is measured
by one or more volumetric sensors
arranged in the interior space.
Disclosure by Choe
Choe teaches localization, mapping, storage, and remote control of a portable autonomous device, including preparation of a cleaning map using recognized location information. See, e.g., [0044]-[0045].
Choe does not teach that the volume of the treated interior space is predefined or measured by volumetric sensors.
Claim Limitations Not Explicitly Disclosed by the Combination of Klaptchuck and Choe
wherein: the volume of the interior space is predefined;
or the volume of the interior space is measured
by one or more volumetric sensors
arranged in the interior space.
Disclosure by Huang
Huang teaches scheduling of an autonomous cleaning device based on operating parameters such as time, frequency, and areas or rooms to be cleaned, but does not teach determination or measurement of the volume of the treated interior space. For example, Huang's scheduling parameters include “time, day, frequency” and cleaning parameters defining the cleaning schedule. ([0028])
Accordingly, the following limitations remain:
wherein: the volume of the interior space is predefined;
or the volume of the interior space is measured
by one or more volumetric sensors
arranged in the interior space.
Disclosure by Spencer
Spencer teaches or renders obvious:
wherein: the volume of the interior space is predefined;
See at least:
“Some systems calculate the dose to be delivered ... based on the dimensions of the room and are set on a timed interval, but without active dose measurement.” (p. 289)
Spencer further states:
“These software systems generally require that the purchaser input room data either manually or electronically.” (p. 290)
Rationale: Spencer expressly teaches sanitization systems in which room spatial data are entered into the software and used to determine the delivered treatment and timed operating interval. A PHOSITA would have understood that the volume of a room is directly derivable from its defining spatial dimensions. Because Spencer's room data are entered manually or electronically and thereafter used by the system to calculate the treatment conditions, storing or entering the corresponding room volume before execution of the treatment cycle would have been a routine and predictable implementation. When this teaching is applied to Klaptchuck—which expressly states that cabin size directly correlates to the volume of air therein and that operating requirements vary with cabin size—the predefined-volume alternative follows directly as an obvious implementation of known sanitization-control practice.
Because the claim recites the two volume-determination implementations disjunctively, establishment of wherein: the volume of the interior space is predefined; is sufficient. The alternative:
or the volume of the interior space is measured
by one or more volumetric sensors
arranged in the interior space.
need not separately be relied upon.
Motivation to Combine Klaptchuck, Choe, Huang, and Spencer
Therefore, given the teachings as a whole, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, having Klaptchuck, Choe, Huang, and Spencer before them, to determine the sequence of operation of the portable sanitization device using predefined spatial information corresponding to the volume of the cabin to be sanitized.
Klaptchuck expressly teaches that cabin size directly correlates to the volume of air therein and that ozone concentration and air-moving requirements vary according to the size of the cabin. Choe provides the remote control, localization, and data-processing architecture of the parent method; Huang provides remotely managed operating schedules and area-specific operation; and Spencer expressly teaches automated sanitization systems that receive room data and calculate treatment parameters and timed intervals based on room dimensions. Using predefined cabin-volume information derived from known cabin dimensions would have predictably allowed the sanitization controller to select operating conditions appropriate to the amount of air requiring treatment, improving repeatability and treatment reliability without changing the underlying sanitization principle.
Regarding Claim 20
The combination of Klaptchuck, Choe, Huang, and Spencer establishes the method of Claim 13, which is the basis for Claim 20.
Disclosure by Klaptchuck
Klaptchuck teaches remote monitoring of the portable sanitization apparatus and further teaches that the apparatus may provide a local or remote visual or sound indication of operation. ( pp. 11–12)
Klaptchuck does not explicitly teach:
wherein it further comprises deploying part or all the monitored operation data
of the portable sanitization device
in a display unit
comprised in the at least one portable sanitization device
by means of the at least one control unit.
Disclosure by Choe
Choe teaches:
wherein it further comprises deploying part or all the monitored operation data
See at least:
“The output unit 193 outputs at least one of the monitoring image or compressed monitoring image, authentication information on the external device, information on the obstacle, information on the location of the robot cleaner, and the cleaning map.” ([0052])
Choe further states:
“The output unit 193 may further display status information Such as a current status of each unit constituting the robot cleaner, a current cleaning status, and the like.” ([0053])
Rationale: The monitored operation data of Claim 13 include operating-sequence information and location data. Choe expressly displays location information and current operational/status information of the portable device. Because Claim 20 requires deployment of only “part or all” of the monitored operation data, Choe's express display of either location information or current device status is sufficient; its disclosure of both provides still stronger correspondence.
of the portable sanitization device
See at least:
“information on the location of the robot cleaner...” ([0052])
and:
“a current status of each unit constituting the robot cleaner, a current cleaning status...” ([0053])
Rationale: Choe expressly presents information describing the particular portable device itself, including its location and operational status. In the proposed combination, the corresponding portable device is Klaptchuck's portable sanitization device. Displaying the sanitizer's analogous location and operational information would therefore have been a predictable application of Choe's established monitoring architecture.
in a display unit
See at least:
“The output unit 193 may be formed with any one of a light emitting diode (LED), a liquid crystal display (LCD), a plasma display panel, and an organic light emitting diode (OLED).” ([0053])
Rationale: Choe expressly identifies output unit 193 as implemented using conventional display technologies, including an LCD, plasma display panel, or OLED. Output unit 193 therefore expressly constitutes a display unit.
comprised in the at least one portable sanitization device
See at least:
“a robot cleaner according to embodiments may further include a power unit 197, a drive unit 195, an input unit 191, and an output unit 193.” ([0048])
Rationale: Choe expressly incorporates output unit 193 into the portable robot cleaner itself rather than merely providing the display at the remote terminal. Incorporating the same onboard display arrangement into Klaptchuck's portable sanitization device would have been a predictable structural application of Choe's portable-device architecture.
by means of the at least one control unit.
See at least:
“The control unit 130 prepares a cleaning map using location information recognized through the location recognition unit 170...” ([0044])
and:
“The output unit 193 outputs ... information on the location of the robot cleaner ... [and] a cleaning map prepared through the control unit 130.” ([0052])
Rationale: Choe expressly processes location information through control unit 130 and expressly outputs information, including the cleaning map prepared through that control unit, using the onboard output unit. The reference therefore establishes a data path from the control unit to the onboard display. Applying that known architecture to Claim 13 would predictably cause at least part of the monitored operation data already processed by the sanitizer's control unit to be deployed in the onboard display.
Motivation to Combine Klaptchuck, Choe, Huang, and Spencer
Therefore, given the teachings as a whole, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, having Klaptchuck, Choe, Huang, and Spencer before them, to provide the portable sanitization device of the Claim 13 method with Choe's onboard output/display unit and to use the control unit to present at least part of the monitored location and operational information on that display.
Klaptchuck already provides a remotely monitored portable sanitization apparatus and contemplates local visual indication of operation. Choe expressly provides a portable remotely monitored device having an onboard LCD/LED/OLED-type display that presents device location and operational status and outputs information generated through the control unit. Huang provides the remotely controlled operating architecture incorporated into Claim 13, while Spencer confirms the recognized value of tracking treatment time, location usage, and other operating information. Presenting such already-available monitoring data locally on the portable sanitization device would have predictably improved operator awareness, troubleshooting, verification, and safe operation while retaining the existing remote-monitoring capability.
Regarding Claim 22
The combination of Klaptchuck, Choe, Huang, and Spencer establishes the method of Claim 20, which is the basis for Claim 22.
Disclosure by Klaptchuck
Klaptchuck teaches:
wherein: each cabin corresponds to the cabin of a vehicle;
See at least:
“Alternatively the ozone generator 106 could be integrated into a portable ozone sanitizing apparatus 104 ... that is placed into the vehicle cabin.” ( p. 9)
Rationale: Klaptchuck expressly places the portable sanitization apparatus in a vehicle cabin. Thus, application of the Claim 20 method to each of the plurality of treated cabins as respective vehicle cabins is expressly suggested and represents repetition of the same disclosed sanitization method for its established purpose.
starting an operation cycle,
See at least:
“The sanitizing apparatus 104 can be remotely activated and monitored...” ( p. 11)
Rationale: Remote activation of Klaptchuck's portable sanitizing apparatus commences operation of the sanitization process. This directly corresponds to starting an operation cycle.
circulating air from inside the cabin
See at least:
“The blower is connected at an inlet thereof to draw air from the cabin through the blower...” ( p. 4)
Rationale: Klaptchuck expressly draws air originating inside the passenger cabin into the sanitization airflow system.
by means of at least one unit for moving air
See at least:
“An apparatus for practicing the method can comprise an ozone generator, a blower, and an ozone concentration sensor.” ( p. 4)
Rationale: A blower is expressly an air-moving component and therefore teaches the recited unit for moving air.
included in the at least one portable sanitization device portable,
See at least:
“the blower, sensor, and ozone generator can be incorporated into a portable unit that is placed into the cabin.” ( p. 5)
Rationale: Klaptchuck expressly incorporates the blower into the portable sanitizing unit. Thus, the air-moving unit is included in the portable sanitization device itself.
and recirculating air inside the cabin
See at least:
“The vehicle air circulation system is operated to circulate the ozone rich atmosphere through heating and ventilation units...” and the blower “cause[s] the air inside the cabin to circulate into corners and small spaces...” ( p. 9)
Rationale: Klaptchuck expressly recirculates the cabin atmosphere during the sanitization process using the vehicle circulation system together with the portable apparatus blower.
Claim Limitations Not Explicitly Disclosed by Klaptchuck
Klaptchuck does not explicitly teach:
the at least one energy source corresponds to an energy source integrated in each vehicle;
and each operation cycle includes an operating time of between 15 to 20 minutes
and a rest time of between 1 to 3 minutes,
preferably, the operation time is 18 minutes
and the rest time is 2 minutes
for cabins of an average size of 2 m3;
wherein the method also comprises: connecting, within each cabin the at least one portable sanitization device
to the vehicle's power source;
through the at least one reaction chamber
and outside the portable sanitization device
through the at least one reaction chamber;
and ionizing the air that circulates through the at least one reaction chamber
expelling ionized air into the interior space of the vehicle's cabin.
Disclosure by Choe
Choe teaches an onboard rechargeable power supply for its portable robot cleaner. Specifically, Choe states that power unit 197 includes “a rechargeable power supply means to supply power within the robot cleaner” ([0048]).
Choe's power source is integrated in the portable device rather than in a vehicle and Choe does not teach connecting the device to a vehicle power source. Choe also does not teach the claimed 15–20-minute operation/1–3-minute rest relationship, the specific reaction-chamber airflow relationship, or expulsion of ionized air into a vehicle cabin.
Claim Limitations Not Explicitly Disclosed by the Combination of Klaptchuck and Choe
The limitations identified above as remaining after Klaptchuck remain not explicitly disclosed.
Disclosure by Huang
Huang's teachings concern remote scheduling and operational control of autonomous cleaning robots. Huang does not teach a vehicle-integrated power source, connection of a portable device to that source, the claimed operating/rest durations, treatment-airflow through a reaction chamber, or ionized air expelled into a vehicle cabin.
Accordingly, the Claim 22 limitations remaining after Klaptchuck and Choe remain not explicitly disclosed by Klaptchuck, Choe, and Huang.
Disclosure by Spencer
Spencer teaches automated room-disinfection systems whose treatment durations may depend on spatial and treatment conditions. Spencer describes a pulsed xenon system operating “in two 5- to 7-minute cycles, each in a different location in a room, taking approximately 15-20 minutes for the disinfection process.” (p. 289)
That disclosure is not relied upon for and each operation cycle includes an operating time of between 15 to 20 minutes because Spencer expressly attributes the approximately 15–20 minutes to the overall disinfection process comprising two shorter individual cycles, rather than to each individual operation cycle. Spencer likewise does not teach the claimed 1–3-minute rest interval, vehicle power relationship, or the remaining reaction-chamber/ionization limitations.
Disclosure by Boast
Boast teaches or renders obvious:
through the at least one reaction chamber
See at least:
“a ozone flow meter 140 to indicate the air flow moving through the ozone generator 20” ([0045])
Rationale: Boast expressly teaches airflow through ozone generator 20. In the Claim 20 combination, the ozone-generation region corresponds to the claimed reaction chamber because it is the region in which the flowing air is subjected to the sanitizing ozone-forming process. Thus, directing the cabin airflow through Boast's ozone generator renders obvious directing that airflow through the recited reaction chamber.
and outside the portable sanitization device
See at least:
“Ozone exhaust vent 106 allows the ozone generated to exit disinfection apparatus 1 into the closed environment.” ([0039])
Rationale: Boast expressly discharges the treated ozone-containing output from the portable disinfection apparatus into the surrounding closed environment. When applied to Klaptchuck's vehicle-cabin environment, the airflow therefore proceeds outside the portable sanitization device and into the cabin.
through the at least one reaction chamber;
See at least:
“The corona discharge process creates ozone using air in the closed environment that passes through disinfection apparatus 1 by using a multiplicity of fans...” ([0037])
Rationale: Boast expressly passes air from the closed environment through the apparatus while corona-discharge ozone generation occurs. Boast further expressly identifies airflow “through the ozone generator 20” ([0045]). The recirculated cabin airflow would therefore traverse the ozone-generating reaction region before being returned to the treated environment.
and ionizing the air that circulates through the at least one reaction chamber
See at least:
“Ozone generator 20 uses corona discharge...” and “[t]he corona discharge process creates ozone using air in the closed environment...” ([0037])
Rationale: Boast does not use the literal phrase “ionizing the air.” However, corona discharge is an electrical-discharge process in which the gas in the discharge region is ionized. A PHOSITA implementing Boast's expressly disclosed corona-discharge ozone generator in the airflow path would therefore have understood the circulating air to undergo ionization in the ozone-generation/reaction region. This limitation is relied upon as PHOSITA-obvious from Boast's disclosed physical operating mechanism.
Motivation to Combine Klaptchuck, Choe, Huang, Spencer, and Boast
Therefore, given the teachings as a whole, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, having Klaptchuck, Choe, Huang, Spencer, and Boast before them, to implement the portable vehicle-cabin sanitization method using Boast's forced-air corona-discharge ozone-generation arrangement such that cabin air passes through the ozone-generating reaction region and exits the portable apparatus into the treated cabin.
Klaptchuck already circulates cabin air using a blower and portable ozone-generating unit. Boast expressly employs fans to move air from the treated closed environment through a corona-discharge ozone generator and provides an exhaust vent through which the generated ozone exits the apparatus into that environment. Combining these technically compatible teachings would predictably provide efficient contact between the recirculating cabin air and the ozone-generating treatment region and improve distribution of the generated sanitizing species through the cabin.
Claim Limitations Not Explicitly Disclosed by the Combination of Klaptchuck, Choe, Huang, Spencer, and Boast
The following limitations remain:
the at least one energy source corresponds to an energy source integrated in each vehicle;
and each operation cycle includes an operating time of between 15 to 20 minutes
and a rest time of between 1 to 3 minutes,
preferably, the operation time is 18 minutes
and the rest time is 2 minutes
for cabins of an average size of 2 m3;
wherein the method also comprises: connecting, within each cabin the at least one portable sanitization device
to the vehicle's power source;
expelling ionized air into the interior space of the vehicle's cabin.
Disclosure by Line
Line teaches or renders obvious:
expelling ionized air into the interior space of the vehicle's cabin.
See at least:
“When activated, the negative ion generator(s) 42 negatively ionize molecules such as oxygen and nitrogen in the air of the interior 12 of the vehicle 10.” ([0056])
Line further teaches that its air sanitizing apparatus includes an air-flow tube and an exhaust fan, wherein:
“When activated, the exhaust fan 64 causes air to flow through the inside 70 of the air flow tube 62.” ([0058])
Rationale: Line expressly ionizes oxygen and nitrogen molecules in the air of the vehicle interior and expressly provides forced airflow through the vehicle air-sanitizing apparatus. Boast already establishes an exhaust path by which treated air exits the portable apparatus into the surrounding treated environment. Incorporating Line's negative-ion-generation functionality into that established forced-air treatment path would predictably result in ionized treated air being discharged into the vehicle cabin. The claimed “expelling” relationship is therefore rendered obvious by Line in view of the already-established forced-air/exhaust architecture.
Line additionally places the electrically operated air-sanitizing apparatus within the vehicle and places the ozone generator, negative-ion generator, fan, and other components under control of vehicle controller 26. ([0054]-[0060]) Line does not, however, expressly identify the particular electrical source supplying those components as the vehicle's power source.
Motivation to Combine Klaptchuck, Choe, Huang, Spencer, Boast, and Line
Therefore, given the teachings as a whole, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, having Klaptchuck, Choe, Huang, Spencer, Boast, and Line before them, to incorporate Line's vehicle-specific negative-ion treatment into the forced-air sanitization path of the Klaptchuck/Boast portable cabin-sanitization arrangement so that the treated airflow returned to the cabin includes ionized air.
Line specifically teaches sanitizing vehicle-interior air by negatively ionizing oxygen and nitrogen molecules and provides a forced-air treatment module within the vehicle. Boast supplies the complementary airflow-through-treatment and discharge architecture. Incorporating Line's known ionization function into that established treatment stream would use each component according to its known function and predictably provide ionized treated air to the cabin interior.
Claim Limitations Not Explicitly Disclosed by the Combination of Klaptchuck, Choe, Huang, Spencer, Boast, and Line
The following limitations remain:
the at least one energy source corresponds to an energy source integrated in each vehicle;
and each operation cycle includes an operating time of between 15 to 20 minutes
and a rest time of between 1 to 3 minutes,
preferably, the operation time is 18 minutes
and the rest time is 2 minutes
for cabins of an average size of 2 m3;
wherein the method also comprises: connecting, within each cabin the at least one portable sanitization device
to the vehicle's power source;
Disclosure by Offutt
Offutt teaches or renders obvious:
the at least one energy source corresponds to an energy source integrated in each vehicle;
See at least:
“the charging interface is configured to receive power from a power supply external to a body of the bag.” ([0028])
Rationale: Offutt expressly equips a portable sanitization system with an electrical interface for receiving power from a source external to the portable treatment enclosure. Line already establishes the sanitization apparatus as an electrically operated component located within and controlled as part of a vehicle. In that vehicle implementation, supplying Offutt's portable sanitizer interface from the vehicle's existing onboard electrical source would have been a predictable source selection: it uses an available integrated source to power an electrical accessory installed within the vehicle and avoids a separate external mains source. Thus, the vehicle-integrated energy-source relationship is PHOSITA-obvious from Offutt's external-power interface when applied to Line's vehicle-integrated sanitizer.
and each operation cycle includes an operating time of between 15 to 20 minutes
See at least:
“Each cycle may last ... 15 minutes, 20 minutes...” ([0041])
Rationale: Offutt expressly identifies both fifteen and twenty minutes as sanitization-cycle durations. The disclosed endpoints directly establish the claimed 15-to-20-minute operating interval, and intermediate values within that narrow interval represent routine selection of the disclosed cycle-duration parameter.
and a rest time of between 1 to 3 minutes,
See at least:
“Each cycle may be spaced from adjacent cycles by a waiting period” and “[t]he waiting period may be ... 1 minute, 2 minutes, 3 minutes...” ([0041])
Rationale: Offutt expressly provides waiting periods between sanitization cycles of one, two, and three minutes, directly establishing the claimed rest-time range.
preferably, the operation time is 18 minutes
See at least:
“Each cycle may last ... 15 minutes, 20 minutes...” ([0041])
Rationale: Offutt does not expressly identify eighteen minutes. However, eighteen minutes lies within the narrow 15-to-20-minute interval expressly disclosed for the same sanitization-cycle function. Offutt further identifies cycle duration as dependent upon treatment-space size and sanitization intensity. Selecting eighteen minutes within that expressly disclosed interval therefore would have been routine optimization of a known result-effective operating parameter with the predictable result of providing an intermediate treatment duration.
and the rest time is 2 minutes
See at least:
“The waiting period may be ... 1 minute, 2 minutes, 3 minutes...” ([0041])
Rationale: Offutt expressly identifies two minutes as an inter-cycle waiting period.
wherein the method also comprises: connecting, within each cabin the at least one portable sanitization device
See at least:
“The bag in which the sanitization device 400 is placed may include a charging interface in electrical communication with the battery...” ([0028])
Rationale: Offutt expressly provides a portable sanitization device located in a treatment enclosure with an electrical charging/power interface. In the vehicle-cabin implementation supplied by Klaptchuck and Line, the corresponding treatment enclosure is the vehicle cabin.
to the vehicle's power source;
See at least:
“the charging interface is configured to receive power from a power supply external to a body of the bag.” ([0028])
Rationale: Offutt expressly provides a physical electrical interface by which the portable sanitizer receives power from a source external to the portable treatment enclosure. In the vehicle implementation already established by Line, connecting this known interface to the vehicle's onboard electrical source would have been a predictable substitution of one available electrical supply for another. The modification would eliminate the need for a separate external mains connection while providing power from a source already present in the vehicle.
Motivation to Combine Klaptchuck, Choe, Huang, Spencer, Boast, Line, and Offutt
Therefore, given the teachings as a whole, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, having Klaptchuck, Choe, Huang, Spencer, Boast, Line, and Offutt before them, to provide the portable vehicle-cabin sanitization arrangement with Offutt's external-power interface and programmable operating/waiting-cycle parameters, using the vehicle's onboard electrical source to supply the sanitization device and operating the device according to the disclosed 15-to-20-minute treatment interval and one-to-three-minute waiting interval.
Offutt expressly teaches an electrical interface for powering a portable sanitization device, selectable sanitization-cycle durations including 15 and 20 minutes, and waiting periods including one, two, and three minutes. Line establishes an electrically controlled vehicle-integrated air sanitizer, while the preceding references establish the portable cabin-sanitization, airflow, remote-control, and ionization functions. Using the vehicle's available power source and selecting treatment/rest durations within Offutt's expressly disclosed values would have been technically compatible and would predictably provide repeatable, self-contained sanitization operation.
Claim Limitations Not Explicitly Disclosed by the Combination of Klaptchuck, Choe, Huang, Spencer, Boast, Line, and Offutt
The following limitation remains:
for cabins of an average size of 2 m3;
Disclosure by Levinson
Levinson teaches or renders obvious:
for cabins of an average size of 2 m3;
See at least:
“cabin volume (m3) 2.57” for a 2009 Honda Civic 4DR GX. (Table 1, p. 19/46)
Rationale: Levinson expressly quantifies the cabin volume of an ordinary compact passenger vehicle as 2.57 m³. Levinson does not expressly identify an exact 2.00 m³ average cabin, and the rejection should not state otherwise. Klaptchuck expressly recognizes cabin volume as relevant to sanitization performance, and Offutt expressly recognizes treatment-space size as a parameter affecting cycle duration. A PHOSITA configuring the combined sanitizer for a class of smaller passenger vehicles therefore would have treated cabin volume as a result-effective design parameter and would have selected a representative nominal design volume appropriate to the intended vehicle class. Selecting approximately 2 m³ in view of Levinson's expressly demonstrated 2.57 m³ compact-sedan cabin constitutes ordinary scaling and optimization of a known dimensional variable, with the predictable result that treatment timing and airflow are calibrated to the amount of cabin air requiring sanitization.
Motivation to Combine Klaptchuck, Choe, Huang, Spencer, Boast, Line, Offutt, and Levinson
Therefore, given the teachings as a whole, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, having Klaptchuck, Choe, Huang, Spencer, Boast, Line, Offutt, and Levinson before them, to configure the remotely monitored vehicle-cabin sanitization method using Offutt's disclosed operating and waiting-cycle parameters for a representative passenger-cabin volume selected from known vehicle-cabin dimensions such as those quantified by Levinson.
Klaptchuck establishes that cabin size directly affects ozone concentration and circulation requirements; Spencer likewise confirms that automated sanitization treatment parameters are selected based on room dimensions; Offutt expressly ties sanitization-cycle duration to enclosure size; and Levinson provides quantitative evidence of an ordinary compact-passenger-vehicle cabin volume of 2.57 m³. Selecting a nominal approximately 2 m³ design point for smaller passenger cabins and selecting an 18-minute operating period within Offutt's disclosed 15-to-20-minute range would therefore represent routine calibration of known result-effective variables—treated volume and treatment duration—to obtain predictable sanitization performance.
Regarding Claim 22
The combination of Klaptchuck, Choe, Huang, and Spencer establishes the method of Claim 20, which is the basis for Claim 22.
Disclosure by Klaptchuck
Klaptchuck teaches:
wherein: each cabin corresponds to the cabin of a vehicle;
See at least:
“Alternatively the ozone generator 106 could be integrated into a portable ozone sanitizing apparatus 104 ... that is placed into the vehicle cabin.” ( p. 9)
Rationale: Klaptchuck expressly places the portable sanitization apparatus in a vehicle cabin. Thus, application of the Claim 20 method to each of the plurality of treated cabins as respective vehicle cabins is expressly suggested and represents repetition of the same disclosed sanitization method for its established purpose.
starting an operation cycle,
See at least:
“The sanitizing apparatus 104 can be remotely activated and monitored...” ( p. 11)
Rationale: Remote activation of Klaptchuck's portable sanitizing apparatus commences operation of the sanitization process. This directly corresponds to starting an operation cycle.
circulating air from inside the cabin
See at least:
“The blower is connected at an inlet thereof to draw air from the cabin through the blower...” ( p. 4)
Rationale: Klaptchuck expressly draws air originating inside the passenger cabin into the sanitization airflow system.
by means of at least one unit for moving air
See at least:
“An apparatus for practicing the method can comprise an ozone generator, a blower, and an ozone concentration sensor.” ( p. 4)
Rationale: A blower is expressly an air-moving component and therefore teaches the recited unit for moving air.
included in the at least one portable sanitization device portable,
See at least:
“the blower, sensor, and ozone generator can be incorporated into a portable unit that is placed into the cabin.” ( p. 5)
Rationale: Klaptchuck expressly incorporates the blower into the portable sanitizing unit. Thus, the air-moving unit is included in the portable sanitization device itself.
and recirculating air inside the cabin
See at least:
“The vehicle air circulation system is operated to circulate the ozone rich atmosphere through heating and ventilation units...” and the blower “cause[s] the air inside the cabin to circulate into corners and small spaces...” ( p. 9)
Rationale: Klaptchuck expressly recirculates the cabin atmosphere during the sanitization process using the vehicle circulation system together with the portable apparatus blower.
Claim Limitations Not Explicitly Disclosed by Klaptchuck
Klaptchuck does not explicitly teach:
the at least one energy source corresponds to an energy source integrated in each vehicle;
and each operation cycle includes an operating time of between 15 to 20 minutes
and a rest time of between 1 to 3 minutes,
preferably, the operation time is 18 minutes
and the rest time is 2 minutes
for cabins of an average size of 2 m3;
wherein the method also comprises: connecting, within each cabin the at least one portable sanitization device
to the vehicle's power source;
through the at least one reaction chamber
and outside the portable sanitization device
through the at least one reaction chamber;
and ionizing the air that circulates through the at least one reaction chamber
expelling ionized air into the interior space of the vehicle's cabin.
Disclosure by Choe
Choe teaches an onboard rechargeable power supply for its portable robot cleaner. Specifically, Choe states that power unit 197 includes “a rechargeable power supply means to supply power within the robot cleaner” ([0048]).
Choe's power source is integrated in the portable device rather than in a vehicle and Choe does not teach connecting the device to a vehicle power source. Choe also does not teach the claimed 15–20-minute operation/1–3-minute rest relationship, the specific reaction-chamber airflow relationship, or expulsion of ionized air into a vehicle cabin.
Claim Limitations Not Explicitly Disclosed by the Combination of Klaptchuck and Choe
The limitations identified above as remaining after Klaptchuck remain not explicitly disclosed.
Disclosure by Huang
Huang's teachings concern remote scheduling and operational control of autonomous cleaning robots. Huang does not teach a vehicle-integrated power source, connection of a portable device to that source, the claimed operating/rest durations, treatment-airflow through a reaction chamber, or ionized air expelled into a vehicle cabin.
Accordingly, the Claim 22 limitations remaining after Klaptchuck and Choe remain not explicitly disclosed by Klaptchuck, Choe, and Huang.
Disclosure by Spencer
Spencer teaches automated room-disinfection systems whose treatment durations may depend on spatial and treatment conditions. Spencer describes a pulsed xenon system operating “in two 5- to 7-minute cycles, each in a different location in a room, taking approximately 15-20 minutes for the disinfection process.” (p. 289)
That disclosure is not relied upon for and each operation cycle includes an operating time of between 15 to 20 minutes because Spencer expressly attributes the approximately 15–20 minutes to the overall disinfection process comprising two shorter individual cycles, rather than to each individual operation cycle. Spencer likewise does not teach the claimed 1–3-minute rest interval, vehicle power relationship, or the remaining reaction-chamber/ionization limitations.
Disclosure by Boast
Boast teaches or renders obvious:
through the at least one reaction chamber
See at least:
“a ozone flow meter 140 to indicate the air flow moving through the ozone generator 20” ([0045])
Rationale: Boast expressly teaches airflow through ozone generator 20. In the Claim 20 combination, the ozone-generation region corresponds to the claimed reaction chamber because it is the region in which the flowing air is subjected to the sanitizing ozone-forming process. Thus, directing the cabin airflow through Boast's ozone generator renders obvious directing that airflow through the recited reaction chamber.
and outside the portable sanitization device
See at least:
“Ozone exhaust vent 106 allows the ozone generated to exit disinfection apparatus 1 into the closed environment.” ([0039])
Rationale: Boast expressly discharges the treated ozone-containing output from the portable disinfection apparatus into the surrounding closed environment. When applied to Klaptchuck's vehicle-cabin environment, the airflow therefore proceeds outside the portable sanitization device and into the cabin.
through the at least one reaction chamber;
See at least:
“The corona discharge process creates ozone using air in the closed environment that passes through disinfection apparatus 1 by using a multiplicity of fans...” ([0037])
Rationale: Boast expressly passes air from the closed environment through the apparatus while corona-discharge ozone generation occurs. Boast further expressly identifies airflow “through the ozone generator 20” ([0045]). The recirculated cabin airflow would therefore traverse the ozone-generating reaction region before being returned to the treated environment.
and ionizing the air that circulates through the at least one reaction chamber
See at least:
“Ozone generator 20 uses corona discharge...” and “[t]he corona discharge process creates ozone using air in the closed environment...” ([0037])
Rationale: Boast does not use the literal phrase “ionizing the air.” However, corona discharge is an electrical-discharge process in which the gas in the discharge region is ionized. A PHOSITA implementing Boast's expressly disclosed corona-discharge ozone generator in the airflow path would therefore have understood the circulating air to undergo ionization in the ozone-generation/reaction region. This limitation is relied upon as PHOSITA-obvious from Boast's disclosed physical operating mechanism.
Motivation to Combine Klaptchuck, Choe, Huang, Spencer, and Boast
Therefore, given the teachings as a whole, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, having Klaptchuck, Choe, Huang, Spencer, and Boast before them, to implement the portable vehicle-cabin sanitization method using Boast's forced-air corona-discharge ozone-generation arrangement such that cabin air passes through the ozone-generating reaction region and exits the portable apparatus into the treated cabin.
Klaptchuck already circulates cabin air using a blower and portable ozone-generating unit. Boast expressly employs fans to move air from the treated closed environment through a corona-discharge ozone generator and provides an exhaust vent through which the generated ozone exits the apparatus into that environment. Combining these technically compatible teachings would predictably provide efficient contact between the recirculating cabin air and the ozone-generating treatment region and improve distribution of the generated sanitizing species through the cabin.
Claim Limitations Not Explicitly Disclosed by the Combination of Klaptchuck, Choe, Huang, Spencer, and Boast
The following limitations remain:
the at least one energy source corresponds to an energy source integrated in each vehicle;
and each operation cycle includes an operating time of between 15 to 20 minutes
and a rest time of between 1 to 3 minutes,
preferably, the operation time is 18 minutes
and the rest time is 2 minutes
for cabins of an average size of 2 m3;
wherein the method also comprises: connecting, within each cabin the at least one portable sanitization device
to the vehicle's power source;
expelling ionized air into the interior space of the vehicle's cabin.
Disclosure by Line
Line teaches or renders obvious:
expelling ionized air into the interior space of the vehicle's cabin.
See at least:
“When activated, the negative ion generator(s) 42 negatively ionize molecules such as oxygen and nitrogen in the air of the interior 12 of the vehicle 10.” ([0056])
Line further teaches that its air sanitizing apparatus includes an air-flow tube and an exhaust fan, wherein:
“When activated, the exhaust fan 64 causes air to flow through the inside 70 of the air flow tube 62.” ([0058])
Rationale: Line expressly ionizes oxygen and nitrogen molecules in the air of the vehicle interior and expressly provides forced airflow through the vehicle air-sanitizing apparatus. Boast already establishes an exhaust path by which treated air exits the portable apparatus into the surrounding treated environment. Incorporating Line's negative-ion-generation functionality into that established forced-air treatment path would predictably result in ionized treated air being discharged into the vehicle cabin. The claimed “expelling” relationship is therefore rendered obvious by Line in view of the already-established forced-air/exhaust architecture.
Line additionally places the electrically operated air-sanitizing apparatus within the vehicle and places the ozone generator, negative-ion generator, fan, and other components under control of vehicle controller 26. ([0054]-[0060]) Line does not, however, expressly identify the particular electrical source supplying those components as the vehicle's power source.
Motivation to Combine Klaptchuck, Choe, Huang, Spencer, Boast, and Line
Therefore, given the teachings as a whole, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, having Klaptchuck, Choe, Huang, Spencer, Boast, and Line before them, to incorporate Line's vehicle-specific negative-ion treatment into the forced-air sanitization path of the Klaptchuck/Boast portable cabin-sanitization arrangement so that the treated airflow returned to the cabin includes ionized air.
Line specifically teaches sanitizing vehicle-interior air by negatively ionizing oxygen and nitrogen molecules and provides a forced-air treatment module within the vehicle. Boast supplies the complementary airflow-through-treatment and discharge architecture. Incorporating Line's known ionization function into that established treatment stream would use each component according to its known function and predictably provide ionized treated air to the cabin interior.
Claim Limitations Not Explicitly Disclosed by the Combination of Klaptchuck, Choe, Huang, Spencer, Boast, and Line
The following limitations remain:
the at least one energy source corresponds to an energy source integrated in each vehicle;
and each operation cycle includes an operating time of between 15 to 20 minutes
and a rest time of between 1 to 3 minutes,
preferably, the operation time is 18 minutes
and the rest time is 2 minutes
for cabins of an average size of 2 m3;
wherein the method also comprises: connecting, within each cabin the at least one portable sanitization device
to the vehicle's power source;
Disclosure by Offutt
Offutt teaches or renders obvious:
the at least one energy source corresponds to an energy source integrated in each vehicle;
See at least:
“the charging interface is configured to receive power from a power supply external to a body of the bag.” ([0028])
Rationale: Offutt expressly equips a portable sanitization system with an electrical interface for receiving power from a source external to the portable treatment enclosure. Line already establishes the sanitization apparatus as an electrically operated component located within and controlled as part of a vehicle. In that vehicle implementation, supplying Offutt's portable sanitizer interface from the vehicle's existing onboard electrical source would have been a predictable source selection: it uses an available integrated source to power an electrical accessory installed within the vehicle and avoids a separate external mains source. Thus, the vehicle-integrated energy-source relationship is PHOSITA-obvious from Offutt's external-power interface when applied to Line's vehicle-integrated sanitizer.
and each operation cycle includes an operating time of between 15 to 20 minutes
See at least:
“Each cycle may last ... 15 minutes, 20 minutes...” ([0041])
Rationale: Offutt expressly identifies both fifteen and twenty minutes as sanitization-cycle durations. The disclosed endpoints directly establish the claimed 15-to-20-minute operating interval, and intermediate values within that narrow interval represent routine selection of the disclosed cycle-duration parameter.
and a rest time of between 1 to 3 minutes,
See at least:
“Each cycle may be spaced from adjacent cycles by a waiting period” and “[t]he waiting period may be ... 1 minute, 2 minutes, 3 minutes...” ([0041])
Rationale: Offutt expressly provides waiting periods between sanitization cycles of one, two, and three minutes, directly establishing the claimed rest-time range.
preferably, the operation time is 18 minutes
See at least:
“Each cycle may last ... 15 minutes, 20 minutes...” ([0041])
Rationale: Offutt does not expressly identify eighteen minutes. However, eighteen minutes lies within the narrow 15-to-20-minute interval expressly disclosed for the same sanitization-cycle function. Offutt further identifies cycle duration as dependent upon treatment-space size and sanitization intensity. Selecting eighteen minutes within that expressly disclosed interval therefore would have been routine optimization of a known result-effective operating parameter with the predictable result of providing an intermediate treatment duration.
and the rest time is 2 minutes
See at least:
“The waiting period may be ... 1 minute, 2 minutes, 3 minutes...” ([0041])
Rationale: Offutt expressly identifies two minutes as an inter-cycle waiting period.
wherein the method also comprises: connecting, within each cabin the at least one portable sanitization device
See at least:
“The bag in which the sanitization device 400 is placed may include a charging interface in electrical communication with the battery...” ([0028])
Rationale: Offutt expressly provides a portable sanitization device located in a treatment enclosure with an electrical charging/power interface. In the vehicle-cabin implementation supplied by Klaptchuck and Line, the corresponding treatment enclosure is the vehicle cabin.
to the vehicle's power source;
See at least:
“the charging interface is configured to receive power from a power supply external to a body of the bag.” ([0028])
Rationale: Offutt expressly provides a physical electrical interface by which the portable sanitizer receives power from a source external to the portable treatment enclosure. In the vehicle implementation already established by Line, connecting this known interface to the vehicle's onboard electrical source would have been a predictable substitution of one available electrical supply for another. The modification would eliminate the need for a separate external mains connection while providing power from a source already present in the vehicle.
Motivation to Combine Klaptchuck, Choe, Huang, Spencer, Boast, Line, and Offutt
Therefore, given the teachings as a whole, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, having Klaptchuck, Choe, Huang, Spencer, Boast, Line, and Offutt before them, to provide the portable vehicle-cabin sanitization arrangement with Offutt's external-power interface and programmable operating/waiting-cycle parameters, using the vehicle's onboard electrical source to supply the sanitization device and operating the device according to the disclosed 15-to-20-minute treatment interval and one-to-three-minute waiting interval.
Offutt expressly teaches an electrical interface for powering a portable sanitization device, selectable sanitization-cycle durations including 15 and 20 minutes, and waiting periods including one, two, and three minutes. Line establishes an electrically controlled vehicle-integrated air sanitizer, while the preceding references establish the portable cabin-sanitization, airflow, remote-control, and ionization functions. Using the vehicle's available power source and selecting treatment/rest durations within Offutt's expressly disclosed values would have been technically compatible and would predictably provide repeatable, self-contained sanitization operation.
Claim Limitations Not Explicitly Disclosed by the Combination of Klaptchuck, Choe, Huang, Spencer, Boast, Line, and Offutt
The following limitation remains:
for cabins of an average size of 2 m3;
Disclosure by Levinson
Levinson teaches or renders obvious:
for cabins of an average size of 2 m3;
See at least:
“cabin volume (m3) 2.57” for a 2009 Honda Civic 4DR GX. (Table 1, p. 19/46)
Rationale: Levinson expressly quantifies the cabin volume of an ordinary compact passenger vehicle as 2.57 m³. Levinson does not expressly identify an exact 2.00 m³ average cabin, and the rejection should not state otherwise. Klaptchuck expressly recognizes cabin volume as relevant to sanitization performance, and Offutt expressly recognizes treatment-space size as a parameter affecting cycle duration. A PHOSITA configuring the combined sanitizer for a class of smaller passenger vehicles therefore would have treated cabin volume as a result-effective design parameter and would have selected a representative nominal design volume appropriate to the intended vehicle class. Selecting approximately 2 m³ in view of Levinson's expressly demonstrated 2.57 m³ compact-sedan cabin constitutes ordinary scaling and optimization of a known dimensional variable, with the predictable result that treatment timing and airflow are calibrated to the amount of cabin air requiring sanitization.
Motivation to Combine Klaptchuck, Choe, Huang, Spencer, Boast, Line, Offutt, and Levinson
Therefore, given the teachings as a whole, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, having Klaptchuck, Choe, Huang, Spencer, Boast, Line, Offutt, and Levinson before them, to configure the remotely monitored vehicle-cabin sanitization method using Offutt's disclosed operating and waiting-cycle parameters for a representative passenger-cabin volume selected from known vehicle-cabin dimensions such as those quantified by Levinson.
Klaptchuck establishes that cabin size directly affects ozone concentration and circulation requirements; Spencer likewise confirms that automated sanitization treatment parameters are selected based on room dimensions; Offutt expressly ties sanitization-cycle duration to enclosure size; and Levinson provides quantitative evidence of an ordinary compact-passenger-vehicle cabin volume of 2.57 m³. Selecting a nominal approximately 2 m³ design point for smaller passenger cabins and selecting an 18-minute operating period within Offutt's disclosed 15-to-20-minute range would therefore represent routine calibration of known result-effective variables—treated volume and treatment duration—to obtain predictable sanitization performance.
Regarding Claim 23
The combination of Klaptchuck, Choe, Huang, Spencer, Boast, Line, Offutt, and Levinson establishes the method of Claim 22, which is the basis for Claim 23.
Disclosure by Klaptchuck
Klaptchuck teaches:
wherein it further comprises activating,
See at least:
“The vehicle air circulation system would be operated...” ( p. 11)
Rationale: Klaptchuck expressly places the vehicle air-circulation system into operation as part of the cabin-sanitization procedure. Operating the system necessarily requires activating it.
before or during each operating cycle,
See at least:
“The vehicle air circulation system would be operated and the blower on the sanitation apparatus would cause the air inside the cabin to circulate into corners and small spaces...” ( p. 11)
Rationale: Klaptchuck expressly operates the vehicle air-circulation system contemporaneously with the sanitization process. The operating cycle of Claim 22 is the sanitization cycle. Klaptchuck therefore directly teaches the “during” alternative recited by this limitation. Repetition of that circulation procedure with each sanitization operation would have been the ordinary use of the disclosed process for its intended function.
an air recirculation system
See at least:
“The vehicle air circulation system would be operated...” ( p. 11)
Klaptchuck further explains that the blower and circulation system cause “the air inside the cabin to circulate into corners and small spaces.” ( p. 11)
Rationale: Klaptchuck expressly circulates air already present inside the cabin through the vehicle air-circulation system during treatment. A PHOSITA would have understood this as use of the vehicle's conventional cabin-air recirculation functionality for distributing the ozone-rich atmosphere throughout the enclosed cabin.
included in each vehicle,
See at least:
“In smaller aircraft, rail cars, buses, or like vehicles ... The vehicle air circulation system would be operated...” ( p. 11)
Rationale: Klaptchuck expressly identifies the relevant circulation system as the vehicle air-circulation system and applies the process to passenger-carrying vehicles. In the plurality-of-vehicle-cabins method established by Claim 22, using the corresponding onboard circulation system of each treated vehicle is the predictable repeated application of Klaptchuck's disclosed procedure.
Claim Limitations Not Explicitly Disclosed by Klaptchuck
Klaptchuck does not explicitly teach:
preferably at maximum power and minimum temperature
wherein the activation is manual by an operator user,
or remote through a signal sent to a controller of each vehicle.
Disclosure by Choe
Choe teaches remote commands for a portable autonomous device:
“The communication server 120 transmits the monitoring image and the cleaning map to an external device and receives a control command from the external device.” ([0020])
and:
“the communication server receives a control command and transfers the received control command to the control unit 130.” ([0021])
Rationale: Choe expressly teaches wireless remote-command transmission to the control unit of a portable robot. Choe does not teach a vehicle air-recirculation system, a controller of a vehicle, or operation of such a vehicle system at maximum power and minimum temperature. Accordingly, Choe does not account for the still-unmapped Claim 23 language.
Claim Limitations Not Explicitly Disclosed by the Combination of Klaptchuck and Choe
preferably at maximum power and minimum temperature
wherein the activation is manual by an operator user,
or remote through a signal sent to a controller of each vehicle.
Disclosure by Huang
Huang teaches mobile-device and cloud-based control of autonomous cleaning operations:
“An application executed by a mobile device can be used to control scheduling cleaning missions for an autonomous cleaning robot.” ([0026])
and:
“a schematic 200 depicts communication among a user 202, a mobile device 204, a cloud computing system 210, and an autonomous cleaning robot 214.” ([0028])
Rationale: Huang expressly provides user-initiated remote control of scheduled operation through mobile/cloud computing. Huang does not teach activation of a vehicle air-recirculation system, does not direct a signal to a controller of a vehicle for that purpose, and does not disclose maximum-power/minimum-temperature HVAC operation. Thus, Huang does not account for the remaining Claim 23 language.
Claim Limitations Not Explicitly Disclosed by the Combination of Klaptchuck, Choe, and Huang
preferably at maximum power and minimum temperature
wherein the activation is manual by an operator user,
or remote through a signal sent to a controller of each vehicle.
Disclosure by Spencer
Spencer teaches that automated sanitization systems:
“can be operated remotely with tablets or personal digital assistants...” (p. 289)
and further describes software capturing treatment time, location usage, and operator statistics.
Rationale: Spencer establishes remote operation of sanitization equipment, but does not teach a vehicle air-recirculation system, manual or remote activation of that vehicle system, or operation at maximum power and minimum temperature. Spencer therefore does not account for the remaining Claim 23 language.
Claim Limitations Not Explicitly Disclosed by the Combination of Klaptchuck, Choe, Huang, and Spencer
preferably at maximum power and minimum temperature
wherein the activation is manual by an operator user,
or remote through a signal sent to a controller of each vehicle.
Disclosure by Boast
Boast teaches or renders obvious:
wherein the activation is manual by an operator user,
See at least:
“The user will then preferably turn on the ozone generator...” ([0029])
and:
“Fans within the closed environment should be turned on...” ([0031])
Rationale: Boast expressly describes a sanitization procedure carried out by a user and expressly instructs that fans within the treated environment are to be turned on during that process. Klaptchuck already provides the more specific vehicle implementation in which the vehicle air-circulation system is operated during sanitization. A PHOSITA applying Boast's user-operated procedure to Klaptchuck's vehicle-cabin process would have found it an ordinary and predictable implementation for the operator performing the treatment procedure to manually turn on the existing vehicle air-recirculation system before or during treatment. The limitation is therefore PHOSITA-obvious from Boast in view of Klaptchuck rather than being characterized as an express Boast disclosure of a vehicle HVAC control.
The succeeding alternative:
or remote through a signal sent to a controller of each vehicle.
need not independently be relied upon because the claim expressly makes the manual and remote activation modes alternatives.
Motivation to Combine Klaptchuck, Choe, Huang, Spencer, and Boast
Therefore, given the teachings as a whole, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, having Klaptchuck, Choe, Huang, Spencer, and Boast before them, to perform the remotely monitored cabin-sanitization method with an operator manually activating the vehicle air-recirculation system before or during each sanitization cycle.
Klaptchuck expressly requires operation of the vehicle air-circulation system during sanitization so that the ozone-rich atmosphere is circulated through the cabin. Boast likewise recognizes the importance of environmental airflow during ozone treatment and expressly instructs that fans within the treated environment be turned on as part of a user-performed sanitization procedure. Applying Boast's known operator-initiated airflow practice to Klaptchuck's expressly disclosed vehicle air-circulation system would predictably ensure that the required circulation is established when the sanitization process is performed, improving distribution of the sanitizing atmosphere throughout the cabin without altering the underlying treatment mechanism.
Claim Limitations Not Explicitly Disclosed by the Combination of Klaptchuck, Choe, Huang, Spencer, and Boast
The following limitation remains:
preferably at maximum power and minimum temperature
Disclosure by Line
Line expressly places an air-sanitizing apparatus and controller in a vehicle and teaches that controller 26 controls the ozone generator, negative-ion generator, UV source, exhaust fan, and other vehicle components. ([0054], [0060])
Line also teaches remote requests sent through a server to the vehicle controller. ([0064])
Line does not, however, teach that the vehicle air-recirculation system is operated preferably at maximum power and minimum temperature. The remote-activation teaching is not additionally relied upon because the alternative manual-activation language has already been accounted for by Klaptchuck and Boast.
Claim Limitations Not Explicitly Disclosed by the Combination of Klaptchuck, Choe, Huang, Spencer, Boast, and Line
preferably at maximum power and minimum temperature
Disclosure by Offutt
Offutt teaches controllable sanitization cycles and powered airflow components, but does not teach operation of a vehicle air-recirculation system using a maximum-power setting together with a minimum-temperature setting.
Claim Limitations Not Explicitly Disclosed by the Combination of Klaptchuck, Choe, Huang, Spencer, Boast, Line, and Offutt
preferably at maximum power and minimum temperature
Disclosure by Levinson
Levinson teaches:
preferably at maximum power and minimum temperature
See at least:
“Each cabin's air temperature was then reduced to about 20°C after 20 min of maximum cooling (lowest HVAC temperature setting, top fan speed, recirculation mode).” (p. 29 of the report; PDF p. 36)
Rationale: Levinson expressly operates the vehicle HVAC system simultaneously in recirculation mode, at “top fan speed,” and at the “lowest HVAC temperature setting.” The “lowest HVAC temperature setting” directly teaches the recited minimum-temperature condition. “Top fan speed” is the highest commanded blower/airflow setting and therefore corresponds to the maximum operating level of the air-recirculation system. Levinson thus expressly teaches the claimed preferred combination of maximum recirculation airflow and minimum HVAC temperature.
Motivation to Combine Klaptchuck, Choe, Huang, Spencer, Boast, Line, Offutt, and Levinson
Therefore, given the teachings as a whole, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, having Klaptchuck, Choe, Huang, Spencer, Boast, Line, Offutt, and Levinson before them, to operate the vehicle air-recirculation system used during the Claim 22 sanitization process at Levinson's known maximum-cooling setting comprising recirculation mode, top fan speed, and the lowest HVAC temperature setting.
Klaptchuck expressly requires vehicle cabin-air circulation during sanitization to distribute the ozone-rich atmosphere throughout the passenger compartment and HVAC flow paths. Boast reinforces the recognized benefit of operating environmental fans during ozone treatment. Levinson expressly demonstrates the conventional vehicle-HVAC operating configuration of recirculation mode at top fan speed and the lowest temperature setting. A PHOSITA would have recognized that using the highest available recirculation airflow predictably increases cabin-air turnover and promotes rapid, uniform distribution of the sanitizing atmosphere. Employing Levinson's known lowest-temperature setting together with that established maximum-cooling mode would simply use the conventional HVAC operating configuration according to its ordinary function while the sanitization operation proceeds.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments and amendments filed on 03/30/2026 have been fully considered. The amendments are acknowledged as incorporating the subject matter of former dependent claims 12 and 24 into independent claims 1 and 13, respectively. Applicant principally contends that Huang does not disclose the newly incorporated control-action subject matter and that the combinations therefore fail to render amended claims 1 and 13 obvious. Applicant also raises several arguments concerning the prior §112 rejections and notes allowance of allegedly corresponding claims in the Chilean counterpart.
For the reasons set forth below, certain prior §112 issues are withdrawn or rendered moot by the amendments and the present claim language. Applicant’s arguments concerning obviousness, however, are not persuasive. In particular, the amendment of independent claims 1 and 13 to incorporate limitations that were previously rejected in dependent claims 12 and 24 does not overcome the prior art. Rather, the amendment requires consideration of those limitations in the independent claims using the same additional prior-art teaching previously applied to them.
Claim Objection
Applicant states that the spelling error previously identified in claim 19 has been corrected. The correction has been entered and the corresponding objection is withdrawn.
Arguments Concerning 35 U.S.C. §112
Applicant first challenges the prior §112(a) rejection concerning “location-based accuracy,” asserting that the Office did not establish a reasonable basis for nonenablement, that “location-based accuracy” is not itself a claim limitation, and that the claims do not require a particular GPS drift-correction algorithm or numerical positioning tolerance.
Applicant is correct that the Office bears the initial burden of establishing a reasonable basis to question enablement. MPEP §2164.04 requires the analysis to consider the relevant evidence as a whole and to identify the information alleged to be missing and why a person of ordinary skill could not supply that information without undue experimentation. The MPEP does not require a mechanical discussion of every Wands factor in every rejection, but the rejection must articulate a factually supported enablement concern directed to claimed subject matter.
Upon reconsideration of the presently claimed subject matter, the prior §112(a) rejection premised on “location-based accuracy” is withdrawn. Claims 1 and 13 require obtaining localization/location data and using that data as part of the monitored operation data; they do not recite a specified positional accuracy, a numerical tolerance, or a particular drift-correction algorithm. The Office therefore does not maintain a nonenablement rejection based upon failure to disclose an unclaimed accuracy requirement. Withdrawal of that rejection should not be understood as importing any particular positioning accuracy into the claims.
Applicant next states that the prior indefiniteness concern regarding “control actions” has been resolved because the independent claims now recite the particular control actions. The amendment is acknowledged. Amended claim 1 now expressly associates the server comparison with locking/unlocking the portable sanitization device, assigning a predefined number of sanitization applications or operation cycles, or releasing the device. Amended claim 13 similarly expressly recites the enumerated control actions. Accordingly, the prior §112(b) rejection directed merely to the lack of identification of the “control actions” is withdrawn.
Applicant’s arguments regarding “based on a comparison” have likewise been considered. Applicant states that the claims identify the compared inputs and resulting control actions and that a precise mathematical tolerance or algorithm need not be recited. The presently amended claims expressly identify the monitored operation data, the predefined operation data, the comparison, and the control actions performed based upon that comparison. Under the present claim language, the causal relationship is sufficiently ascertainable for purposes of §112(b). A claim may employ functional language, and claim breadth is not itself indefiniteness. MPEP §§2173.04 and 2173.05(g). The prior indefiniteness rejection directed specifically to that phrase is therefore withdrawn.
Applicant further argues that “to purify and sanitize” is sufficiently defined by the recited reaction chamber and ionization of air. The argument is persuasive as to the prior §112(b) issue. The current claims functionally relate purification/sanitization to treatment of air in the reaction chamber by ionization. Functional language is not inherently indefinite. MPEP §2173.05(g). That rejection is not maintained.
Applicant states that “synchronized manner” has been deleted from claims 5 and 17. The prior rejection directed specifically to that language is therefore moot.
Applicant also traverses the prior rejection concerning “differs from,” arguing that no signal-noise threshold is recited and that an ordinarily skilled artisan would understand a comparison between monitored and predefined values. Under the presently claimed language, the operative condition is simply that at least one monitored datum “differs from” a respective predefined datum. Current claim 6 expressly recites the alarm in those terms. The claim does not recite that only a statistically significant, noise-filtered, or threshold-exceeding difference qualifies. Importing such a requirement would improperly narrow the claim. The resulting breadth does not make the recited comparison indefinite. MPEP §2173.04. The prior §112 rejection directed to “differs from” is therefore withdrawn.
Finally, Applicant argues that “released manner” means that the device is allowed to operate rather than being prevented from operating and characterizes that state as the counterpart of a blocked or locked condition. For purposes of examination, that construction is accepted. In the context of amended claims 1 and 13, “releasing” the device is reasonably read as removing an operational restriction such that the device may operate. Accordingly, the prior §112(b) rejection based specifically upon uncertainty concerning “released manner” is withdrawn. Significantly, however, that construction does not distinguish the claims from the applied prior art for purposes of §103.
The withdrawal of the foregoing §112 issues does not place the claims in condition for allowance because the amended claims remain subject to the prior-art rejections.
Applicant’s Argument Concerning the Amendment of Claims 1 and 13
Applicant emphasizes that the prior Office Action stated that Klaptchuck and Choe did not themselves disclose the subject matter of former claim 12 and that Klaptchuck, Choe, and Spencer did not themselves disclose the subject matter of former claim 24. Applicant characterizes those statements as admissions that the base combinations fail to teach the control-action limitations now incorporated into claims 1 and 13.
The argument does not address the rejection as a whole.
The prior Office Action did not rely upon Klaptchuck and Choe alone for former claim 12, nor upon Klaptchuck, Choe, and Spencer alone for former claim 24. Former claim 12 was expressly rejected using Huang in addition to Klaptchuck and Choe, and former claim 24 was expressly rejected using Huang in addition to the references establishing claim 13. Applicant itself accurately identifies those rejection combinations in the remarks.
Identifying what a primary or intermediate combination does not disclose is not an admission that the complete prior-art combination fails. It is the ordinary structure of a multiple-reference §103 rejection: a first reference or combination establishes part of the claimed subject matter and an additional reference supplies or renders obvious what remains. Section 103 expressly concerns what the claimed invention as a whole would have suggested to a person of ordinary skill, and a rejection based on several references does not require any individual reference to disclose every limitation. MPEP §2145 specifically explains that nonobviousness generally cannot be established by attacking references individually when the rejection rests on their combined teachings.
The amendment therefore changes where the limitations appear in the claim set; it does not eliminate the prior-art teaching previously applied to those limitations. The newly incorporated control-action language is now considered as part of independent claims 1 and 13, and Huang remains applicable to that subject matter.
Applicant’s Argument That Huang Merely Concerns Scheduling
Applicant argues that Huang concerns “when/where/how” a robot cleans, whereas the amended claims concern whether a portable sanitization device is allowed, restricted, or released to operate. Applicant further argues that Huang's scheduling interface and cloud-computing architecture address a different problem from the claimed sanitization-control system.
The distinction is not persuasive.
First, obviousness is not limited to references directed to precisely the same problem identified by Applicant. MPEP §2141 explains, consistent with KSR, that prior art may be pertinent even when it originates in another field or addresses a different problem, and that a person of ordinary skill is not presumed to look only to references designed to solve the patentee's stated problem. Huang is, in any event, directly pertinent to the particular control problem presented here: remotely determining whether and under what conditions a portable automated device is permitted to initiate another operating mission.
Huang expressly describes communication among a user, mobile device, cloud computing system, and autonomous cleaning robot. Its cloud system checks selected operating/scheduling parameters against previously stored schedules and produces different results depending upon whether a conflict exists. Huang then causes the robot to initiate a mission according to an accepted schedule. ([0028]-[0029]). Thus, Huang is not merely a disclosure of passive calendar information. It discloses computer-implemented conditional control governing whether an autonomous portable device will be permitted to proceed with an operating mission.
The combination does not require Huang to supply the cabin-sanitization mechanism, localization architecture, monitored-operation-data collection, and server comparison by itself. Those teachings are supplied by the other references as set forth in the rejection. Huang is relied upon for the known operational consequence—gating subsequent device operation—applied to the comparison/control architecture already established by the combination.
Locking/Unlocking and Preventing/Allowing a New Cycle
Applicant specifically argues that activating or deactivating a cleaning schedule is not equivalent to locking or unlocking the robot itself.
The argument imposes a narrower construction than the claim language requires.
Amended claim 1 does not recite a mechanical lock, a hardware interlock, cryptographic immobilization, or any particular physical “locked state.” Instead, the claimed consequence is stated functionally: “locking/unlocking” the portable sanitization device is followed by “preventing/allowing the start of a new operation cycle.” Claim 13 uses the same functional relationship. Applicant's response does not identify any claim language requiring the narrower device-level physical lock now urged.
Huang's paragraph [0039] provides the pertinent control behavior. Huang states that a first cleaning schedule is deactivated and may be activated by selecting a toggle; a second schedule is activated and may be turned off. Huang then expressly states that the mobile device initiates the mission corresponding to the activated second schedule, “but not” the mission corresponding to the deactivated first schedule.
Accordingly, the functional distinction urged by Applicant is absent. In Huang, the deactivated state prevents initiation of the corresponding new operating mission; the activated state permits initiation of that mission. That is the very operational effect recited by the amended claims: preventing or allowing the start of a new operation cycle.
The Office is not equating the words “schedule” and “device.” Rather, the rejection relies on Huang's disclosed control technique—software gating that determines whether the portable autonomous device may commence its next operating mission—and applies that known technique to the portable sanitization device of the base combination. Section 103 does not require literal identity of terminology or bodily incorporation of one reference into another. The inquiry is what the combined teachings would have suggested to a person of ordinary skill.
Applicant’s Argument Concerning the Comparison-Responsive Nature of the Control Action
Applicant argues that Huang does not perform its control action as a consequence of comparing monitored operation data with predefined operation data and therefore lacks the claimed “compliance-check architecture.”
This argument again evaluates Huang as though Huang were required to disclose the entire amended claim in isolation.
The rejection relies on the combined system. The underlying references establish the monitored-data acquisition, remote communication, comparison, and control architecture. For method claim 13, Spencer additionally confirms that sanitization systems were remotely operated and that software captured treatment time, location usage, operator statistics, delivered dose, and utilization data in real time. Spencer also describes evaluation of actual treatment operation against predetermined treatment criteria, as set forth in the rejection.
Huang supplies a known binary operational-gating response. Indeed, Huang itself employs comparison-responsive control: its cloud computing system checks selected schedule parameters against previously stored schedules, identifies a conflict or lack thereof, and conditions subsequent handling of the schedule on that result. ([0028]). Huang then transmits data that causes the robot to initiate its mission. ([0029]). Paragraph [0039] separately demonstrates that an activated schedule results in mission initiation while a deactivated schedule does not.
A person of ordinary skill having a system that already compares monitored operating information against predefined operating information would have had reason to use the result of that comparison to control a known enable/disable mechanism governing whether another cycle may begin. This is the predictable use of one known control result to actuate another known control mechanism. MPEP §2143 recognizes combining known elements according to known methods, applying a known technique to a known device ready for improvement, and predictable variations as appropriate obviousness rationales.
The reasoning is analogous to the principle illustrated in In re Nilssen, discussed in MPEP §2143, where a known threshold signal from one reference was predictably used to actuate a known cutoff mechanism from another reference. The Federal Circuit held that using the threshold result to trigger the known disabling control would have been obvious. Here, the known comparison result is likewise used to actuate known enable/disable control governing commencement of another operating cycle.
Applicant's own argument elsewhere acknowledges that comparing two variables and performing a task based upon that comparison is within the ordinary skill of the art and may involve a binary determination. That position is consistent with, rather than contrary to, the conclusion that applying the outcome of the known server comparison to Huang's known binary enable/disable control would have been a predictable implementation.
Applicant's further characterization of the claims as requiring “compliance/non-compliance of monitored device usage” does not alter the analysis. The amended claims do not recite the terms “compliance,” “non-compliance,” “authorization,” or any particular contractual or regulatory determination. They require a comparison of the recited data and a control action based on the comparison. Limitations not appearing in the claims may not be imported merely to distinguish the prior art.
Predefined Number of Applications or Operation Cycles
Applicant next argues that Huang's one-time schedules, recurring schedules, and number of cleaning passes do not amount to assigning a finite authorized number of sanitization cycles as a permission or restriction.
The argument does not overcome the rejection for two independent reasons.
Huang expressly allows a mission to be configured as a one-time cleaning mission and alternatively as recurring cleaning missions. ([0032]). Huang also expressly provides one-pass and two-pass operating selections. ([0038]). Thus, controlling the portable device so that it executes a predefined number or frequency of operations was known. Adapting that known count/frequency control to the sanitizer's operating cycles would have constituted a predictable application of established software-control functionality.
More fundamentally, however, the amended claims recite the control-action alternatives disjunctively. The claims recite locking/unlocking with prevention/allowance of a new cycle; assigning a predefined number of operations; or releasing the device. Because the first alternative is taught or rendered obvious for the reasons discussed above, Applicant's disagreement concerning the precise correspondence of Huang's one-time/recurring/pass-count teachings to the second alternative does not overcome the rejection.
“Released Manner”
Applicant similarly argues that Huang's activation of a schedule is not a “released operational mode” of the robot. Applicant simultaneously construes “released manner” as the state in which the device is allowed to operate rather than being blocked from initiating a new cycle.
Under Applicant's own construction, Huang's teaching is pertinent. Huang expressly teaches that a deactivated schedule does not result in initiation of the associated mission, whereas an activated schedule does. Changing from the disabled/deactivated state to the activated state therefore removes the operational restriction that had prevented the mission from commencing.
Again, this alternative is not required to sustain the rejection because the claim's first disjunctive locking/unlocking branch is independently established. Accordingly, even accepting for argument's sake Applicant's distinction regarding the phrase “released manner” would not distinguish the claim as a whole from the applied combination.
Huang as Analogous Prior Art
Applicant's assertion that Huang concerns domestic cleaning robots rather than cabin sanitization does not establish that Huang is nonanalogous. Huang addresses remote computer control of the timing, permissibility, frequency, location, and initiation of operations performed by a portable autonomous device. Those control teachings are reasonably pertinent to the problem of remotely controlling whether and when a portable sanitization device may initiate another operating cycle.
The obviousness inquiry is not confined to references solving precisely the same problem. MPEP §2141 explains that prior art from another field or addressing another problem may properly be considered, and KSR expressly rejected an approach that assumes an ordinarily skilled artisan would look only to references designed to solve the patentee's stated problem. The similarity in control function here is considerably closer than the categorical distinction urged by Applicant.
Motivation to Combine and Alleged Hindsight
Applicant contends that the rejection is based on hindsight because there allegedly was no reason to incorporate Huang's scheduling controls into the cabin-sanitization architecture.
The argument is not persuasive.
Klaptchuck provides the portable cabin-sanitization context and remote operation. Choe provides remote monitoring, location recognition, communication, control commands, and portable-device control. Choe expressly states that a robot cleaner may be controlled remotely to check status and collect information and may operate with a server for remote monitoring. For claim 13, Spencer additionally provides sanitization-specific remote operational data capture and monitoring. Huang provides the known operational-gating mechanism whereby a remotely managed autonomous device is permitted or prevented from commencing a mission depending upon its control state.
The reason to combine arises from these teachings themselves: once a remotely monitored system determines from collected operating data whether operation satisfies the applicable predefined condition, a known and predictable way to enforce the result is to enable or disable the next operating cycle. Such a modification improves remote administrative control, prevents undesired or nonconforming cycles, and uses each prior-art element for the same control function it already performs. It does not change Klaptchuck's sanitization mechanism.
MPEP §2145 explains that hindsight is improper only when the reasoning depends upon knowledge gleaned solely from Applicant's disclosure; reconstruction based upon knowledge that was within the level of ordinary skill is proper. It further confirms that an express written motivation to combine need not appear in the prior-art references. KSR likewise recognizes that applying a known technique to a similar device, or adapting known work from one field to another where the variation is predictable, may establish obviousness.
The present rejection does not use Applicant's disclosure as a roadmap to invent a control concept absent from the art. The references independently supply remote monitoring, comparison/control, and operational enable/disable mechanisms. The proposed combination uses those known functions in their ordinary and predictable manner.
Effect of the Chilean Counterpart Allowance
Applicant notes that similar amendments allegedly resulted in allowance of Chilean application CL 2023001958. The foreign allowance has been considered but does not overcome the pending U.S. rejections. Applicant has not established in the remarks that the Chilean proceeding involved the same claim construction, same prior-art combinations, same evidentiary record, or the same statutory obviousness analysis applicable under 35 U.S.C. §103. U.S. examination requires the pending claims independently to satisfy the applicable U.S. statutory requirements before allowance. MPEP §706 requires uniform application of those patentability standards within the Office.
Dependent Claims
Applicant's assertion that all dependent claims are allowable because they depend from allegedly allowable independent claims 1 and 13 is not persuasive. Claims 1 and 13 remain rejected under §103 for the reasons stated above and in the rejections. Moreover, the dependent claims are separately addressed under the particular additional references and rationales set forth in this Office action. The amendment of the independent claims therefore does not establish allowability of the dependent claims.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendments have resolved or rendered moot the particular §112 issues identified above; those rejections are withdrawn to the extent expressly stated. The amendments, however, do not overcome the §103 rejections.
The dispositive point concerning amended claims 1 and 13 is that the newly incorporated limitations were not newly presented subject matter that had escaped prior-art consideration. They were previously recited in dependent claims 12 and 24 and were already rejected using Huang. The prior Office Action's identification that the base combinations did not themselves disclose those dependent-claim limitations merely identified the reason Huang was added; it was not a concession that the complete combinations failed.
Under the broadest reasonable interpretation of the amended claims, Huang's activated/deactivated schedule state performs the claimed operational-gating function because an activated schedule results in initiation of the portable device's next operating mission while a deactivated schedule does not. Huang further supplies cloud-based conditional comparison logic, and the remaining applied references supply the claimed sanitization, monitoring, localization, communication, server, and monitored-versus-predefined-data architecture. The combination therefore provides the claimed comparison-responsive prevention or allowance of a subsequent operating cycle with a reasoned, predictable basis for combining the teachings.
Accordingly, Applicant's arguments do not overcome the rejections of amended independent claims 1 and 13 or the rejections of their dependent claims, and the §103 rejections are maintained.
Because the amendments moved into independent claims 1 and 13 subject matter that had previously been separately rejected in dependent claims 12 and 24, application of Huang to the amended independent claims is directly responsive to, and necessitated by, Applicant's amendment. A new ground occasioned by such an amendment may properly be made final under MPEP §706.07(a).
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to OLUWABUSAYO ADEBANJO AWORUNSE whose telephone number is (571)272-4311. The examiner can normally be reached M - F (8:30AM - 5PM).
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Jelani Smith can be reached at (571) 270-3969. 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.
/OLUWABUSAYO ADEBANJO AWORUNSE/Examiner, Art Unit 3662
/JELANI A SMITH/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3662
