DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Claim 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.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
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.
Claim 7 is 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.
Claim 7 recites the limitation "said context awareness sensor" in line 1 to line 2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Note claim 7 is dependent upon claim 5 and not claim 6.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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.
Claims 1-4, 8, 9, 11 and 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Quilici (U.S. Publication No. 2019/0022263) in view of Sood et al. (U.S. Publication No. 2022/0008588).
Concerning claims 1, 2 and 14, Quilici discloses a disinfecting device and method of controlling said disinfecting device, comprising:
A light device (300/500/700/800) configured to be mounted to a surface of an indoor space (Figures 3-9), said light bar comprising:
At least one light source (paragraphs 23-26), configured to emit disinfecting light for disinfecting pathogens in the ultraviolet and/or visible range with a maximum intensity for a wavelength range of 400-410 nm (paragraph 18), and at least one optical element (516/716/801), configured to shape disinfecting light emitted by the light source(s), such that the light device (300/500/700/800) is configured to emit a disinfecting light substantially confined in an optical plane extending from a longitudinal axis of the light device (paragraphs 24-26); and
A slant angle controller, configured to, when the disinfecting device (1) is mounted to surface, control a slant angle between the optical plane and a normal of the surface by the pivoting of the device (shown specifically in Figures 4, 5 and 8) and/or the adjustment of the optical element (516/716/801) via beam adjustor (114) as set forth by Quilici in paragraphs 23-26. Note further that the beam angle adjustor (114) can be operated mechanically or electronically (paragraph 18), and the light device itself may be operated mechanically or electronically (paragraph 20);
Wherein said disinfecting device is mounted to a surface of an indoor space such that light emitted by the light device forms the optical plane in which the method emits a light and controls the slant angle of the light with respect to a normal of the surface (paragraphs 23-26)
Quilici does not appear to disclose that the disinfecting light device is an elongated light bar that is configured to emit a light curtain. Sood discloses a disinfecting device that includes a light device (100) with light sources (102) to emit disinfecting light for disinfecting pathogens (Figure 10). The reference continues to disclose that the light device is an elongated light bar that is configured to emit a light curtain in order to create a pathogenic barrier between two components (paragraphs 76-80). As such, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to utilize an elongated light bar that is configured to emit a light curtain as the light device in Quilici in order to create a pathogenic barrier between two components as exemplified by Sood.
Thus, claims 1 & 2 are not patentable over Quilici in view of Sood.
Regarding claim 3, Quilici continues to disclose that the slant angle controller is configured to control the positioning of the optical element (516/716/801) with respect to the light source (paragraphs 24-26).
With respect to claim 4, Quilici further discloses an actuating unit (i.e., structural components allowing rotation and pivoting of said light device as well as structural components allowing actuation of said optical elements) and said slant angle controller is configured to control the actuating unit, wherein, when said disinfecting device is mounted to a surface (Figures 3-8), said actuating unit is configured to steer the orientation of the light bar with respect to the surface (paragraphs 18 & 20; paragraphs 24-26).
Concerning claim 8, Quilici when modified by Sood also discloses that said at least one light source comprises a plurality of light elements distributed longitudinally along the elongated light bar and the slant angle controller is configured to activate a subset of the light elements to control an extent of the disinfecting light curtain along the longitudinal axis (paragraph 19).
Regarding claim 9, Quilici further discloses a visible spectrum light source (112) configured to project visible light, the projected visible light indicating the position of the optical plane (paragraphs 18 and 23).
With respect to claim 11, Quilici when modified by Sood does not appear to disclose that the disinfecting light curtain is substantially confined in the optical plane with a tolerance of at most 2 centimeter offset from the optical plane. Nonetheless, such is a considered a result effective variable that would be optimized by one of ordinary skill. More specifically, the Courts have held that "where 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." See In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456,105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955). The discovery of an optimum value of a known result effective variable, without producing any new or unexpected results, is within the ambit of a person of ordinary skill in the art. See In re Boesch, 205 USPQ 215 (CCPA 1980) (see MPEP § 2144.05, II.). Thus, it would have been well within the purview of one of ordinary skill in the art to optimize tolerance of the disinfecting light curtain to at most 2 cm offset from the optical plane in order to focus the light on a specific target without wasting errant disinfecting rays for a given application; as such is considered a result effective variable that would be optimized by one of ordinary skill during routine experimentation. Only the expected results would be attained.
Therefore, claim 11 is not patentable over Quilici in view of Sood as well.
Claim 10 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Quilici (U.S. Publication No. 2019/0022263) in view of Sood et al. (U.S. Publication No. 2022/0008588) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Hawkins eta l. (U.S. Publication No. 2019/0258353).
Quilici in view of Sood is relied upon as set forth above. Quilici in view of Sood does not appear to disclose that the light bar is further configured to emit an enveloping light that surrounds the disinfecting light emitted in the optical plane and having a different spectrum. Hawkins discloses a disinfecting device that includes a light device (Figures 4A-D) with a plurality of light sources (256/260), wherein at least one light (256) source is configured to emit disinfecting light (paragraphs 66 and 67). The reference continues to disclose that the light device is further configured to emit an enveloping light that surrounds the disinfecting light emitted in an optical plane and having a different spectrum in order to create a combined disinfecting light that is aesthetically pleasing to an occupant in a room (paragraphs 81 and 82). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide the light bar of modified Quilici in a manner such that said bar is further configured to emit an enveloping light that surrounds the disinfecting light emitted in the optical plane and having a different spectrum in order to create a combined disinfecting light that is aesthetically pleasing to an occupant in a room as exemplified by Hawkins.
Thus, claim 10 is not patentable over Quilici in view of Sood and Hawkins.
Claim 13 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Quilici (U.S. Publication No. 2019/0022263) in view of Sood et al. (U.S. Publication No. 2022/0008588) and Wingren (U.S. Publication No. 2023/0071704).
As noted above, Quilici in view of Sood discloses the disinfecting device according to claim 1. Quilici in view of Sood does not appear to disclose a plurality of disinfecting devices and a central control unit, wherein the central control unit is configured to control the slant angle controller of each disinfecting device. Wingren discloses a system for disinfecting a plurality of spaces within an environment, wherein the system includes a plurality of disinfecting devices (1022) distributed in a plurality of different areas within the space (Figure 1A) as set forth in paragraphs 47 & 48. The reference continues to disclose that the system includes a central control unit (1010), wherein the central control unit is provided to control each of the plurality of disinfecting devices in order to administer the appropriate amount of disinfecting light base upon the number of occupants, or the time the occupants have spent in a particular space of the environment (paragraphs 50-56). As such, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to utilize a plurality of disinfecting devices connected to a central control unit in Quilici in order to disinfect a plurality of spaces within an environment, and administer the appropriate amount of disinfecting light based upon the number of occupants, or the time the occupants have spent in a particular space of the environment as exemplified by Wingren. Such a modification would further control the slant angle controller of each disinfecting device because Quilici discloses that said disinfecting devices and slant angle controllers can be controlled electronically (paragraphs 18 & 20), and Wingren discloses that said central controller controls all aspects of said disinfecting devices (paragraphs 49-58).
As such, modified Quilici in view of Wingren meet the limitations of claim 13. Therefore, claim 13 is not patentable over Quilici in view of Sood and Wingren.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 5, 6, 12 and 15 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims. Should claim 7 overcome the 112(b) rejection noted above, then said claim would also be merely objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims as well.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to KEVIN C JOYNER whose telephone number is (571)272-2709. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 8:00AM-4:30PM.
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, MICHAEL MARCHESCHI can be reached at (571) 272-1374. 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.
/KEVIN JOYNER/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1799