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 .
Priority
Acknowledgment is made of applicant’s claim for foreign priority under 35 U.S.C. 119 (a)-(d). The certified copy has been filed.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 07/03/2023 was filed. The submission is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
Claim Objections
Claim 19 objected to because of the following informalities: “werein the sequence of operation…”. “werein” should be spelt as “wherein”. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitations are indicated in table 1.
Table 1: 7 distinct types of "Unit" present in the claims
Unit Type
Claim mentioned in
Communication Unit
1, 2, 13, 14
Control Unit
1, 2, 3, 4, 8, 13, 14, 15, 20
Localization Unit
1, 13
Display Unit
8, 20
Unit for moving air
10, 22
Storage Unit
15
A single communication and control unit
2, 14
Claim Interpretation for Each "Unit"
1. Communication Unit
Claim Interpretation: A hardware component, potentially with embedded firmware, responsible for establishing a data link between the portable sanitization device and a remote server. Its primary function is to transmit monitored operation data to the server and receive control actions/instructions from it.
Specification Disclosure & PHOSITA Understanding: The spec describes its function (0081-0082): wireless, integrated into the device, handles data transmission/reception. A PHOSITA would understand this to be a standard wireless communication module (e.g., Wi-Fi, Cellular like 4G/5G, or LPWAN like LoRaWAN/NB-IoT).
Hardware/Software/Hybrid: Hybrid. It is primarily hardware (a radio transceiver chip, antenna) but requires software/firmware for protocol stacks (e.g., TCP/IP), network authentication, and data packetization.
2. Control Unit
Claim Interpretation: The central processing component of the sanitization device. It is configured to execute programmed instructions to monitor the operating sequence (on-time, run-time, off-time), receive data from other units (localization, sensors), execute control actions (e.g., lock the device), and manage data (store, prepare for transmission).
Specification Disclosure & PHOSITA Understanding: (0083-0084). It describes it as an "electronic circuit with a programmed microprocessor" that manages the operating sequence and controls all electronic components. This is a standard description of a microcontroller unit (MCU) or a programmable logic controller (PLC), which is entirely within the ken of a PHOSITA.
Hardware/Software/Hybrid: Hybrid. It is fundamentally hardware (the MCU) that is defined and operates through software (the firmware or embedded software that contains the control logic).
3. Localization Unit
Claim Interpretation: A hardware component integrated into the sanitization device that generates geolocation data. Its purpose is to provide the system with the physical location of the device to ensure it is being used in the correct cabin and hasn't been moved prematurely.
Specification Disclosure & PHOSITA Understanding: The spec describes it (0079), explicitly mentioning technologies like "GPS or GLONASS antenna." A PHOSITA would immediately understand this to be a standard GNSS (Global Navigation Satellite System) receiver module.
Hardware/Software/Hybrid: Hybrid. It is hardware (the antenna and receiver chip) that outputs data which is often processed by software algorithms (e.g., for filtering or converting raw satellite data into coordinates).
4. Display Unit
Claim Interpretation: A user interface component, such as a screen, integrated into the portable device. Its function is to present operational data (e.g., cycle count, time remaining, status) to a local user/operator.
Specification Disclosure & PHOSITA Understanding: The spec (0051), describes it as an "LCD or LED screen." This is a common, well-understood component. A PHOSITA would know how to interface a display with the control unit's MCU.
Hardware/Software/Hybrid: Hybrid. It is hardware (the physical screen) that requires software drivers and commands from the control unit to render information.
5. Unit for moving air
Claim Interpretation: A mechanical hardware component, such as a fan or blower, whose function is to create airflow. It circulates the cabin's air through the reaction chamber where ionization occurs and expels the sanitized air back into the cabin.
Specification Disclosure & PHOSITA Understanding: The spec describes its function (0056, 0078) as a means to "circulate air." While not explicitly labeled a "fan," the description is perfectly adequate for a PHOSITA to identify and implement the necessary component—a simple fan or blower system controlled by the control unit.
Hardware/Software/Hybrid: Primarily Hardware. It is an electromechanical component. Its operation (on/off, speed) may be controlled by software via the control unit.
6. Storage Unit
Claim Interpretation: A digital memory component for non-volatile data storage. Its purpose is to record the set of monitored operation data (sequence + location) on the device itself before it is transmitted to the server.
Specification Disclosure & PHOSITA Understanding: The spec provides excellent detail (0040), specifying it could be an "internal memory" or "storage unit" and even gives an example type: "non-volatile reading memory, for example, of the EEPROM type." This is more than sufficient for a PHOSITA to select an appropriate memory chip (EEPROM, Flash, etc.).
Hardware/Software/Hybrid: Hybrid. It is hardware (the memory chip) that is accessed and managed by software (memory read/write routines in the control unit's firmware).
7. A single communication and control unit
Claim Interpretation: This is an integrative claim limitation. It describes an embodiment where the functions of the separate Communication Unit and Control Unit are merged into a single, combined hardware module. This likely refers to a system-on-a-chip (SoC) or a single PCB that integrates a microprocessor (for control) and a wireless modem (for communication).
Specification Disclosure & PHOSITA Understanding: The concept is clearly disclosed (0039, 0040). While the spec doesn't detail the specific architecture, the functional description of combining two electronic units into one is a common design choice well within the understanding of a PHOSITA skilled in electronic product design.
Hardware/Software/Hybrid: Hybrid. It is a hardware form factor (a single integrated module/PCB) that runs software for both control and communication functions.
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claims 1-8, 10-15, 17, 19-20, 22-24 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the enablement requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to enable one skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and/or use the invention.
The specification does not teach one of ordinary skill in the art how to make and use the full scope of the claimed invention without undue experimentation.
Rejection of Claims 1-8, 10-15, 17, 19-20, 22-24 for Lack of Enablement Regarding Location-Based Accuracy:
The entire invention, as claimed, relies on the comparison of a device's monitored location to a "predefined location" to trigger alarms and control actions. The specification explicitly acknowledges that the "predefined location must consider the limitations of the localization unit, such as the accuracy of the localization mechanism," but then provides zero guidance on how to implement this consideration. The disclosure does not teach any algorithms, tolerances, or methods for distinguishing between a device being in the wrong location versus being in the correct location but exhibiting expected GPS signal drift. Without this crucial implementation detail, a PHOSITA would be forced to engage in undue experimentation to make this core feature of the invention function as claimed. Therefore, the specification fails to enable the full scope of all claims, as they all depend on this un-enabled location comparison feature.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
The language of the following claims fails to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the applicant regards as the invention. A rejection of an independent claim on the basis of indefiniteness applies to all claims that depend from it, as they necessarily incorporate the indefinite limitation.
Rejection of Claims 1 and 13 (and thus all dependent claims) for Indefinite Functional Language:
The term "control actions" is indefinite. This is the central output of the claimed invention, yet it is described in purely functional terms without sufficient structural or algorithmic limitation. The specification provides a list of examples, such as "blocking/unblocking," "assigning a predefined number of...operation cycles," and "remote start/shutdown," but the claim is not limited to this list. The term itself is boundless and fails to apprise a PHOSITA of the metes and bounds of the invention. It is unclear what would or would not constitute a "control action," rendering the scope of the claims unascertainable.
The phrase "based on said comparison" is indefinite. This language describes the trigger for the "control actions" but fails to specify the conditions under which those actions are executed. It is unclear what the relationship between the monitored and predefined data must be to trigger an action. The claim does not specify whether any deviation triggers an action, or if the deviation must meet a certain threshold in magnitude or duration. This lack of algorithmic structure, combined with the broadness of "control actions," creates a "black box" where the inputs and outputs are known, but the triggering logic that defines the invention is not, leaving the claim scope uncertain.
The phrase "to purify and sanitize said interior space" is indefinite. This language, found in the preamble of the independent claims, states an intended result rather than a definite process limitation. The specification fails to provide any objective standard, metric, or threshold by which one of ordinary skill in the art could determine whether this function is being performed (e.g., a required reduction in specific pathogens, a minimum level of ion concentration). Without such a standard, the boundary of the claim is unclear, and a PHOSITA would have to resort to speculation to determine whether a given device infringes.
Rejection of Claims 5 and 17 for "synchronized manner":
The term "in a synchronized manner" is indefinite. The specification attempts to clarify this term by stating that synchronization "may correspond to a simultaneous or out of phase operation of the portable sanitization devices". This description is internally inconsistent, as "simultaneous" and "out of phase" are contradictory modes of operation. The claim provides no guidance as to what degree of temporal coordination is required to be "synchronized," leaving the scope of this limitation ambiguous.
Rejection of Claims 6 and 17 for "differs from":
The term "differs from" is indefinite because it fails to specify the degree of difference required to trigger an alarm. In the context of location data, GPS signals are subject to inherent variance. A monitored location data point will almost always "differ from" a predefined coordinate to some minute degree. The claim does not provide an objective boundary to distinguish a meaningful deviation from normal signal noise.
Rejection of Claims 12 and 24 for "released manner":
The term "released manner" is indefinite. This term has no well-understood meaning in the technical art and is not defined in the specification. It appears to be a commercial or contractual concept rather than a technical mode of operation. A PHOSITA would not know what technical characteristics differentiate a device operating in a "released manner" from one that is not, rendering the scope of these claims ambiguous.
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.
Claims 1-4 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Klaptchuck et al. (CA 2641046 A1), herein after will be referred to as Klaptchuck, in view of Choe et al. (US 20110264305 A1), herein after will be referred to as Choe.
Regarding Claim 1,
Klaptchuck discloses A remote monitoring and control system (see at least Page 14, Lines 1-2: “The sanitizing apparatus 104 can be remotely activated and monitored, either through wired or wireless communication...”: Rationale: Klaptchuck discloses a sanitizing apparatus that is remotely activated and monitored, which constitutes a remote monitoring and control system) for a cabin sanitization process (see at least Abstract: “A method of sanitizing a passenger cabin includes excluding people from the passenger cabin and substantially sealing the passenger cabin...”: Rationale: Klaptchuck explicitly describes a method and apparatus for sanitizing a passenger cabin, which is a cabin sanitization process), comprising: a plurality of cabins (see at least Page 13, Lines 5-6: “In smaller aircraft, rail cars, buses, or like vehicles, the cabin would be sealed to the extent possible...”: Rationale: Klaptchuck teaches sanitizing various vehicles like aircraft, rail cars, and buses, inherently suggesting a system for multiple cabins), where each cabin includes an interior space to be sanitized (see at least Abstract: A method of sanitizing a passenger cabin includes excluding people from the passenger cabin and substantially sealing the passenger cabin...: Rationale: Klaptchuck's entire disclosure is directed at sanitizing the interior space of a passenger cabin, which is an interior space); at least one portable sanitization device (Page 6, Lines 11-12: “Alternatively and more conveniently in many instances, the blower, sensor, and ozone generator can be incorporated into a portable unit...”: Rationale: Klaptchuck explicitly discloses a portable sanitization unit, teaching the claimed portable sanitization device for use within the cabin) comprising at least one reaction chamber (see at least Page 11, Lines 1-3: “...the ozone generator 106 could be integrated into a portable ozone sanitizing apparatus 104... The illustrated apparatus 104 comprises an ozone sensor 110 and blower 108...”: Rationale: The ozone generator is the reaction chamber where oxygen is converted to ozone, thus teaching the claimed reaction chamber) configured to be arranged in the interior space of at least one cabin (see at least Page 11, Lines 1-2: “Alternatively the ozone generator 106 could be integrated into a portable ozone sanitizing apparatus 104, as illustrated in Fig. 3, that is placed into the vehicle cabin”: Rationale: Klaptchuck teaches placing the portable apparatus directly into the vehicle cabin, which is the interior space of the cabin) and to purify and sanitize said interior space (see at least Page 2, Lines 19-20: “Following sanitization with ozone, the sanitized space will be left with a clean, fresh smell”: Rationale: Klaptchuck's ozone process sanitizes the space. A PHOSITA understands that sanitization includes purification, leaving a clean and fresh smell) by ionizing air (Page 2, Lines 13-15: “Ozone (O3) is an unstable gas comprising three atoms of oxygen. It is unstable because ozone gas will readily degrade... with the formation of free oxygen atoms or free radicals”: Rationale: Ozone generation for sanitation inherently involves ionizing ambient air, a fundamental mechanism well-known to a PHOSITA) in said at least one reaction chamber (see at least Page 5, Lines 1-2: “An apparatus for practicing the method can comprise an ozone generator, a blower, and an ozone concentration sensor”: Rationale: Ozone is generated within the ozone generator, which functions as the reaction chamber where the ionization process occurs); at least one communication unit (Page 14, Lines 1-2: The sanitizing apparatus 104 can be remotely activated and monitored, either through wired or wireless communication...: Rationale: The capability for wired or wireless communication necessitates a communication unit, as taught by Klaptchuck for remote monitoring) arranged in data communication (Page 14, Lines 1-2: The sanitizing apparatus 104 can be remotely activated and monitored, either through wired or wireless communication...: Rationale: Remote activation and monitoring inherently require the communication unit to be arranged in data communication with the control system) with the at least one portable sanitization device (see at least Page 14, Lines 1-2: The sanitizing apparatus 104 can be remotely activated and monitored...: Rationale: Klaptchuck's remote monitoring and activation system is in data communication with the sanitizing apparatus, which is the portable device); at least one control unit (see at least Page 13, Lines 1-2: In a typical sanitization system for practicing the method of the invention, ozone and humidity monitoring, and subsequent adjustments would be controlled by a computer: Rationale: Klaptchuck explicitly teaches that a computer controls the system's monitoring and adjustments, which is the claimed control unit) arranged to monitor and control (see at least Page 13, Lines 1-2: In a typical sanitization system for practicing the method of the invention, ozone and humidity monitoring, and subsequent adjustments would be controlled by a computer: Rationale: The computer is arranged to control monitoring and adjustments, thus teaching the function of monitoring and controlling the process) an operating sequence (see at least Page 11, Line 22 - Page 12, Line 1: When the sanitation period is finished, the ozone generator is stopped...: Rationale: Klaptchuck describes a sequence of starting, running for a period, and stopping, which constitutes the claimed operating sequence) of the at least one portable sanitization device (Page 11, Lines 1-2: Alternatively the ozone generator 106 could be integrated into a portable ozone sanitizing apparatus 104... that is placed into the vehicle cabin: Rationale: Klaptchuck's operating sequence applies to the portable ozone sanitizing apparatus placed within the cabin, teaching this limitation directly); and at least one server (Page 13, Lines 1-2:...ozone and humidity monitoring, and subsequent adjustments would be controlled by a computer: Rationale: Klaptchuck's remote computer that controls the process functions as the claimed server for the remote monitoring and control system) remotely arranged on a wireless communications network (see at least Page 14, Lines 1-2: The sanitizing apparatus 104 can be remotely activated and monitored, either through wired or wireless communication...: Rationale: Klaptchuck teaches remote monitoring via wireless communication, which inherently requires a wireless communications network for the remote server) and in data communication with the at least one communication unit (see at least Page 14, Lines 1-2: The sanitizing apparatus 104 can be remotely activated and monitored, either through wired or wireless communication...: Rationale: The remote server (computer) must be in data communication with the apparatus's communication unit to perform remote monitoring/activation); wherein the operating sequence (see at least Page 11, Line 22 - Page 12, Line 1: When the required time has elapsed... When the sanitation period is finished, the ozone generator is stopped...: Rationale: Klaptchuck's process of activation, running for a set time, and stopping is the operating sequence being further defined) of the at least one portable sanitization device (see at least Page 11, Lines 1-2: Alternatively the ozone generator 106 could be integrated into a portable ozone sanitizing apparatus 104... that is placed into the vehicle cabin: Rationale: The operating sequence described by Klaptchuck is for the portable sanitizing apparatus, as claimed in this limitation) comprises: a power-on action (see at least Page 14, Line 1: The sanitizing apparatus 104 can be remotely activated...: Rationale: Klaptchuck's remote activation of the apparatus is the claimed power-on action that initiates the sanitization operating sequence) of the at least one portable sanitization device (see at least Page 14, Lines 1: The sanitizing apparatus 104 can be remotely activated...: Rationale: The remote activation action is performed on the sanitizing apparatus, which is the portable sanitization device taught by Klaptchuck); an operating time (see at least Page 13, Lines 13-14: It is contemplated that raising ozone concentrations to 4 to 5 ppm over a sanitation period of about one hour...: Rationale: Klaptchuck explicitly discloses a "sanitation period" of a specific duration, which is the claimed operating time for the process) of the at least one portable sanitization device (see at least Page 11, Lines 1-2:...a portable ozone sanitizing apparatus 104, as illustrated in Fig. 3, that is placed into the vehicle cabin: Rationale: The sanitation period is the operating time for the portable ozone sanitizing apparatus placed within the vehicle cabin); and a shutdown action (see at least Page 11, Line 22 – Page 12, Line 1: When the sanitation period is finished, the ozone generator is stopped...: Rationale: Klaptchuck teaches that after the sanitation period, the ozone generator is stopped, which constitutes the claimed shutdown action) of the at least one portable sanitization device (see at least Page 11, Line 22 – Page 12, Line 1: When the sanitation period is finished, the ozone generator is stopped...: Rationale: The shutdown action of stopping the ozone generator is performed on the portable sanitization device as taught by Klaptchuck);
However, Klaptchuck does not explicitly disclose 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.
Chloe, in the same field of endeavor discloses at least one power source (see at least [0048]: The power unit 197 is provided with a rechargeable power supply means to supply power within the robot cleaner: Rationale: Choe teaches a power unit with a rechargeable power supply, which is a power source for a portable device) arranged to power the at least one portable sanitization device (see at least [0048]: The power unit 197 is provided with a rechargeable power supply means to supply power within the robot cleaner: Rationale: Choe's power unit is arranged to supply power to the entire robot cleaner, teaching powering the portable device); wherein the at least one control unit (see at least [0039]: a robot cleaner according to another embodiment may include one or more monitoring cameras 110, a control unit 130... and a location recognition unit 170: Rationale: Choe teaches a control unit in a system that also includes a location recognition unit, providing the claimed control unit) is in data communication (see at least [0044]: The control unit 130 prepares a cleaning map using location information recognized through the location recognition unit 170...: Rationale: Choe's control unit uses location information from the location recognition unit, requiring data communication between them to function) with at least one localization unit (see at least [0042]: The location recognition unit 170 is provided with one or more distance sensors to recognize the location of the robot cleaner...: Rationale: Choe's "location recognition unit" performs the exact function of the claimed "localization unit," teaching this element of the claim) integrated in the at least one portable sanitization device (see at least [0039]:...a robot cleaner according to another embodiment may include... a control unit 130... and a location recognition unit 170: Rationale: Choe's location recognition unit is an integrated component of the mobile robot cleaner, teaching integration in a portable device), in order to obtain localization data (see at least [0044]: The control unit 130 prepares a cleaning map using location information recognized through the location recognition unit 170...: Rationale: The purpose of the location recognition unit is to provide location information, which is the claimed localization data) of the portable sanitization device (see at least [0042]: The location recognition unit 170 is provided... to recognize the location of the robot cleaner within the cleaning area: Rationale: Choe's unit recognizes the location of the robot cleaner, which is analogous to the portable sanitization device); wherein the operation sequence (see at least [0025]: the communication server 120 transmits information such as a cleaned area, a non-cleaned area, a cleaning pattern... to the external device: Rationale: The cleaning map and status (cleaned/uncleaned areas) represent the progress of the operation sequence as claimed) and the localization data (see at least [0045]:...storage unit 180 for storing... information on the location of the robot cleaner, and the cleaning map: Rationale: Choe teaches storing and communicating both the cleaning map (operation sequence) and the location data of the robot cleaner), which are called a set of monitored operation data (see at least [0020]: The communication server 120 transmits the monitoring image and the cleaning map to an external device...: Rationale: The cleaning map and location data are monitored operational data transmitted to an external device for monitoring and control) are communicated to the at least one server (see at least [0020]: The communication server 120 transmits the monitoring image and the cleaning map to an external device...: Rationale: Choe's communication server transmits the operational and location data to an external device, which functions as the claimed server) by means of the at least one communication unit (see at least [0060]: The communication module 220 receives the monitoring image and cleaning map… and transmits the control command to the robot cleaner: Rationale: Choe’s communication module is the communication unit enabling monitored data transfer between robot cleaner and external remote device/server); and wherein the at least one server (see at least [0056]: The wireless terminal device 200 accesses the robot cleaner to receive the monitoring image and the cleaning map... and transmit a control command...: Rationale: The wireless terminal device functions as the server, receiving data and transmitting control commands back to the device) is configured to compare the set of monitored operation data (see at least [0059]:...the wireless terminal device 200 displays a cleaning map received from the robot cleaner 100 to check a cleaned area, a non-cleaned area...: Rationale: The user checks cleaned vs. non-cleaned areas, performing a comparison of monitored data against the goal of a clean room. A PHOSITA motivated to efficiently manage a fleet of sanitization devices would find it an obvious design choice to automate this manual verification on the server. This modification applies the well-known principle of automating routine human tasks to enhance operational efficiency. Consequently, configuring the server to automatically compare the device's received location data against a predefined target location would have been an obvious implementation of Choe's user-driven process) with a set of predefined operation data (see at least [0059]:…selects a desired location or area on the cleaning map to move the robot cleaner to the relevant location...: Rationale: The "predefined operation data" is the implicit goal of a fully cleaned area, which the user compares against) and to execute control actions (see at least [0059]: generates a control command for requesting a monitoring image for the relevant location or the relevant area to transmit to the robot cleaner: Rationale: The user generates and transmits a control command based on the comparison, which is executing a control action) over the operation (see at least [0090]: The control unit 130 controls the robot cleaner or controls the operation of each unit based on the control command...: Rationale: The transmitted control command directly controls the operation of the robot cleaner, as taught by Choe's remote control system) of the at least one portable sanitization device (see at least [0090]: The control unit 130 controls the robot cleaner or controls the operation of each unit based on the control command...: Rationale: The control actions are executed over the operation of the robot cleaner, which is the portable device) based on said comparison (see at least [0059]: displays a cleaning map... to check a cleaned area, a non-cleaned area... and selects a desired location or area on the cleaning map...: Rationale: The action of selecting a location is based on the comparison of the map's current state with the desired state) and by means of the at least one control unit (see at least [0090]: The control unit 130 controls the robot cleaner or controls the operation of each unit based on the control command (S 170): Rationale: The server's control command is executed by the robot's onboard control unit, completing the remote control loop as claimed).
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 Chloe before them, to modify the Sanitization of aircraft or vehicle cabin of Klaptchuck by incorporating Chloe’s Robot cleaner and remote monitoring system using the same, to create a location‑aware, remote cabin‑sanitization system—one in which the portable device reports its operating and localization data to a server for comparison and control.
Regarding Claim 2,
Klaptchuck and Chloe disclose all the limitations of claim 1.
However, Klaptchuck does not explicitly disclose 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.
Chloe further disclose wherein the at least one communication unit (see at least [0020]: The communication server 120 transmits the monitoring image and the cleaning map to an external device...: Rationale: Choe's "communication server" (120) and "communication module" (220) are components that perform the function of the claimed "communication unit," handling data transmission for the portable device) and the at least one control unit (see at least [0039]: ..a robot cleaner... may include... a control unit 130...: Rationale: Choe explicitly discloses a "control unit" (130) that manages the operation of the portable robot cleaner device) are integrated with the at least one portable sanitization device (see at least [0039...a robot cleaner according to another embodiment may include one or more monitoring cameras 110, a control unit 130, a communication server 120...: Rationale: Choe discloses a portable robot cleaner integrating a control unit (130) and onboard communication hardware (120, 220) within the same housing. These components perform the claimed communication and control functions as described. A PHOSITA would recognize that portability requires such integration of core electronics, an expectation reinforced by Klaptchuk’s teaching of a “portable unit.”) either independently or in a single communication and control unit (see at least [0039...a robot cleaner…may include one or more monitoring cameras 110, a control unit 130, a communication server 120...: Rationale: Choe discloses these units as distinct components ("control unit 130", "communication server 120") that are both part of the integrated system. This teaches the "independently" integrated option. The claim's alternative ("in a single... unit") is merely an obvious design choice—A PHOSITA would find it obvious to consolidate communication and control into a single module, consistent with standard electronic design practice in portable robotics and sanitization devices, yielding predictable efficiency and compactness).
Choe provides the essential teaching of a portable device (robot cleaner) with both a control unit and a communication unit integrated within its structure. Klaptchuck provides the context of a portable sanitization device. The specific configuration (independent units or a single combined unit) is presented in the claim as two obvious design choices, both of which are rendered obvious by Choe's disclosure of separate but integrated units and the general knowledge of a PHOSITA to modularize or combine electronic components as needed. Modern portable electronics routinely consolidate control and communication functions onto a single processor board or module. A PHOSITA would recognize this as standard engineering practice, yielding predictable results without inventive ingenuity.
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 Chloe before them, to modify the Sanitization of aircraft or vehicle cabin of Klaptchuck by incorporating Chloe’s Robot cleaner and remote monitoring system using the same, to integrate the communication and control functions directly into the portable sanitization device, thereby enabling compact design, simplified operation, and predictable remote monitoring and control consistent with established practices in portable autonomous systems.
Regarding Claim 3,
Klaptchuck and Chloe disclose all the limitations of claim 1.
However, Klaptchuck does not explicitly disclose 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.
Chloe discloses wherein the at least one server (see at least [0056]: "The wireless terminal device 200 accesses the robot cleaner to receive the monitoring image and the cleaning map... and transmit a control command...": Rationale: Choe's "wireless terminal device" (200) functions as the claimed server, receiving data (monitored operation data) and transmitting control commands) or the at least one control unit (see at least [0039]: ...a robot cleaner... may include... a control unit 130...: Rationale: Choe explicitly discloses a "control unit" (130) that manages the operation of the portable device) are configured to assign (see at least [0045] – [0047]: "...storage unit 180 for storing... information on the location of the robot cleaner, and the cleaning map."…"The storage unit 180 stores... authentication information on the external device, namely, wireless terminal device or wireless access device.": Rationale: A PHOSITA would recognize that reliable storage of multiple device datasets requires assigning unique identifiers, a standard database practice. A PHOSITA understands that assigning identifiers (like a device ID, timestamp, or session ID) is a fundamental and obvious method for organizing and retrieving stored data sets, especially from multiple devices. Choe's system is configured to store device-specific data, which implies the capability to assign identifiers to it) a unique identifier (see at least [0047]: "The storage unit 180 stores authentication information for the external device, for example, information capable of identifying the external device such as phone number, user ID, password, address, and the like.": Rationale: Choe explicitly teaches storing unique identifiers (e.g., user ID, phone number) for external devices. This demonstrates that the system is designed to handle and distinguish between unique entities, which is the core concept of a "unique identifier." It would be obvious to apply the same unique identification technique (user IDs) to operational datasets (maps, logs) for organization) to the set of monitored operation data (see at least [0020] and [0045]: [0020]: "The communication server 120 transmits the monitoring image and the cleaning map to an external device..." and [0045]: "...storage unit 180 for storing... information on the location of the robot cleaner, and the cleaning map."): Rationale: The "cleaning map" and "location of the robot cleaner" are the "monitored operation data" in Choe's system, directly analogous to the operational data from the portable sanitization device) of the at least one portable sanitization device (see at least [0039]:...a robot cleaner according to another embodiment...: Rationale: The data is generated by and associated with the portable device (Choe's robot cleaner / Klaptchuk's portable sanitizer) and in that the at least one server (see at least [0056]:The wireless terminal device 200 accesses the robot cleaner to receive the monitoring image and the cleaning map...: Rationale: The server (wireless terminal device 200) is configured to receive the monitored operation data) is configured to register said set of monitored operation data (see at least: [0045]:...storage unit 180 for storing... information on the location of the robot cleaner, and the cleaning map: Rationale: The function of "registering" data means to record or store it. Choe's system stores the cleaning map and location data (the monitored operation data) in a storage unit, which serves as a form of registration) and the assigned unique identifier (see at least [0047]: The storage unit 180 stores authentication information for the external device, for example, information capable of identifying the external device such as phone number, user ID...: Rationale: As established in Limitation 5, Choe's system stores unique identifiers. A PHOSITA would find it an obvious and routine step to store such an identifier alongside the data it is meant to identify (e.g., storing a session ID with a cleaning map) for the purposes of organization, retrieval, and audit trails. This is a standard database practice) in at least one database (see at least [0045]:...storage unit 180 for storing 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: Rationale: A "storage unit" (180) that categorizes and stores different types of data (e.g., images, maps, authentication info, location data) functions as a database. This is a standard term for a structured data storage system).
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 Chloe before them, to modify the Sanitization of aircraft or vehicle cabin of Klaptchuck by incorporating Chloe’s Robot cleaner and remote monitoring system using the same, to implement assignment of unique identifiers to monitored operational data and register those identifiers with the data in a database, thereby enabling traceability, reliable retrieval, and audit-ready recordkeeping for the portable sanitization device.
Regarding Claim 4,
Klaptchuck and Chloe disclose all the limitations of claim 1.
However, Klaptchuck does not explicitly disclose 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. While Klaptchuk teaches sanitizing multiple cabins, it does not disclose assigning unique identifiers to them.
Chloe discloses wherein the at least one server (see at least [0056]: "The wireless terminal device 200 accesses the robot cleaner to receive the monitoring image and the cleaning map... and transmit a control command...": Rationale: Choe's wireless terminal device (200) functions as the claimed server, receiving monitored data and commands) or the at least one control unit (see at least [0039]: "...a robot cleaner... may include... a control unit 130...": Rationale: Choe explicitly discloses a control unit (130) that manages the portable device's operation. The claim requires ‘server or control unit,’ and Choe teaches both. Either suffices to satisfy the limitation) are configured to complement the set of monitored operation data (see at least [0020] and [0045]: "The communication server 120 transmits the monitoring image and the cleaning map to an external device..." and "...storage unit 180 for storing... information on the location of the robot cleaner, and the cleaning map.": Rationale: Choe’s storage of operational datasets inherently allows augmentation; complementing them with unique identifiers would be a predictable extension for dataset traceability and management) with a unique identifier (see at least [0047]: "The storage unit 180 stores authentication information for the external device, for exampl