DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
1. The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Priority
2. Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Specification
3. Applicant is reminded of the proper language and format for an abstract of the disclosure.
The abstract should be in narrative form and generally limited to a single paragraph on a separate sheet within the range of 50 to 150 words in length. The abstract should describe the disclosure sufficiently to assist readers in deciding whether there is a need for consulting the full patent text for details.
The language should be clear and concise and should not repeat information given in the title. It should avoid using phrases which can be implied, such as, “The disclosure concerns,” “The disclosure defined by this invention,” “The disclosure describes,” etc. In addition, the form and legal phraseology often used in patent claims, such as “means” and “said,” should be avoided.
Extensive mechanical and design details of an apparatus should not be included in the abstract.
4. The abstract of the disclosure is objected to because the abstract exceeds 150 words in length, improperly contains reference numbers to extensive design details, and begins with the implied phrase “the invention provides”, which should be omitted. A corrected abstract of the disclosure is required and must be presented on a separate sheet, apart from any other text. See MPEP § 608.01(b).
5. The disclosure is objected to because of the following informalities:
Page 1 line 20: “cinema’s” should read --cinemas--.
Page 5 line 24: “a pixelated single LEDs” should likely read --pixelated single LEDs--, for clarity in number.
Page 7 lines 1-2: “wavelength of 100-2000” should read --wavelength range of 100-2000 nm--.
Page 7 lines 5-6: “Watt” should read --watts--.
Page 16 Table 1: all instances of “ultra-violet” should read --ultraviolet--.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Interpretation
6. Regarding all claims, the terms “open state”, “partially open state”, and “closed state” are analyzed under a broadest reasonable interpretation. As the Specification indicates that the closeable space can preferably be a room (page 4 lines 10-21), the open and partially open states may reasonably include when the room is open to occupants and the closed state may refer to when the room has no occupants within a line of sight of an occupancy sensor (consistent with page 9 lines 31-34), just as the room of a store might expect human traffic when open/partially open and experience no human traffic when in a closed state.
7. Regarding all claims, in the limitations “wherein the control system is configured to select the first operational mode during a first time period” (claim 1 line 13), “configured to select the second operational mode during a second time period” (claim 1 line 15), “configured to select the third operational mode during a third time period” (claim 8 line 4), the word “during” is interpreted as equivalent to “lasting”. This interpretation makes sense in reference to the Specification description of the time periods as durations for illumination with first/second/third light source lights, see page 10 lines 1-10 and 19-34. Accordingly, the selection of operational mode is understood to occur in response to a sensed condition, and after the selection the illumination will last for the according time period.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
8. 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.
9. Claims 13 and 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
10. Regarding claim 13, the limitation “selected from the group comprising a lid, a door, and a drawer” is indefinite because the linking word “comprising” is construed as open to unrecited alternatives, thus the grouping is an improper Markush grouping with unascertainable scope. See MPEP 2173.05(h)(I). The grouping should be closed to unrecited alternatives, e.g., rewritten as --selected from the group consisting of a lid, a door, and a drawer--.
11. Claim 14 is indefinite by virtue of its dependence on indefinite claim 13.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
12. 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.
13. Claims 1-4, 6-8, 10, 12, and 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ufkes (US 20200179544 A1) in view of Rantala (US 20180147417 A1) and Weeks (US 20190125904 A1).
14. Regarding claim 1, Ufkes discloses a system for disinfecting at least part of a closeable space (system for room disinfection using germicidal radiation comprising one or more disinfection fixtures, par 0008, FIG. 2), wherein the system comprises one or more light sources (UV-C emitters 106 and near-UV emitters 108, pars 0037-0038, FIG. 2), a sensor (ranging sensor 116 and occupant sensor 118 may be combined into a single sensor, pars 0039 and 0041) and a control system (controller 112, pars 0040-0042), wherein in a first operational mode one or more of the one or more light sources are configured to generate first light source light (in Disinfection Mode germicidal emitters 106 and 108 may be energized, par 0052) having one or more wavelengths selected from the range of 100-380 nm (UV-C emitters 106 are calibrated to emit short wave UV-C radiation at a wavelength of 265 nm, par 0048) in at least part of the closeable space (FIG. 2, emitters provide dual band radiation to a target zone of the room, pars 0007-0008),
and wherein in a second operational mode (Sustainment Mode…to maintain a desired of disinfection when the room is occupied, par 0053) one or more of the one or more light sources are configured to generate second light source light (near-UV emitters 108 may remain continuously on thereby providing continuous air and surface disinfection, par 0053) having a centroid wavelength selected from the range of 400-490 nm (405 nm emitters 108 are preferably near-UV LEDs, par 0037) in at least part of the closeable space (10), wherein the first light source light and the second light source light are provided in the closeable space (FIG. 2, UV-C emitters 106 and near-UV emitters 108 depicted provided in room), wherein the sensor is configured to detect a state or a change in state of the closeable space (ranging sensor 116, occupant sensor 118 may be comprised of one or more sensors capable of detecting the presence and location of objects, pars 0042-0043; occupant sensor verifies the target room is unoccupied, par 0051) and to provide a related sensor signal to the control system (transmits a message indicating target room is unoccupied to a processor associated with the disinfection fixture, par 0051),
wherein the control system is configured to select the first operational mode during a first time period when the closeable space is configured in a closed state (operations of the processor may further comprise selecting the first mode of operation in response to an occupant sensor input indicative of an interior room being unoccupied, par 0011) and configured to select the second operational mode during a second time period when the closeable space is configured in an open state (selecting the second mode of operations in response to an occupant sensor input indicative of an interior room being occupied, pars 0011 and 0063), wherein the system is configured to select the second operational mode while or after changing from the closed state to the open state (occupant sensor 118 may be operably engaged with controller 112 to disengage emitter 106 when an occupant is detected in a room, par 0042; occupant sensor 118 may be operably engaged with controller 112 to disengage emitter 106 when an occupant is detected in a room, pars 0011 and 0063).
Ufkes does not specifically teach that the second light source light has at least 80% of its spectral power in the wavelength range of 100-800 nm in the wavelength range of 400-490 nm, though the near-UV emitter peaks at a spectral wavelength of 405 nm (par 0055). Ufkes also does not teach specifically wherein the second time period is selected from the range of 0.05-10 seconds, only that after engaging the second light source the emission of the near-UV emitter(s) would be terminated in response to radiation dose being greater than or equal to threshold dosage value (par 0066).
Rantala teaches an analogous LED structure for disinfection (Abstract, pars 0095-0103) that emits light at a peak wavelength of 405 nm and having a full width half maximum emission of about 14 nm (par 0096), which would ensure that at least 80% of the spectral power is emitted in the wavelength range of 400-490 nm. Rantala teaches that this LED spectral emission is safe (par 0035) and provides effective disinfection (par 0061).
Weeks teaches an analogous LED architecture for disinfection (Abstract, pars 0021-0022) also having a peak wavelength of 405 nm (par 0022), wherein pulses of 405 nm light that last for a time period of a few seconds (par 0073, FIG. 6) are each sufficient to deactivate microorganisms (par 0074).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to use for the 405 nm LED emitter in the system of Ufkes the high-intensity narrow-spectrum 405 nm LED of Rantala, as doing so would predictably provide effective disinfection and ensure that at least 80% of the spectral power is emitted in the wavelength range of 400-490 nm. It would further have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to configure the controller of modified Ufkes to emit 405 nm light for a second time period within a range of 0.05 to 5 or 10 seconds, as Weeks teaches that a few seconds of this wavelength/intensity is suitable for deactivating microorganisms and the time duration of germicidal irradiation is not considered critical. "[W]here the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation." In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955), see MPEP 2144.05(II).
15. Regarding claim 2, Ufkes as modified by Rantala and Weeks teaches the system of claim 1, wherein the second time period i.e. the irradiation pulse time periods P1 and P2 can be a few seconds (Weeks pars 0073-0074) but without establishing a specific time range. As the duration of the second time period is not deemed critical so long as the wavelength/intensity are suitable for killing microorganisms, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation, see MPEP 2144.05(II).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to configure the controller of modified Ufkes to emit selected from the range of 0.1-5 seconds as generally taught by Weeks. Doing so would predictably provide the expected result of deactivating microorganisms, as Weeks demonstrates that 405 nm pulse durations of a few seconds are sufficient for such decontamination.
16. Regarding claim 3, Ufkes as modified by Rantala and Weeks teaches the system of claim 1, wherein the second light source light has a second light intensity (kill dose for 405 nm radiation from emitter 108, Ufkes par 0038). The combination does not teach wherein the control system is configured to gradually decrease the second light intensity over at least part of the second time period.
Weeks further teaches for an analogous violet light source that a dimmable driver circuit can control the dimming of light sources (pars 0045-0048) such as in a decreasing intensity pattern as depicted in FIG. 8. In the claim 1 configuration of modified Ufkes, 405 nm pulses are applied for a duration of a few seconds as suggested by Weeks, and one would be motivated to consider the various pulse shapes taught in the same reference and choose the FIG. 8 pattern, which features gradual decrease from an initial intensity peak to zero at the end of the pulse time period, from among presented equivalents.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to further configure the controller of modified Ufkes to gradually decrease the second light source radiation over at least part or a final part of the second time period as taught by Weeks. Doing so would predictably provide effective disinfection using the 405 nm pulses, as Weeks teaches that such a pulse pattern deactivates microorganisms on a surface in a shorter time period of illumination (par 0074).
17. Regarding claim 4, Ufkes as modified by Rantala and Weeks teaches the system of claim 1, wherein the system is configured to gradually decrease the second light intensity over a final part of the second time period (Weeks FIG. 8, 405 nm radiation intensity gradually decreases over final part of each pulse), wherein the final part is at least 1 second (time periods P1 and P2 can be a few seconds, Weeks pars 0073-0074).
18. Regarding claim 6, Ufkes as modified by Rantala and Weeks teaches the system of claim 1, wherein the sensor is configured to detect whether the closeable space is in the closed state or in the open state (occupant sensor capable of detecting presence and location of objections within sensor range i.e. determine presence of an occupant in the room, Ufkes pars 0015 and 0042), wherein the control system is configured to switch off the first light source light when the closeable space changes from the closed state to the open state (occupant sensor 118 may be operably engaged with controller 112 to disengage emitter 106 when an occupant is detected in a room, Ufkes par 0042).
19. Regarding claim 7, Ufkes as modified by Rantala and Weeks teaches the system of claim 1, wherein the first light source light has one or more wavelengths selected from the UV-B range and/or from the UV-C range (first plurality of emitters operable to emit UV-C radiation at a wavelength of about 265 nanometers, Ufkes Abstract and par 0055).
20. Regarding claim 8, Ufkes as modified by Rantala and Weeks teaches the system of claim 1, wherein in a third operational mode one or more of the one or more light sources are configured to generate third light source light (output level (brightness and intensity) of the visible light emitters 104 may be varied by pulse-width modulation or active current control in response to commands, Ufkes par 0053) having a correlated color temperature selected from the range of 1800-6000 K (Visible light emitter 104 should be of a spectrum and color temperature typically used for commercial interior lighting, for example 2650-kelvin, Ufkes par 0037), wherein the control system is configured to select the third operational mode during a third time period (mode the visible light emitters will operate via the remote interface, Ufkes par 0053) when the closeable space is configured in the open state (selected after the room has been disinfected to maintain a desired level of disinfection or when the room is occupied, Ufkes par 0053).
21. Regarding claim 10, Ufkes as modified by Rantala and Weeks teaches the system of claim 1, wherein the sensor is configured to detect whether the closeable space is in a partially open state (occupant sensor capable of detecting presence and location of objections within sensor range, Ufkes par 0042), wherein the system is configured to select the second operational mode while the system is in the partially open state (selecting the second mode of operations in response to an occupant sensor input indicative of an interior room being occupied, Ufkes par 0011).
22. Regarding claim 12, Ufkes as modified by Rantala and Weeks teaches the system of claim 1, wherein the sensor is selected from the group of a heat sensor, a motion sensor, a touch sensor, and a light sensor (occupant sensor may include one or more sensor types, including but not limited to infrared sensors (IR), tomographic motion detection sensors, camera-based sensors, Ufkes par 0061).
23. Regarding claim 15, Ufkes teaches a kit of parts (system for room disinfection comprising one or more disinfection fixtures, sensors, etc., par 0008), wherein the kit of parts comprises one or more light sources (UV-C emitters 106 and near-UV emitters 108, pars 0037-0038, FIG. 2), a control system (controller 112, pars 0040-0042), and a sensor (ranging sensor 116 and occupant sensor 118 may be combined into a single sensor, pars 0039 and 0041), wherein in a first operational mode one or more of the one or more light sources are configured to generate first light source light (in Disinfection Mode germicidal emitters 106 and 108 may be energized, par 0052) having one or more wavelengths selected from the range of 100-380 nm (UV-C emitters 106 are calibrated to emit short wave UV-C radiation at a wavelength of 265 nm, par 0048) in at least part of the closeable space (FIG. 2, emitters provide dual band radiation to a target zone of the room, pars 0007-0008),
and wherein in a second operational mode (Sustainment Mode…to maintain a desired of disinfection when the room is occupied, par 0053) one or more of the one or more light sources are configured to generate second light source light (near-UV emitters 108 may remain continuously on thereby providing continuous air and surface disinfection, par 0053) having a centroid wavelength selected from the range of 400-490 nm (405 nm emitters 108 are preferably near-UV LEDs, par 0037) in at least part of the closeable space (10), wherein the first light source light and the second light source light are provided in the closeable space (FIG. 2, UV-C emitters 106 and near-UV emitters 108 depicted provided in room), wherein the sensor is configured to detect a state or a change in state of the closeable space (ranging sensor 116, occupant sensor 118 may be comprised of one or more sensors capable of detecting the presence and location of objects, pars 0042-0043; occupant sensor verifies the target room is unoccupied, par 0051) and to provide a related sensor signal to the control system (transmits a message indicating target room is unoccupied to a processor associated with the disinfection fixture, par 0051),
wherein the control system is configured to select the first operational mode during a first time period when the closeable space is configured in a closed state (operations of the processor may further comprise selecting the first mode of operation in response to an occupant sensor input indicative of an interior room being unoccupied, par 0011) and configured to select the second operational mode during a second time period when the closeable space is configured in an open state (selecting the second mode of operations in response to an occupant sensor input indicative of an interior room being occupied, pars 0011 and 0063), wherein the system is configured to select the second operational mode while or after changing from the closed state to the open state (occupant sensor 118 may be operably engaged with controller 112 to disengage emitter 106 when an occupant is detected in a room, par 0042; occupant sensor 118 may be operably engaged with controller 112 to disengage emitter 106 when an occupant is detected in a room, pars 0011 and 0063). The limitation and optionally a manual is construed as not required by the claim.
Ufkes does not specifically teach that the second light source light has at least 80% of its spectral power in the wavelength range of 100-800 nm in the wavelength range of 400-490 nm, though the near-UV emitter peaks at a spectral wavelength of 405 nm (par 0055). Ufkes also does not teach specifically wherein the second time period is selected from the range of 0.05-10 seconds, only that after engaging the second light source the emission of the near-UV emitter(s) would be terminated in response to radiation dose being greater than or equal to threshold dosage value (par 0066).
Rantala teaches an analogous LED structure for disinfection (Abstract, pars 0095-0103) that emits light at a peak wavelength of 405 nm and having a full width half maximum emission of about 14 nm (par 0096), which would ensure that at least 80% of the spectral power is emitted in the wavelength range of 400-490 nm. Rantala teaches that this LED spectral emission is safe (par 0035) and provides effective disinfection (par 0061).
Weeks teaches an analogous LED structure for disinfection (Abstract, pars 0021-0022) also having a peak wavelength of 405 nm (par 0022), wherein pulses of 405 nm light that last for a time period of a few seconds (par 0073, FIG. 6) are each sufficient to deactivate microorganisms (par 0074).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to use for the 405 nm LED emitter in the system of Ufkes the high-intensity narrow-spectrum 405 nm LED of Rantala, as doing so would predictably provide effective disinfection and ensure that at least 80% of the spectral power is emitted in the wavelength range of 400-490 nm. It would further have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to configure the controller of modified Ufkes to emit 405 nm light for a second time period within a range of 0.05 to 5 or 10 seconds, as Weeks teaches that a few seconds of this wavelength/intensity is suitable for deactivating microorganisms and the time duration of germicidal irradiation is not considered critical. "[W]here the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation." In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955), see MPEP 2144.05(II).
24. Claim 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ufkes (US 20200179544 A1), Rantala (US 20180147417 A1), and Weeks (US 20190125904 A1) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Finison (US 20210153529 A1).
Regarding claim 5, Ufkes as modified by Rantala and Weeks teaches the system of claim 1, wherein the control system is configured to select the second operational mode if the system has been in the first operational mode for a predetermined consecutive period (Ufkes FIG. 13, Mode 2 entered consecutively once kill dose is reached in Mode 1; kill dose dependent on intensity and time, Ufkes pars 0003 and 0038). However, the combination does not state that this is the only time that the second operational mode is selected (FIG. 13 also shows Mode 2 activation if occupant is detected), nor does the combination teach that the predetermined consecutive period is at least 10 minutes.
Finison discloses an analogous closeable container for disinfection (Abstract, pars 0029-0032 and 0034-0035) wherein substantially 254 nm light is applied for a rapid antimicrobial effect in minutes or seconds (par 0035) then substantially 405 nm light may be used for safer but longer dwell times in hours (par 0035). Ufkes further teaches that the Sustainment Mode may be selected after the room has been disinfected to maintain a desired level of disinfection (Ufkes par 0053), similarly indicating that the lower intensity radiation at 405 nm is more suitable for safe maintenance of disinfection after the UV-C radiation of the first operational mode delivers a kill dose (Ufkes pars 0037-0038).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to configure the control system to select the in the system of modified Ufkes only after the first operational mode has achieved a kill dose in a period of minutes as taught by Finison. Doing so would predictably maintain sterility in a similar manner, and a period of at least 10 minutes can be reasonably chosen by routine optimization as a time period that would be expected to deliver an effective kill dose (first wavelength range of 254±5 nm may be used for more rapid kill in minutes or seconds, Finison par 0035; kill dose depends on intensity and distance, Ufkes par 0003). "[W]here the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation." In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955), see MPEP 2144.05(II).
25. Claim 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ufkes (US 20200179544 A1), Rantala (US 20180147417 A1), and Weeks (US 20190125904 A1) as applied to claim 8 above, and further in view of Rodriguez (US 20190247528 A1).
Regarding claim 9, Ufkes as modified by Rantala and Weeks teaches the system of claim 8, wherein the second time period and the third time period temporally overlap during a transitional time period (pulsing an emission from only the at least one second emitter and the at least one third emitter in a second mode of operation, Ufkes pars 0010 and 0014), and wherein the control system is configured to gradually decrease the second light source light during the transitional time period (Ufkes FIG. 8). The combination does not teach wherein the control system would be simultaneously configured to gradually increase the third light source light during the same period, only that the brightness and intensity of the visible light emitters may be varied by pulse-width modulation or active current control (Ufkes par 0053).
Rodriguez teaches an analogous disinfection light fixture using visible and 405 nm light (pars 0029-0034 and 0037) wherein the white light output may be increased per unit time (par 0098) such that the cumulative radiation between the white and violet light sources remains relatively constant (FIG. 7, pars 0098-0100). As applied to the pulse configuration of modified Ufkes, the maintenance of a relatively constant emission power per the teaching of Rodriguez would result in the gradual increase of the white light simultaneously with the gradual decrease of the violet light during the temporal overlap between white light and violet light emission time periods.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to configure the control system of modified Ufkes to gradually increase the third light source light as the second light source light is dimmed as taught by Rodriguez. Doing so would predictably provide a similar smooth transition between light sources such that a desired degree of general illumination is beneficially maintained (Rodriguez par 0098).
26. Claim 11 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ufkes (US 20200179544 A1), Rantala (US 20180147417 A1), and Weeks (US 20190125904 A1) as applied to claim 3 above, and further in view of Starkweather et al (US 20210153529 A1).
Regarding claim 11, Ufkes as modified by Rantala and Weeks teaches the system of claim 3, but the combination does not teach wherein the control system is configured to reduce the second light intensity when the closeable space changes from the partially open state to the open state to at most 10% of the second light intensity in the partially open state.
Starkweather teaches an analogous system for disinfecting a space (par 0010, FIGS. 1A-I) using UV-C or near-UV light (par 0030) wherein the system can analogously sense motion in the vicinity of or within the disinfection chamber (par 0049) and additionally determine if the from door of the chamber is closed, open, or partially open (par 0049), using such information to quantify energy leaking from the chamber through open or partially open door (par 0051) and alter a status of the disinfection system accordingly (par 0049). Rantala gives further guidance regarding the acceptable amount of 405 nm light to mix with visible light in the presence of humans to prevent discomfort (Rantala pars 0009, 0055, and 0060-0063), and the reduction of intensity in the open state to at most 10% of the second light intensity in the partially open state can be obtained by routine optimization. "[W]here the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation." In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955), see MPEP 2144.05(II).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to configure the control system of modified Ufkes to reduce the second light intensity when the closeable space changes from the partially open state to the open state to at most 10% of the second light intensity in the partially open state as taught by Starkweather and Rantala. Doing so would predictably provide the same advantage of preventing accidental user discomfort by reducing the amount of 405 nm light escaping the controlled space.
27. Claims 13 and 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ufkes (US 20200179544 A1), Rantala (US 20180147417 A1), and Weeks (US 20190125904 A1) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Starkweather et al (US 20210153529 A1).
28. Regarding claim 13, Ufkes as modified by Rantala and Weeks teaches a structure comprising system according to claim 1 (Ufkes FIG. 2, target room includes disinfection lighting and sensor system, Ufkes pars 0048-0052), wherein the structure defines the closeable space (room system controls microorganisms in interior environment, Ufkes par 0012). The combination does not teach wherein the structure comprises a moveable element for opening and closing the closeable space wherein the moveable element is selected from the group comprising a lid, a door, and a drawer, nor wherein the sensor is configured to determine whether the closeable space is in the closed state or in the open state based on a position of the moveable element.
Starkweather teaches an analogous system for disinfecting a space (par 0010, FIGS. 1A-I) using UV-C or near-UV light (par 0030) wherein the room has a front door configured to manually or automatically move between an open configuration and a closed configuration to seal or close an opening of the chamber (par 0044), and wherein the sensor can analogously sense motion in the vicinity of or within the disinfection chamber (par 0049) and additionally determine if the from door of the chamber is closed, open, or partially open (par 0049).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to configure the sensor in the structure of modified Ufkes to determine whether the closeable space is in the closed state or in the open state based on a position of the moveable element, which is a door as taught by Starkweather. Doing so would predictably provide warning information to prevent undesirable UV or near-UV light leakage as taught by Starkweather (par 0051), based on the position of a door which is a typical inclusion for an interior room.
29. Regarding claim 14, Ufkes as modified by Rantala, Weeks, and Starkweather teaches a structure according to claim 13, wherein the moveable element may be arranged at a first position (closed configuration, Starkweather par 0044, FIGS. 2A-2D and 3A-3B) and wherein the moveable element is configured moveable up to a movement limit L1 from the first position (open configuration, Starkweather par 0044), wherein during use the moveable element has a movement distance d1 to the first position (Starkweather FIG. 3A, double sided arrow represents movement distance).
Although the combination does not explicitly teach wherein the closeable space is in the partially open state when 0.03L1 < d1 < 0.8L1, "[W]here the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation." In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955), see MPEP 2144.05(II). The claimed range is a wide range with no demonstrated criticality to the effectiveness of the system, thus could be readily attained through routine optimization, knowing that the sensor is configured to determine if the front wall of the chamber is partially open (Starkweather par 0049).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to further configure the sensor of modified Ufkes to determine when the closeable space is in the partially open state as taught by Starkweather based on the condition 0.03L1 < d1 < 0.8L1. Doing so would predictably enable identification of the partially open state to similarly prevent undesirable UV or near-UV light leakage as taught by Starkweather (par 0051).
Conclusion
30. The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure:
Vasilenko (US 20180207302 A1) discloses a closeable container for disinfection (Abstract, FIG. 8) comprising one or more OLED elements emitting visible light within the range of 380 to 475 nm and 500 to 700 nm, and optionally additional LED elements emitting UV-C light with wavelengths within a range of 240 to 260 nm (pars 0014 and 0093-0101), using the analogous emitters to disinfect a room (pars 0022 and 0086-0090).
31. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Eric Talbert whose telephone number is (703)756-5538. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri 8:00-5:00 Eastern Time.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Maris Kessel can be reached at (571) 270-7698. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/ERIC TALBERT/Examiner, Art Unit 1758
/MARIS R KESSEL/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1758