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 example, information capable of identifying the external device such as phone number, user ID, password, address, and the like.": Rationale: Choe explicitly teaches unique identifiers (e.g., user ID) to distinguish entities, a core data management concept) of each cabin (Rationale: Just as Choe assigns unique IDs to external devices, a PHOSITA would find it obvious to assign unique IDs to Klaptchuk's cabins to distinguish and manage datasets across a fleet, ensuring traceability and auditability).
Therefore, given the teachings as a whole, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to complement Klaptchuk’s sanitization data for multiple cabins with unique cabin identifiers, applying Choe’s Robot cleaner and remote monitoring system using the same, to ensure traceability, prevent misassociation of data, and enable reliable audit-ready recordkeeping—predictable benefits consistent with standard database and fleet management practices.
Claim 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Klaptchuck, in view Choe, and in view Wurman et al. (Coordinating Hundreds of Cooperative, Autonomous Vehicles), herein after will be referred to as Wurman.
Regarding Claim 5,
Klaptchuck and Chloe disclose all the limitations of claim 1.
However, Klaptchuck and Chloe do not explicitly disclose wherein the system comprises at least two portable sanitization devices, wherein the at least one server is configured to coordinate the operation of said at least two portable sanitization devices in a synchronized manner, either in the same cabin or two different cabins of the plurality of cabins.
Wurman, in the same field of endeavor discloses Wherein the system comprises at least two portable sanitization devices (see at least p.9: “A Kiva installation for a large distribution center may require 500 or more vehicles.”: Rationale: This explicitly teaches a system employing not just one but hundreds of robots, directly supporting “at least two portable sanitization devices.”), wherein the at least one server is configured to coordinate the operation (see at least p.15: “Systemwide resource allocation is centralized in the Job Manager (JM), which also communicates with the customer’s existing warehouse-management system.”: Rationale: This discloses a server-like central controller coordinating all robots, demonstrating that at least one server manages fleet operations effectively) of said at least two portable sanitization devices in a synchronized manner (see at least pg. 15: “The JM receives customer orders… and assigns drives, pods, and stations to carry out the tasks.”: Rationale: Central assignment of tasks ensures robots act in coordination, producing synchronized operation across multiple units to accomplish work harmoniously together) either in the same cabin or two different cabins of the plurality of cabins (see at least pg. 14: “Kiva systems allow spatial flexibility. Consequently, they can accommodate poles, flow into multiple rooms, and handle other oddities of the environment.”: Rationale: This clearly discloses deployment across multiple rooms or within one space, directly mapping to “same cabin or different cabins.”)
The combination of Klaptchuk (cabin sanitization device), Choe (server-based coordination), and Wurman (multi-robot fleet coordination, synchronization, and zoning) discloses every limitation. A PHOSITA would find it obvious to extend single-device cabin sanitization to a coordinated multi-device system, using Choe’s server to manage Wurman’s multi-AMR coordination model, and applying it across one or multiple cabins.
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, Chloe, and Wurman 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, and Wurman’s Coordinating Hundreds of Cooperative, Autonomous Vehicles, to (i) 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, and (ii) achieve optimal performance.
Claim 6-8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Klaptchuck, in view of Choe, and in view of Boast et al. (EP 2 051 743 B1), herein after will be referred to as Boast.
Regarding Claim 6,
Klaptchuck and Chloe disclose all the limitations of claim 1.
Klaptchuck further discloses the 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) is configured to issue an alarm (see at least Page 14, Lines 1-3: The apparatus may have a local or remote visual or sound indication of operation so that personnel will be warned: Rationale: Klaptchuck discloses the apparatus has a "warning light or sound emitter" and is configured to "signal... using an LED, a noise... or the like", which is an alarm when the ozone concentration is safe or unsafe. Klaptchuk discloses warning indicators, but not explicit alarms based on operational data deviation).
However, Klaptchuck and Cloe do not explicitly disclose 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.
Boast discloses wherein the at least one server is configured to issue an alarm (see at least [0034] and [0043]: "the disinfection apparatus signals the closed environment is safe to enter... a wireless transmission to a PDA, or the like" ([0034]); "transmit a signal using transmitter 80 to a device (a mobile phone, PDA or the like)" ([0043]): Rationale: The act of "signaling" or "transmitting a signal" to a remote device (PDA, mobile phone) is a function performed by the control system/server of the apparatus, not just a local emitter. a PHOSITA would equate Boast’s control system (processor/transmitter issuing wireless alerts) to the server in Choe/Klaptchuk) when at least one monitored operation data (see at least [0034] and [0037]: "sensors, particularly an ozone sensor 60 for determining the concentration of ozone" ([0037]); "The ozone concentration is preferably measured (step 510)" ([0034]): Rationale: The ozone sensor generates the monitored operation data (ozone concentration). A PHOSITA would apply Boast’s alarm-on-threshold logic to Choe’s cleaning-map deviations, ensuring alarms trigger upon operational discrepancies) of the set of monitored operation data (see at least [0016]: "a predetermined ozone concentration…predetermined zone concentration…predetermined relative humidity level…predetermined humidity level…predetermined safe level…": Rationale: These multiple "predetermined" values form a "set of predefined operation data.". Choe supplies the monitored operation data and predefined goals (cleaned vs. uncleaned areas). Boast supplies the alarm mechanism and the logic of triggering alarms based on monitored vs. predefined values. differs from at least one respective predefined operation data (see at least [0019]: "when the ozone concentration is reduced to a predetermined safe level, signalling": Rationale: This describes the condition where monitored data (current ozone level) differs from a predefined value (safe level), triggering an action) from the set of predefined operation data (see at least [0016]: "a predetermined ozone concentration…predetermined zone concentration…predetermined relative humidity level…predetermined humidity level…predetermined safe level…": Rationale: These multiple "predetermined" values form a "set of predefined operation data.").
A PHOSITA, having Klaptchuk, Choe, and Boast before them, would have found it obvious to modify Klaptchuk’s cabin sanitization system by applying Choe’s operational data comparison (cleaning map vs. predefined goal) together with Boast’s explicit alarm mechanisms (warning light, sound, wireless signals) triggered when monitored data deviates from predefined thresholds. This predictable integration yields a cabin sanitization system that automatically alerts users when sanitization results differ from expected goals, enhancing safety, reliability, and traceability.
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, Chloe, and Boast 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, and Boast’s Planning and control of autonomous mobile robots for intralogistics, to (i) 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, and (ii) automatically alerts users when sanitization results differ from expected goals.
Regarding Claim 7,
Klaptchuck and Chloe disclose all the limitations of claim 1.
Klaptchuck further discloses a 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) wherein the 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).
However, Klaptchuck and Chloe do not explicitly disclose that the operating sequence is determined based on the volume of the interior space to be sanitized, 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.
Boast discloses the operating sequence (see at least Fig. 6, [0027]: …a preferred method according to the invention may include the following steps: Rationale: The entire disclosed process (Fig. 6, [0027]) is a defined "operating sequence" comprising the steps of: elevating ozone, rapidly raising humidity, depleting ozone, and signalling. This sequence is controlled by the apparatus's timer and control system) is determined based on the volume of the interior space to be sanitized, 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 (see at least [0030]: "the user will have to adjust the ozone generator so that it will produce the appropriate amount of ozone within the appropriate time based on... the size... of the closed environment. 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).": Rationale: This explicitly teaches that key operational parameters (which define the "operating sequence") are determined based on the volume/size of the space. The "menu of options such as "Suite", "Single" or "Double" represents a set of predefined room size/volume categories from which the user selects. Selecting a room type from a menu is the act of inputting a predefined volume for the system to use in its calculations).
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, Chloe, and Boast before them, to modify the sanitization system of Klaptchuk and Choe to determine its operating sequence based on the volume of the interior space. The motivation is improving efficacy, a principle Boast teaches by adjusting parameters to room size via predefined inputs or automated sensors. This yields a predictably more effective system.
Regarding Claim 8,
Klaptchuk and Choe discloses all the limitations of claim 1.
However, Klaptchuk and Choe do not disclose 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; and wherein the monitored operation data further comprises a number of operation cycles of the portable sanitization device, wherein each operation cycle comprises the operation sequence.
Boast discloses wherein the at least one portable sanitization device comprises a display unit (see at least [0038]: "control panel 90... includes displays of information, such as ozone levels, temperature and relative humidity": Rationale: A control panel with displays is a display unit), wherein the at least one control unit (see at least [0038]: Control panel 90 includes various means for controlling disinfection apparatus: Rationale: Boast explicitly discloses a control unit) is configured to deploy part or all the monitored operation data of the portable sanitization device in said display unit (see at least [0038]: "displays of information, such as ozone levels, temperature and relative humidity": Rationale: Displaying this data is "deploying" monitored operation data to the display unit); and wherein the monitored operation data further comprises a number of operation cycles of the portable sanitization device (see at least Fig. 4, [0045]: The disinfection apparatus also preferably has the following components (as seen in Figure 4): Rationale: Recording the duration and timing of previous processes inherently tracks and stores the number of operation cycles completed), wherein each operation cycle comprises the operation sequence (see at least Figure 4, [0045]: The detailed, sequential process shown in Figure 4 and described in [0045] defines a single "operation sequence" for disinfection. Each use of the apparatus to perform this sequence is one "operation cycle.". The memory that records previous process timing ([0045]) is therefore recording the number of times this sequence has been run).
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, Chloe, and Boast before them, to modify the sanitization system of Klaptchuk and Choe to provide operational feedback and maintenance tracking by adding Boast's display and logging features to Klaptchuk and Choe's sanitization system. A PHOSITA would have been motivated to add Boast’s display and tracking features to improve user awareness of operational status and facilitate maintenance, a well-known improvement in automated sanitization systems.
Claim 10 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Klaptchuck, in view of Choe, in view of Boast, in view of Line et al. (US 20200198445 A1), herein after will be referred to Line, in view of Offutt et al. (US 20180154028 A1), herein after will be referred to as Offutt, and in view of Levinson et al. (Cool‐Colored Cars to Reduce Air‐Conditioning Energy Use and Reduce CO2 Emission), herein after will be referred to as Levinson.
Regarding Claim 10,
Klaptchuck, Chloe, and Boast disclose all the limitations of claim 8.
Klaptchuk further discloses a system (see at least Pg. 13, ll. 1: “In a typical sanitization system for practicing the method of the invention…”: Rationale: Establishes an organized sanitization system with coordinated components and controls, satisfying 'system' context foundational to subsequent operational limitations in claim), wherein: each cabin (see at least Pg. 5, ll. 3-5: “Aircraft passenger cabins are typically sealed… include an air circulation system.”: Rationale: Identifies aircraft passenger cabins as discrete interior spaces with circulation, supporting “each cabin” as the unit of treatment consideration here) corresponds to the cabin of a vehicle (see at least Pg. 11, ll. 1“…integrated into a portable ozone sanitizing apparatus 104… placed into the vehicle cabin.” :Rationale: Explicitly places the portable sanitizing apparatus within a vehicle cabin, directly satisfying correspondence to a vehicle’s cabin environment as claimed); wherein the at least one portable sanitization device (see at least Pg. 11, ll. 1-2: “…portable ozone sanitizing apparatus 104…”: Rationale: Calls the apparatus portable, directly satisfying the requirement that the sanitization device be portable for deployment across multiple cabins easily) comprises at least one unit for moving air (see at least Pg. 11, ll. 3: “…comprises… blower 108…”: Rationale: Discloses blower component within the apparatus, satisfying the inclusion of at least one air-moving unit necessary for forced circulation of air), wherein the at least one unit for moving air is configured to circulate air from inside the cabin (see at least Pg. 5, ll. 7-8: “…draw air from the cabin… direct the air back into the cabin.”: Rationale: Describes drawing air and directing it back, demonstrating configuration to actively circulate air through the cabin during operation as claimed. Specifies air is drawn from within the cabin, establishing interior origin of the recirculated airstream required by the claim language), wherein, within each cabin the at least one portable sanitization device is configured to connect to the vehicle’s energy source (see at least Abstract: “Air sanitizing apparatus for a vehicle… disposed in an interior of a vehicle…”: Rationale: Vehicle-mounted sanitization modules ordinarily draw vehicle power; connecting to vehicle energy source is a simple, predictable engineering substitution for power), recirculating air into the cabin (see at least Pg. 5, ll. 8: “…direct the air back into the cabin…”: Rationale: Air is returned into the cabin volume, evidencing a recirculation loop essential to in-situ treatment effectiveness during active sanitization cycles).
Boast discloses and circulate air from outside the portable sanitization device (see at least [0039]: “Ozone exhaust vent 106 allows the ozone generated to exit disinfection apparatus 1 into the closed environment.”: Rationale: Device includes an exhaust path venting treated air into the environment, demonstrating air exits the device housing back into cabin);and initiate an operation cycle (see at least [0029]: “…will then preferably turn on the ozone generator…”: Rationale: Turning on the ozone generator initiates a defined process sequence, corresponding to starting an operation cycle under system control conditions).
However, Klaptchuck, Chloe, and Boast do not explicitly disclose 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; circulate air from inside the cabin through the at least one reaction chamber and outside the portable sanitization device;
Line discloses the at least one energy source corresponds to an energy source integrated in each vehicle (see at least Abstract: “Air sanitizing apparatus for a vehicle… disposed in an interior of a vehicle…”: Rationale: Vehicle-installed apparatus implies connection to vehicle power bus; PHOSITA would use integrated energy source for reliability, availability, and simplified wiring); circulate air from inside the cabin through the at least one reaction chamber (see at least [0058]: “Exhaust fan 64… causes air to flow through the inside of the air flow tube 62… UV sources… irradiate the air flowing inside…”: Rationale: Line’s airflow tube with internal irradiation constitutes a reaction chamber; exhaust fan drives air through it, satisfying “through… reaction chamber.”); recirculating air into the cabin through the at least one reaction chamber (see at least [0058]: “Air flow tube… exhaust fan 64… causes air to flow through the inside of the air flow tube…”: Rationale: Exhaust fan propels airflow through the tube chamber, ensuring the moving airstream traverses the sanitizing reaction zone as required here); and wherein the at least one reaction chamber (see at least [0004]: “…air flow tube having an inside through which air can flow…”: Rationale: Defines the chamber as an internal airflow tube, establishing a discrete region where air is processed during passage through it) is configured to ionize the air that circulates through it (see at least [0056]: “When activated, the negative ion generator(s) 42 negatively ionize molecules… in the air of the interior 12…”: Rationale: Negative ion generator explicitly ionizes cabin air within the system, satisfying ionization functionality occurring as airflow passes treatment components internally), expelling ionized air into the interior space of the vehicle’s cabin (see at least [0056]: “…negatively ionize molecules… in the air of the interior 12 of the vehicle 10.”: Rationale: Ionization occurs to interior cabin air; treated air necessarily resides and is expelled within the same interior cabin space thereafter).
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, Chloe, Boast, and Line before them, to modify the portable cabin-sanitizing systems of Klaptchuck/Chloe/Boast by incorporating Line’s vehicle-bus power connection and airflow-tube reaction chamber that ionizes and recirculates cabin air. Doing so—and further implementing controller-initiated operation/rest cycles sized to a small, sealed ~2 m³ vehicle cabin—reflects routine optimization of a result-effective variable (sanitization efficacy vs. safe ozone dissipation), where selecting 15–20 min operation and 1–3 min rest (e.g., 18/2 min) is a predictable design choice using known elements according to their established functions, yielding no unexpected results (see KSR).
However, Klaptchuck, Chloe, Boast, and Line do not explicitly disclose 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.
Offutt discloses and each operation cycle (see at least [0041]: “Each cycle may last a predetermined amount of time.”: Rationale: Expressly teaches discrete cycles, providing the cyclical operational framework required by the claim for scheduling, control, and monitoring of processes) includes an operating time of between 15 to 20 minutes (see at least [0041]: “…each cycle may last… 15 minutes, 20 minutes…”: Rationale: Enumerates fifteen and twenty-minute cycle durations, squarely covering claimed operating-time range without extrapolation, supporting predictable, repeatable sterilization intervals per disclosure) and a rest time of between 1 to 3 minutes (see at least [0041]: “Each cycle may be spaced… by a waiting period… 1 minute, 2 minutes, 3 minutes…”: Rationale: Explicitly discloses one, two, and three-minute waiting periods between cycles, directly matching the claimed rest-time range without inference or ambiguity), preferably, the operation time is 18 minutes (Rationale: Within Offutt’s taught 15–20-minute range, selecting eighteen minutes is a routine optimization of result-effective variables under KSR and Aller case law) and the rest time is 2 minutes (see at least [0041]: “…waiting period… 2 minutes…”: Rationale: Two-minute waiting period is expressly listed, satisfying preferred rest-time selection with exact textual support and predictable operating cadence between cycles)
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, Chloe, Boast, Line, and Offutt before them, to modify the portable cabin-sanitizing systems of Klaptchuck/Chloe/Boast by incorporating Line’s vehicle-bus power connection and airflow-tube reaction chamber and adopting Offutt’s programmable operation/rest cycles sized to a ~2 m³ vehicle cabin (e.g., 15–20 min on, 1–3 min rest; 18/2 as a routine optimum). A PHOSITA would do so for integration simplicity, reliability, and the known efficacy/safety of recirculated, chamber-treated air, which is routine optimization of result-effective variables yielding predictable results with no change in principle of operation (see KSR; In re Aller).
However, Klaptchuck, Chloe, Boast, Line, and Offutt do not explicitly disclose cabins of an average size of 2 m³.
Levinson discloses cabins of an average size of 2 m³ (see at least Table 1: cabin volume (m³) = 2.57): Rationale: A PHOSITA would be aware that vehicle cabins come in a range of sizes. Levinson teaches that a common compact sedan has a volume of 2.57 m³. Knowing this, it would be obvious to a PHOSITA that smaller vehicles (e.g., sub-compacts) would have volumes less than 2.57 m³, and that an "average" cabin size for sanitization purposes could reasonably be defined as 2 m³. Selecting 2 m³ is not an inventive leap but a routine design choice based on publicly known, predictable variables in the automotive field)
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, Chloe, Boast, Line, Offutt, and Levinson before them, to integrate Line’s vehicle-bus power and reaction-chamber recirculation into the portable cabin sanitizers of Klaptchuck/Chloe/Boast, and adopt Offutt’s controller-programmable operation/rest cycles while sizing those cycles using Levinson’s representative ~2 m³ cabin volumes. A PHOSITA would do so for integration simplicity, safety/ozone-dissipation compliance, and predictable efficacy—i.e., routine optimization of result-effective variables (cycle time, rest time, treated volume) within disclosed ranges (15–20 min on, 1–3 min rest; 18/2 as an obvious point estimate; ~2 m³ as typical), a combination of familiar elements producing no change in principle of operation and no unexpected results (KSR; In re Aller; In re Peterson).
Claim 11 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Klaptchuck, in view of Choe, in view of Boast, in view of Line, in view of Offutt, and in view of Levinson, and in view of Eisenhour (US 20080245504 A1).
Regarding Claim 11,
Klaptchuck, Chloe, Boast, Line, Offutt, and Levinson disclose all the limitations of claim 10.
However, Klaptchuck, Chloe, Boast, Line, Offutt, and Levinson do not explicitly disclose wherein each vehicle comprises an air recirculation system configured to be activated, preferably at maximum power and minimum temperature, before or during each operation cycle, where the activation is manual by means of an operator user or remotely through a signal sent to a controller of each vehicle.
Eisenshour discloses wherein each vehicle comprises an air recirculation system (see at least [0018]: "a vehicle 12 equipped with a climate control system": Rationale: The vehicle is explicitly stated to be equipped with the climate control (air recirculation) system) configured to be activated (see at least [0007]: "The control device is configured to selectively activate the recirculation door actuator": Rationale: The system is configured for activation of the recirculation function by the control device) preferably at maximum power (see at least [0032]: "the blower speed of the blower 50 is operating at a high speed": Rationale: Activation occurs at high blower speed, which constitutes maximum power for the air moving system), and minimum temperature (see at least [0020]: "the thermal switch 30 opens when the temperature of the evaporator 22 is below a prescribed temperature T1 (e.g., about 0° C.)": Rationale: Activation is triggered at a prescribed minimum (cold) temperature condition) before or during each operation cycle (See at least [0023]: "once per ignition cycle": Rationale: The activation event is defined to occur once per operational (ignition) cycle) where the activation is manual (see at least [0022]: "operator controls 32 that are located in the cabin of the vehicle": Rationale: Manual operator controls are provided for the user to command the system) by means of an operator user (see at least [0023]: "once the passenger operates one of the controls": Rationale: The operator (passenger) is the means of manual activation via the controls) or remotely through a signal (see at least [0023]: "control signals are received by a controller 60": Rationale: The controller receives signals, which can be from remote sources, to activate the system) sent to a controller of each vehicle (see at least [0023]: "a controller 60 to determine if the prescribed conditions are met": Rationale: A controller in the vehicle receives inputs to determine system activation).
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, Chloe, Boast, Line, Offutt, Levinson and Eisenhour before them, to o configure the vehicle’s existing HVAC recirculation system (as taught by Eisenhour) to be actuated before/during each sanitization cycle—manually via operator controls or remotely by a signal to the vehicle controller—and to run it at maximum fan power and minimum temperature to maximize in-cabin air turnover, reduce humidity, and avoid outside-air dilution. In view of Line’s controller-managed, sealed-cabin sanitization and Offutt’s cyclical operation, a PHOSITA would have been motivated to synchronize HVAC activation with each cycle for predictable improvements in distribution/efficacy, selecting max power/min temperature as routine optimization of result-effective variables from a finite set of predictable options, with a reasonable expectation of success and no change in principle of operation (KSR; In re Aller; In re Peterson).
Claim 12 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Klaptchuck, in view of Choe, in view of Huang et al. (EP 3628203 A1), herein after will be referred to as Huang.
Regarding Claim 12,
Klaptchuck and Chloe disclose all the limitations of claim 1.
However, Klaptchuck and Chloe do not explicitly disclose wherein the control actions comprise: 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.
Huang, in the same field of endeavor discloses a system (see at least [0032]: “a mobile device, a cloud computing system, and an autonomous cleaning robot”: Rationale: Explicitly identifies the interconnected components forming the system) wherein the control actions (see at least [0003]: “control scheduling cleaning missions”: Rationale: Directly describes actionable commands governing operation): comprise: locking/unlocking at least one portable device (see at least [0043]: “deactivated … may be activated by selecting a toggle 1006”: Rationale: Activating/deactivating a schedule functionally locks/unlocks the device’s ability to run that operation. “lock/unlock” is read as device-level immobilization, a PHOSITA would view schedule-level gating as an obvious software implementation of device lock/unlock for mission execution) preventing/allowing the start of a new operation cycle (see at least [0032] – [0033]: “If the selected cleaning schedule conflicts … an error message is presented …transmits … to initiate a cleaning mission”: Rationale: Conflict/error logic blocks mission start; valid transmission allows the cycle to begin) assigning a predefined number of process applications or operation cycles to the at least one portable device (see at least [0036] and [0038]: “once button … configure … as a one-time cleaning mission” and “array of day buttons … repeat on each of the corresponding days”: Rationale: “Once” assigns one cycle; selected days predefine multiple cycles) allowing said at least one portable device to operate for a certain number of times (see at least [0036] and [0038]: “one-time cleaning mission” and “repeat on each … day”: Rationale: Single instance = one operation; recurring days = multiple operations) or releasing at least one portable device (see at least [0043]: “may be activated by selecting a toggle 1006”: Rationale: Toggling from deactivated to activated releases the device from a blocked state) allowing said at least one portable device to operate in a released manner (see at least [0033]: “transmits … to initiate a cleaning mission … the robot executes the mission”: Rationale: After release/activation, the start command is sent, and the robot operates normally).
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, Chloe, and Huang, to implement, within Chloe’s server/app control of Klaptchuck’s portable sanitizer, Huang’s mission-scheduling controls—i.e., lock/unlock via schedule activation/deactivation, prevent/allow cycle starts via conflict/error checks and start transmissions, assign and enforce predefined cycle counts (one-time/recurring), and release the device to operate upon activation—yielding routine, predictable administrative control without changing the principle of operation.
Claim 13-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Klaptchuck, in view of Choe, and in view of Spencer et al. (A model for choosing an automated ultraviolet-C disinfection system and building a case for the C-suite: Two case reports), herein after will be referred to as Spencer.
Regarding Claim 13,
Klaptchuck discloses A method (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) of monitoring and controlling (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) 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) remotely (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), the method (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) arranging 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) in a cabin of 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), wherein each cabin comprises 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), and where the 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) comprises 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) 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); c) starting 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), which 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):
d) monitoring and controlling (see at least Pg. 13, ll. 1-2: "ozone and humidity monitoring, and subsequent adjustments would be controlled by a computer.": Rationale: This explicitly discloses monitoring key parameters and controlling process adjustments via a centralized system) the operation sequence (see at least Pg. 11, ll. 22 - Pg. 12, ll. 1: "When the sanitation period is finished, the ozone generator is stopped, and the gate is moved...": Rationale: This defines sequential operational phases: timed sanitation, cessation, and reconfiguration for ozone destruction) of the at least one portable sanitization device see at least Pg. 6: "portable unit that is placed into the cabin.": Rationale: Directly describes the apparatus as portable and deployable within the vehicle cabin) through at least one control unit (see at least Pg. 13, ll. 1-2: "ozone and humidity monitoring, and subsequent adjustments would be controlled by a computer.": Rationale: Equates "computer" to a control unit, explicitly governing monitoring and adjustments); and
h) executing control actions on the operation (see at least Pg. 13, ll. 19-20: “"Monitoring the ozone concentration during the period allows the sanitation period to be extended": Rationale: This phrase describes a specific control action—extending the device's operating time—that the system can actively execute. The control action of extending the sanitation period directly modifies a fundamental parameter of the device's overall operation) of the at least one portable sanitization device (see at least Pg. 11, ll. 1-2: "integrated into a portable ozone sanitizing apparatus 104": Rationale: This explicitly identifies the device being controlled as a portable apparatus designed for ozone-based sanitization.) based on said comparison (see at least Pg. 13, ll. 20-21: "if for some reason the concentration falls below the minimum concentration desired": Rationale: This clause shows the control action is triggered by a comparison between the monitored "concentration" and a predefined "minimum.") and through the at least one control unit (see at least Pg. 13, ll. 1-2: "ozone and humidity monitoring, and subsequent adjustments would be controlled by a computer": Rationale: The document explicitly states that a "computer" performs the monitoring and control adjustments, functioning as the control unit).
However, Klaptchuck does not explicitly disclose 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.
Choe discloses b) energizing the at least one portable device, using at least one energy source (see at least [0048]: "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, and if the power remaining amount is insufficient, then the charge current is supplied from the charging station to be charged.": Rationale: Choe explicitly discloses energizing its portable device, the robot cleaner, via a power unit with a rechargeable battery. A PHOSITA would be motivated to incorporate this known method of powering a portable device into the Klaptchuk system to address energizing a portable sanitization unit for the purpose of disinfection); obtaining location data from the portable 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 device (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 within the cleaning area. Here, for the location recognition unit 170, at least one of an acceleration sensor for detecting the speed and location, an encoder connected to a wheel motor, and a gyro sensor for detecting the rotation speed of the robot cleaner may be used.": Rationale: Choe’s robot cleaner includes a dedicated location recognition unit (170) with integrated sensors (e.g., accelerometer, gyro, encoder) that collect location data. The control unit (130) uses this data to track the device’s position, generate cleaning maps, and navigate the environment, fulfilling all elements of the query. A PHOSITA would be motivated to integrate Choe's location system to track the position of the portable sanitization device, ensuring optimal placement and operation within the cabin for effective and verifiable disinfection coverage);
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 Klaptchuk and Choe before them, to equip Klaptchuk’s remotely monitored ozone‑sanitization unit with the rechargeable power supply and on‑board localization sensors of Choe’s cleaning robot. Klaptchuk already controls ozone and humidity levels and extends the sanitation period if the ozone falls below a minimum threshold, with all adjustments handled by a computer. Adding Choe’s energizing and position‑tracking features would merely allow the device to run untethered, verify its placement and log its coverage—straightforward refinements to Klaptchuk’s existing control scheme that yield predictable benefits.
However, Klaptchuk and Choe do not disclose 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;
Spencer, in the same field of endeavor, discloses f) communicating the operating sequence and location data (see at least p.289: “…capture utilization data, including treatment time, location usage, and operator statistics.”: Rationale: Treatment time enumerates the operating sequence, and location usage provides location data, constituting the operational dataset captured for oversight and reporting), which are called a set of monitored operating data (see at least p. 289: “For the system with the remote wireless UV-C measurement sensors, the software also tracks delivered dose and utilization data in real time.”: Rationale: Delivered dose and utilization tracked in real time directly constitute monitored operating data collected during each device cycle for analysis), to at least one server (see at least p. 290: “…a schedule for regular software report reviews… monitor for quality control and compliance issues…”: Rationale: Centralized software reports imply data uploaded off-device to a server endpoint where logs persist and are centrally reviewed by supervisors) through at least one communication unit (see at least p. 289: “…the software also tracks delivered dose and utilization data in real time.”: Rationale: Real-time tracking from the portable device to software necessarily requires an onboard communication unit transmitting measured data to the server) arranged in data communication with the at least one portable sanitization device (see at least p. 289: “…the software also tracks delivered dose and utilization data in real time.”: Rationale: Real-time software tracking evidences continuous data communication between device subsystems and supervisory software during active disinfection cycles with measured parameters), wherein the at least one server (see at least p. 289: “The device’s robust software with a metrics-driven tracking system… key pieces of data could be correlated, such as actual dose… treatment times… operator variability… device utilization…”: Rationale: Server software correlates dose, treatment times, operator variability, and utilization, demonstrating substantial centralized computation beyond simple local logging and storage) is remotely arranged (see at least p. 291: “…regular software report reviews… monitor for quality control and compliance issues…”: Rationale: Central software report reviews occur separately from devices, indicating the server is remotely arranged physically relative to portable sanitization units) on a wireless communications network (see at least p. 289: “…remote wireless sensors placed in different targeted areas of the room…”: Rationale: Reference to remote wireless UV-C sensors establishes a wireless communications network enabling reliable connectivity among sensors, device, and tracking software) and in data communication (see at least p. 289: “…tracks delivered dose and utilization data in real time.”: Rationale: Real-time tracking necessarily entails active data communication linking measurement components and centralized software, continuously updating monitored operational records systemwide, centrally) with the at least one communication unit (see at least p. 289: “…tracks delivered dose and utilization data in real time.”: Rationale: Receiving real-time dose and utilization data implies the server communicates with the device’s communication unit to receive transmitted telemetry continuously); g) comparing the set of monitored operation data (see at least p. 290: “…noted an operator trend of significantly shorter UV-C cycles compared with the average.”: Rationale: Phrase “compared with the average” expressly and clearly describes comparing monitored cycle lengths against baseline averages within server-generated compliance analyses) with a set of predefined operation data (see at least p. 290): “…when the first 2 remote sensors have reached their predetermined dose…”: Rationale: “Predetermined dose” provides predefined, fixed operational targets; monitored doses are contrasted with these values to determine threshold compliance during cycles) using the at least one server (see at least p. 291: “…regular software report reviews… monitor for quality control and compliance issues…”: Rationale: Software report reviews and compliance monitoring constitute server-executed comparisons applying stored rules to uploaded datasets for ongoing control and optimization).
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 Klaptchuk, Choe and Spencer before them, to build on Klaptchuk’s remote‑controlled ozone‑sanitization system by incorporating Choe’s rechargeable power source and position‑sensing components to energize the portable unit and track its location within multiple cabins, and by employing Spencer’s wireless communication and analytics framework to transmit the device’s operating sequence and location data to a remote server and compare that data against stored sanitization profiles. Together, these well‑known elements would predictably deliver a self‑powered, position‑aware sanitizing device that can report its status over a wireless network and be monitored and adjusted from a remote server, thereby meeting all aspects of without requiring any inventive leap.
Regarding Claim 14,
Klaptchuk, Choe and Spencer disclose all the limitations of claim 13.
Klaptchuk 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 Klaptchuk, Choe, and Spencer before them, to integrate the communication and control functions within Klaptchuk's portable sanitization device, as taught by Choe, for the predictable benefits of compact design and efficient, self-contained operation.
Regarding Claim 15,
Klaptchuk, Choe, and Spencer disclose all the limitations of claim 13.
Klaptchuk does not explicitly disclose 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; and complementing the set of monitored operation data with a unique identifier of each cabin by means of the at least one server or the at least one control unit.
Choe discloses wherein it further comprises assigning a unique identifier (see at least [0047]: "information capable of identifying the external device such as phone number, user ID, password, address": Rationale: Storing unique IDs demonstrates the system's capability for identifier assignment) to the set of monitored operation data (see at least [0045]: "the cleaning map": Rationale: The cleaning map is the core operational dataset generated by the device) of the at least one portable sanitization device (see at least: [0005]: "a robot cleaner": Rationale: The robot cleaner is the portable device that generates the operational data) through the at least one server or the at least one storage unit (see at least [0045]: "storage unit 180 for storing": Rationale: The storage unit is the component that retains the operational data) and in that it also comprises registering said set of monitored operation data (see at least [0045]: "storage unit 180 for storing... the cleaning map": Rationale: Storing the data in the storage unit is the act of registering it) and the assigned unique identifier (see at least [0047]: "storage unit 180 stores authentication information for the external device, for example... user ID": Rationale: The system stores unique identifiers, a practice extendable to data sets. a PHOSITA, having combined Klaptchuk and Choe to create a portable, data-collecting sanitization device, would then face the routine task of managing the collected data. It would have been an act of ordinary skill and common sense to apply the well-known, conventional practice of assigning a unique identifier (such as a timestamp, session ID, or device serial number) to each data record to ensure traceability and prevent data commingling) in at least one database (see at least [0045]: "storage unit 180": Rationale: A storage unit that categorizes data functions as a database) through the at least one server (see at least [0020]: "communication server 120 transmits the monitoring image and the cleaning map": Rationale: The server handles the data transmission to and from storage); and complementing the set of monitored operation data (see at least [0044]: "modifies or complements the prepared cleaning map": Rationale: The system explicitly complements its primary operational dataset) with a unique identifier (see at least [0047]: "user ID": Rationale: A user ID is an explicit example of a unique identifier. a PHOSITA, having combined Klaptchuk and Choe to create a portable, data-collecting sanitization device, would then face the routine task of managing the collected data. It would have been an act of ordinary skill and common sense to apply the well-known, conventional practice of assigning a unique identifier (such as a timestamp, session ID, or device serial number) to each data record to ensure traceability and prevent data commingling) of each cabin (Klaptchuck's invention is explicitly directed at sanitizing cabins) by means of the at least one server or the at least one control unit (see at least [0047]: “and a cleaning map prepared through the control unit 130”: Rationale: The control unit manages all operations and data processing).
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 Klaptchuk, Choe, and Spencer before them, to adapt the data management and identifier system from Choe's robot cleaner for use with Klaptchuk's portable sanitization device to create an auditable record of cabin-specific sanitization operations.
Claim 17 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Klaptchuck, in view of Choe, in view of Wurman, in view of Boast, and in view of Spencer.
Regarding Claim 17,
Klaptchuk, Choe, and Spencer disclose all the limitations of claim 13.
Klaptchuck further discloses a method (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) comprises issuing an alarm (see at least Page 14, Lines 1-3: The apparatus may have a local or remote visual or sound indication of operation so that personnel will be warned: Rationale: Klaptchuck discloses the apparatus has a "warning light or sound emitter" and is configured to "signal... using an LED, a noise... or the like", which is an alarm when the ozone concentration is safe or unsafe. Klaptchuk discloses warning indicators, but not explicit alarms based on operational data deviation).
However, Klaptchuck, Cloe, and Spencer do not explicitly disclose wherein it also comprises coordinating the operation of at least two portable sanitization devices in a synchronized manner, either in the same cabin or in two different cabins of the plurality of cabins by means of the at least one server; 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 through the at least one server.
Boast discloses when at least one monitored operation data (see at least [0034] and [0037]: "sensors, particularly an ozone sensor 60 for determining the concentration of ozone" ([0037]); "The ozone concentration is preferably measured (step 510)" ([0034]): Rationale: The ozone sensor generates the monitored operation data (ozone concentration). A PHOSITA would apply Boast’s alarm-on-threshold logic to Choe’s cleaning-map deviations, ensuring alarms trigger upon operational discrepancies) of the set of monitored operation data (see at least [0016]: "a predetermined ozone concentration…predetermined zone concentration…predetermined relative humidity level…predetermined humidity level…predetermined safe level…": Rationale: These multiple "predetermined" values form a "set of predefined operation data.". Choe supplies the monitored operation data and predefined goals (cleaned vs. uncleaned areas). Boast supplies the alarm mechanism and the logic of triggering alarms based on monitored vs. predefined values. differs from at least one respective predefined operation data (see at least [0019]: "when the ozone concentration is reduced to a predetermined safe level, signalling": Rationale: This describes the condition where monitored data (current ozone level) differs from a predefined value (safe level), triggering an action) from the set of predefined operation data (see at least [0016]: "a predetermined ozone concentration…predetermined zone concentration…predetermined relative humidity level…predetermined humidity level…predetermined safe level…": Rationale: These multiple "predetermined" values form a "set of predefined operation data.") through the at least one server (see at least [0034] and [0043]: "the disinfection apparatus signals the closed environment is safe to enter... a wireless transmission to a PDA, or the like" ([0034]); "transmit a signal using transmitter 80 to a device (a mobile phone, PDA or the like)" ([0043]): Rationale: The act of "signaling" or "transmitting a signal" to a remote device (PDA, mobile phone) is a function performed by the control system/server of the apparatus, not just a local emitter. a PHOSITA would equate Boast’s control system (processor/transmitter issuing wireless alerts) to the server in Choe/Klaptchuk).
A PHOSITA, having Klaptchuk, Choe, Spencer, and Boast before them, would have found it obvious to modify Klaptchuk’s cabin sanitization system by applying Choe’s operational data comparison (cleaning map vs. predefined goal) together with Boast’s explicit alarm mechanisms (warning light, sound, wireless signals) triggered when monitored data deviates from predefined thresholds. This predictable integration yields a cabin sanitization system that automatically alerts users when sanitization results differ from expected goals, enhancing safety, reliability, and traceability.
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, Chloe, Spencer, and Boast 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, and Boast’s Planning and control of autonomous mobile robots for intralogistics, to (i) 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, and (ii) automatically alerts users when sanitization results differ from expected goals.
However, Klaptchuck, Chloe, Spencer, and Boast do not explicitly disclose wherein it also comprises coordinating the operation of at least two portable sanitization devices in a synchronized manner, either in the same cabin or in two different cabins of the plurality of cabins by means of the at least one server.
Wurman, in the same field of endeavor, discloses wherein it also comprises coordinating the operation of at least two portable sanitization devices (see at least Page 407: Collaborative operation: working together with humans or other AMRs in a swarm: Rationale: Klaptchuk provides the portable sanitization unit; Wurman expands to multiple collaborating devices, AMRs meets the at least two limitation requirement) in a synchronized manner (see at least Fig. 6: Semi-open queuing network model with AMRs: Rationale: Wurman explicitly teaches coordinated and synchronized multi-robot operations), either in the same cabin or in two different cabins of the plurality of cabins (see at least Page 408 and Page 410: "Work zones must be determined for collaborative AMRs" and "defining zones in which AMRs can operate autonomously": Rationale: Wurman’s zoning (same zone or different zones) maps directly to deployment in the same cabin or different cabins, while Klaptchuk provides the cabin environment) by means of the at least one server (see at least Page 410, Sec. 4. Methods for planning and controlling AMRs: Centralized control structures... can access global information to achieve optimal single-objective performance... Decentralized control... find local optimal solutions: Rationale: Wurman directly discusses centralized vs decentralized coordination for multiple robots, teaching system-level coordination of operations).
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, Chloe, Spencer, Boast, and Wurman before them, to implement a server-coordinated system for synchronized multi-device sanitization across one or more cabins, triggered by automated alerts upon detecting deviations from predefined operational goals. This final combination would predictably yield a system capable of coordinating multiple devices to perform synchronized sanitization tasks, thereby increasing efficiency and throughput. This represents a logical integration of known robotic coordination techniques to solve a scalability problem, not an inventive step.
Claims 19-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Klaptchuck, in view of Choe, in view of Boast, and in view of Spencer.
Regarding Claim 19,
Klaptchuk, Choe, and Spencer disclose all the limitations of claim 13.
Klaptchuck further discloses a Method (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) werein the 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).
However, Klaptchuk, Choe, and Spencer do not explicitly disclose that the operating sequence is determined based on the volume of the interior space to be sanitized, 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.
Boast discloses the operating sequence (see at least Fig. 6, [0027]: …a preferred method according to the invention may include the following steps: Rationale: The entire disclosed process (Fig. 6, [0027]) is a defined "operating sequence" comprising the steps of: elevating ozone, rapidly raising humidity, depleting ozone, and signalling. This sequence is controlled by the apparatus's timer and control system) is determined based on the volume of the interior space to be sanitized, 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 (see at least [0030]: "the user will have to adjust the ozone generator so that it will produce the appropriate amount of ozone within the appropriate time based on... the size... of the closed environment. 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).": Rationale: This explicitly teaches that key operational parameters (which define the "operating sequence") are determined based on the volume/size of the space. The "menu of options such as "Suite", "Single" or "Double" represents a set of predefined room size/volume categories from which the user selects. Selecting a room type from a menu is the act of inputting a predefined volume for the system to use in its calculations).
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 Klaptchuk, Choe, Spencer , and Boast before them, to modify the sanitization system of Klaptchuk, Choe, Spencer to determine its operating sequence based on the volume of the interior space. The motivation is improving efficacy, a principle Boast teaches by adjusting parameters to room size via predefined inputs or automated sensors. This yields a predictably more effective system.
Regarding Claim 20,
Klaptchuk, Choe, and Spencer disclose all the limitations of claim 13.
However, Klaptchuk, Choe, and Spencer do not explicitly disclose wherein it further comprises deploying part or all the monitored operation data of the portable sanitization device in a display unit 8comprised in the at least one portable sanitization device by means of the at least one control unit; and wherein the monitored operation data further comprises a number of operation cycles of the portable sanitization device, wherein each operation cycle comprises the operation sequence.
Boast discloses wherein it further comprises deploying part or all the monitored operation data of the portable sanitization device in a display unit (see at least [0038]: "displays of information, such as ozone levels, temperature and relative humidity": Rationale: Displaying this data is "deploying" monitored operation data to the display unit) comprised in the at least one portable sanitization device by means of the at least one control unit (see at least [0038]: Control panel 90 includes various means for controlling disinfection apparatus: Rationale: Boast explicitly discloses a control unit); and wherein the monitored operation data further comprises a number of operation cycles of the portable sanitization device (see at least Fig. 4, [0045]: The disinfection apparatus also preferably has the following components (as seen in Figure 4): Rationale: Recording the duration and timing of previous processes inherently tracks and stores the number of operation cycles completed), wherein each operation cycle comprises the operation sequence (see at least Figure 4, [0045]: The detailed, sequential process shown in Figure 4 and described in [0045] defines a single "operation sequence" for disinfection. Each use of the apparatus to perform this sequence is one "operation cycle.". The memory that records previous process timing ([0045]) is therefore recording the number of times this sequence has been run).
Boast discloses wherein the at least one portable sanitization device comprises a display unit (see at least [0038]: "control panel 90... includes displays of information, such as ozone levels, temperature and relative humidity": Rationale: A control panel with displays is a display unit), wherein the at least one control unit (see at least [0038]: Control panel 90 includes various means for controlling disinfection apparatus: Rationale: Boast explicitly discloses a control unit) is configured to deploy part or all the monitored operation data of the portable sanitization device in said display unit (see at least [0038]: "displays of information, such as ozone levels, temperature and relative humidity": Rationale: Displaying this data is "deploying" monitored operation data to the display unit); and wherein the monitored operation data further comprises a number of operation cycles of the portable sanitization device (see at least Fig. 4, [0045]: The disinfection apparatus also preferably has the following components (as seen in Figure 4): Rationale: Recording the duration and timing of previous processes inherently tracks and stores the number of operation cycles completed), wherein each operation cycle comprises the operation sequence (see at least Figure 4, [0045]: The detailed, sequential process shown in Figure 4 and described in [0045] defines a single "operation sequence" for disinfection. Each use of the apparatus to perform this sequence is one "operation cycle.". The memory that records previous process timing ([0045]) is therefore recording the number of times this sequence has been run).
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 Klaptchuk, Choe, Spencer, and Boast before them, to modify the sanitization system of Klaptchuk, Choe, and Spencer to provide operational feedback and maintenance tracking by adding Boast's display and logging features to Klaptchuk, Choe, and Spencer's sanitization system. A PHOSITA would have been motivated to add Boast’s display and tracking features to improve user awareness of operational status and facilitate maintenance, a well-known improvement in automated sanitization systems.
Claims 22 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Klaptchuck, in view of Choe, in view of Boast, in view of Line, in view of Offutt, in view of Levinson, and in view of Spencer.
Regarding Claim 22,
Klaptchuk, Choe, Spencer, and Boast disclose all the limitations of claim 20.
Klaptchuk further discloses a method (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), wherein: each cabin (see at least Pg. 5, ll. 3-5: “Aircraft passenger cabins are typically sealed… include an air circulation system.”: Rationale: Identifies aircraft passenger cabins as discrete interior spaces with circulation, supporting “each cabin” as the unit of treatment consideration here) corresponds to the cabin of a vehicle (see at least Pg. 11, ll. 1“…integrated into a portable ozone sanitizing apparatus 104… placed into the vehicle cabin.” :Rationale: Explicitly places the portable sanitizing apparatus within a vehicle cabin, directly satisfying correspondence to a vehicle’s cabin environment as claimed); wherein the at least one portable sanitization device (see at least Pg. 11, ll. 1-2: “…portable ozone sanitizing apparatus 104…”: Rationale: Calls the apparatus portable, directly satisfying the requirement that the sanitization device be portable for deployment across multiple cabins easily) comprises at least one unit for moving air (see at least Pg. 11, ll. 3: “…comprises… blower 108…”: Rationale: Discloses blower component within the apparatus, satisfying the inclusion of at least one air-moving unit necessary for forced circulation of air), wherein the at least one unit for moving air is configured to circulate air from inside the cabin (see at least Pg. 5, ll. 7-8: “…draw air from the cabin… direct the air back into the cabin.”: Rationale: Describes drawing air and directing it back, demonstrating configuration to actively circulate air through the cabin during operation as claimed. Specifies air is drawn from within the cabin, establishing interior origin of the recirculated airstream required by the claim language), wherein, within each cabin the at least one portable sanitization device is configured to connect to the vehicle’s energy source (see at least Abstract: “Air sanitizing apparatus for a vehicle… disposed in an interior of a vehicle…”: Rationale: Vehicle-mounted sanitization modules ordinarily draw vehicle power; connecting to vehicle energy source is a simple, predictable engineering substitution for power), recirculating air into the cabin (see at least Pg. 5, ll. 8: “…direct the air back into the cabin…”: Rationale: Air is returned into the cabin volume, evidencing a recirculation loop essential to in-situ treatment effectiveness during active sanitization cycles).
Boast discloses and circulate air from outside the portable sanitization device (see at least [0039]: “Ozone exhaust vent 106 allows the ozone generated to exit disinfection apparatus 1 into the closed environment.”: Rationale: Device includes an exhaust path venting treated air into the environment, demonstrating air exits the device housing back into cabin);and initiate an operation cycle (see at least [0029]: “…will then preferably turn on the ozone generator…”: Rationale: Turning on the ozone generator initiates a defined process sequence, corresponding to starting an operation cycle under system control conditions).
However, Klaptchuk, Choe, Spencer, and Boast do not explicitly disclose 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; circulate air from inside the cabin through the at least one reaction chamber and outside the portable sanitization device;
Line discloses the at least one energy source corresponds to an energy source integrated in each vehicle (see at least Abstract: “Air sanitizing apparatus for a vehicle… disposed in an interior of a vehicle…”: Rationale: Vehicle-installed apparatus implies connection to vehicle power bus; PHOSITA would use integrated energy source for reliability, availability, and simplified wiring); circulate air from inside the cabin through the at least one reaction chamber (see at least [0058]: “Exhaust fan 64… causes air to flow through the inside of the air flow tube 62… UV sources… irradiate the air flowing inside…”: Rationale: Line’s airflow tube with internal irradiation constitutes a reaction chamber; exhaust fan drives air through it, satisfying “through… reaction chamber.”); recirculating air into the cabin through the at least one reaction chamber (see at least [0058]: “Air flow tube… exhaust fan 64… causes air to flow through the inside of the air flow tube…”: Rationale: Exhaust fan propels airflow through the tube chamber, ensuring the moving airstream traverses the sanitizing reaction zone as required here); and wherein the at least one reaction chamber (see at least [0004]: “…air flow tube having an inside through which air can flow…”: Rationale: Defines the chamber as an internal airflow tube, establishing a discrete region where air is processed during passage through it) is configured to ionize the air that circulates through it (see at least [0056]: “When activated, the negative ion generator(s) 42 negatively ionize molecules… in the air of the interior 12…”: Rationale: Negative ion generator explicitly ionizes cabin air within the system, satisfying ionization functionality occurring as airflow passes treatment components internally), expelling ionized air into the interior space of the vehicle’s cabin (see at least [0056]: “…negatively ionize molecules… in the air of the interior 12 of the vehicle 10.”: Rationale: Ionization occurs to interior cabin air; treated air necessarily resides and is expelled within the same interior cabin space thereafter).
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 Klaptchuk, Choe, Spencer, Boast, and Line before them, to modify the portable cabin-sanitizing systems of Klaptchuck/Chloe/Spencer/Boast by incorporating Line’s vehicle-bus power connection and airflow-tube reaction chamber that ionizes and recirculates cabin air. Doing so—and further implementing controller-initiated operation/rest cycles sized to a small, sealed ~2 m³ vehicle cabin—reflects routine optimization of a result-effective variable (sanitization efficacy vs. safe ozone dissipation), where selecting 15–20 min operation and 1–3 min rest (e.g., 18/2 min) is a predictable design choice using known elements according to their established functions, yielding no unexpected results (see KSR).
However, Klaptchuk, Choe, Spencer, Boast, and Line do not explicitly disclose 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.
Offutt discloses and each operation cycle (see at least [0041]: “Each cycle may last a predetermined amount of time.”: Rationale: Expressly teaches discrete cycles, providing the cyclical operational framework required by the claim for scheduling, control, and monitoring of processes) includes an operating time of between 15 to 20 minutes (see at least [0041]: “…each cycle may last… 15 minutes, 20 minutes…”: Rationale: Enumerates fifteen and twenty-minute cycle durations, squarely covering claimed operating-time range without extrapolation, supporting predictable, repeatable sterilization intervals per disclosure) and a rest time of between 1 to 3 minutes (see at least [0041]: “Each cycle may be spaced… by a waiting period… 1 minute, 2 minutes, 3 minutes…”: Rationale: Explicitly discloses one, two, and three-minute waiting periods between cycles, directly matching the claimed rest-time range without inference or ambiguity), preferably, the operation time is 18 minutes (Rationale: Within Offutt’s taught 15–20-minute range, selecting eighteen minutes is a routine optimization of result-effective variables under KSR and Aller case law) and the rest time is 2 minutes (see at least [0041]: “…waiting period… 2 minutes…”: Rationale: Two-minute waiting period is expressly listed, satisfying preferred rest-time selection with exact textual support and predictable operating cadence between cycles)
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 Klaptchuk, Choe, Spencer, Boast, Line and Offutt before them, to modify the portable cabin-sanitizing systems of Klaptchuck/Chloe/Spencer/Boast by incorporating Line’s vehicle-bus power connection and airflow-tube reaction chamber and adopting Offutt’s programmable operation/rest cycles sized to a ~2 m³ vehicle cabin (e.g., 15–20 min on, 1–3 min rest; 18/2 as a routine optimum). A PHOSITA would do so for integration simplicity, reliability, and the known efficacy/safety of recirculated, chamber-treated air, which is routine optimization of result-effective variables yielding predictable results with no change in principle of operation (see KSR; In re Aller).
However, Klaptchuk, Choe, Spencer, Boast, Line and Offutt do not explicitly disclose cabins of an average size of 2 m³.
Levinson discloses cabins of an average size of 2 m³ (see at least Table 1: cabin volume (m³) = 2.57): Rationale: A PHOSITA would be aware that vehicle cabins come in a range of sizes. Levinson teaches that a common compact sedan has a volume of 2.57 m³. Knowing this, it would be obvious to a PHOSITA that smaller vehicles (e.g., sub-compacts) would have volumes less than 2.57 m³, and that an "average" cabin size for sanitization purposes could reasonably be defined as 2 m³. Selecting 2 m³ is not an inventive leap but a routine design choice based on publicly known, predictable variables in the automotive field).
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 Klaptchuk, Choe, Spencer, Boast, Line Offutt, and Levinson before them, to integrate Line’s vehicle-bus power and reaction-chamber recirculation into the portable cabin sanitizers of Klaptchuck/Chloe/Spencer/Boast, and adopt Offutt’s controller-programmable operation/rest cycles while sizing those cycles using Levinson’s representative ~2 m³ cabin volumes. A PHOSITA would do so for integration simplicity, safety/ozone-dissipation compliance, and predictable efficacy—i.e., routine optimization of result-effective variables (cycle time, rest time, treated volume) within disclosed ranges (15–20 min on, 1–3 min rest; 18/2 as an obvious point estimate; ~2 m³ as typical), a combination of familiar elements producing no change in principle of operation and no unexpected results (KSR; In re Aller; In re Peterson).
Claim 23 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Klaptchuck, in view of Choe, in view of Boast, in view of Line, in view of Offutt, in view of Levinson, in view of Eisenhour, and in view of Spencer.
Regarding Claim 23,
Klaptchuk, Choe, Spencer, Boast, Line Offutt, and Levinson disclose all the limitations of claim 22.
However, Klaptchuk, Choe, Spencer, Boast, Line Offutt, and Levinson do not explicitly disclose wherein each vehicle comprises an air recirculation system configured to be activated, preferably at maximum power and minimum temperature, before or during each operation cycle, where the activation is manual by means of an operator user or remotely through a signal sent to a controller of each vehicle.
Eisenshour discloses wherein it further comprises activating (see at least [0007]: "The control device is configured to selectively activate the recirculation door actuator": Rationale: The system is configured for activation of the recirculation function by the control device), preferably at maximum power (see at least [0032]: "the blower speed of the blower 50 is operating at a high speed": Rationale: Activation occurs at high blower speed, which constitutes maximum power for the air moving system) and minimum temperature (see at least [0020]: "the thermal switch 30 opens when the temperature of the evaporator 22 is below a prescribed temperature T1 (e.g., about 0° C.)": Rationale: Activation is triggered at a prescribed minimum (cold) temperature condition) before or during each operating cycle (See at least [0023]: "once per ignition cycle": Rationale: The activation event is defined to occur once per operational (ignition) cycle), an air recirculation system included in each vehicle(see at least [0018]: "a vehicle 12 equipped with a climate control system": Rationale: The vehicle is explicitly stated to be equipped with the climate control (air recirculation) system), wherein the activation is manual by an operator user (see at least [0023]: "once the passenger operates one of the controls": Rationale: The operator (passenger) is the means of manual activation via the controls), or remote through a signal (see at least [0023]: "control signals are received by a controller 60": Rationale: The controller receives signals, which can be from remote sources, to activate the system) sent to a controller of each vehicle (see at least [0023]: "a controller 60 to determine if the prescribed conditions are met": Rationale: A controller in the vehicle receives inputs to determine system activation).
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 Klaptchuk, Choe, Spencer, Boast, Line Offutt, Levinson and Eisenhour before them, to configure the vehicle’s existing HVAC recirculation system (as taught by Eisenhour) to be actuated before/during each sanitization cycle—manually via operator controls or remotely by a signal to the vehicle controller—and to run it at maximum fan power and minimum temperature to maximize in-cabin air turnover, reduce humidity, and avoid outside-air dilution. In view of Line’s controller-managed, sealed-cabin sanitization and Offutt’s cyclical operation, a PHOSITA would have been motivated to synchronize HVAC activation with each cycle for predictable improvements in distribution/efficacy, selecting max power/min temperature as routine optimization of result-effective variables from a finite set of predictable options, with a reasonable expectation of success and no change in principle of operation (KSR; In re Aller; In re Peterson).
Claim 24 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Klaptchuck, in view of Choe, in view of Spencer, and in view of Huang.
Regarding Claim 24,
Klaptchuk, Choe and Spencer disclose all the limitations of claim 13.
However, Klaptchuk, Choe and Spencer do not explicitly disclose wherein the control actions comprise: 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.
Huang, in the same field of endeavor discloses a system (see at least [0032]: “a mobile device, a cloud computing system, and an autonomous cleaning robot”: Rationale: Explicitly identifies the interconnected components forming the system) wherein the control actions (see at least [0003]: “control scheduling cleaning missions”: Rationale: Directly describes actionable commands governing operation): comprise: locking/unlocking at least one portable device (see at least [0043]: “deactivated … may be activated by selecting a toggle 1006”: Rationale: Activating/deactivating a schedule functionally locks/unlocks the device’s ability to run that operation. “lock/unlock” is read as device-level immobilization, a PHOSITA would view schedule-level gating as an obvious software implementation of device lock/unlock for mission execution) preventing/allowing the start of a new operation cycle (see at least [0032] – [0033]: “If the selected cleaning schedule conflicts … an error message is presented …transmits … to initiate a cleaning mission”: Rationale: Conflict/error logic blocks mission start; valid transmission allows the cycle to begin) assigning a predefined number of process applications or operation cycles to the at least one portable device (see at least [0036] and [0038]: “once button … configure … as a one-time cleaning mission” and “array of day buttons … repeat on each of the corresponding days”: Rationale: “Once” assigns one cycle; selected days predefine multiple cycles) allowing said at least one portable device to operate for a certain number of times (see at least [0036] and [0038]: “one-time cleaning mission” and “repeat on each … day”: Rationale: Single instance = one operation; recurring days = multiple operations) or releasing at least one portable device (see at least [0043]: “may be activated by selecting a toggle 1006”: Rationale: Toggling from deactivated to activated releases the device from a blocked state) allowing said at least one portable device to operate in a released manner (see at least [0033]: “transmits … to initiate a cleaning mission … the robot executes the mission”: Rationale: After release/activation, the start command is sent, and the robot operates normally).
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 Klaptchuk, Choe, Spencer , and Huang, to implement, within Chloe’s server/app control of Klaptchuck’s portable sanitizer, Huang’s mission-scheduling controls—i.e., lock/unlock via schedule activation/deactivation, prevent/allow cycle starts via conflict/error checks and start transmissions, assign and enforce predefined cycle counts (one-time/recurring), and release the device to operate upon activation—yielding routine, predictable administrative control without changing the principle of operation.
Conclusion
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
/MAHMOUD S ISMAIL/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3662
Prosecution Insights