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
This is a first action on the merits for this regular application filed on 09/05/2023
Specification
The disclosure is objected to because of the following informalities: The specification is missing the cross-reference paragraph. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
Claim 1 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to non-transitory readable storage medium for steps for calculating temperature or humidity, or pressure without significantly more. The claim recites “a non-transitory computer readable storage medium configured to store instructions that when executed is configured to cause a processor to execute the
instructions for: (i) obtaining at least one environment parameter including at least the
temperature, the humidity and the pressure, and (ii) optimizing biocidal efficacy and the amount of Disinfectant used based on the environment parameter”. This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because the calculation steps do not provide tangible result. The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because the two steps are merely calculation steps that can be performed manually or by a calculator.
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.
Claims 1-10 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.
In claim 1, lines 11-12; Applicant recites, “to ensure striking the perfect balance between biocidal efficacy and over-use”. The examiner is unable to determine the metes and bounds of claim 1 since no steps or numerical values are described to clearly understand “striking the perfect balance”. One of ordinary skill in the art would be to determine what “perfect balance” represent? Since there is no baseline or a reference to compare to. It is respectfully requested that the above shown term be deleted and be replaced with steps or with numerical values.
In claim 1, line 25; Applicant recites, “operate in an environmentally friendly approach”. The examiner is unable to determine what the term “environmentally friendly approach” precisely and clearly represents. It is respectfully requested that the above term be deleted and be replaced with numerical values.
In claim 9, lines 3 and 4; Applicant recites, “to vacuum large trash objects”. The examiner is unable to clearly determine what the term “large” represents. It is respectfully requested that the above term be deleted and be replaced with numerical values that represent large trash objects.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1 and 9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Dooley et al. (US 8,452,450 B2).
Regarding claim 1, Dooley et al. discloses an automated cleaning and disinfection robot (Fig.1:10) comprising:
an automated navigation system (Fig.1:14) capable of navigating through an enclosed area and reaching predetermined spots thereof while avoiding obstacles;
a fluid storage (Fig.16:164) that is capable of storing Quaternary Ammonium Compounds (QACs) and/or other disinfectant ("Disinfectant"), wherein adherence additives may be added to such Disinfectant to enhance the ability for allowing Disinfectant to adhere to a surface thus providing extra and prolonged protection against the pathogen agents;
a plurality of sensors (Fig.13:136, 134, 138 and 139) to
(i) detect obstacles (col.25, lines 14-15);
(ii) identify contaminated spot (col.26, lines 2630); and
(iii) measure the content of biocidal in the surrounding area (col.15, lines 61-65) to ensure striking the perfect balance between biocidal efficacy and over-use;
a flexible propulsion system (col.22, lines 22-24) that can move the robot through different space within a public transit;
a disinfection module (col.22, lines 13-17) capable of removing contaminates and pathogenic agents on a predetermined surface; and
a non-transitory computer readable storage medium (col.22, lines 28-41) that is capable of being configured to store instructions that when executed is configured to cause a processor to execute the instructions for:
(i) obtaining at least one environment parameter including at least the (col.35, lines 50-54) temperature, the humidity and the pressure, and
(ii) optimizing (col.22, lines 62-67 through col.23, lines 1-4) biocidal efficacy and the amount of Disinfectant used based on the environment parameter,
wherein the robot is capable of being configured to
(i) operate in an environmentally friendly approach (col.23, lines 1-4 and col.26, lines 25-31); and
(ii) prevent contamination/cross infection (col.23, lines 1-4 and col.26, lines 25-31) due to the prolonged adherence of the Disinfection chemical on a surface.
Regarding claim 9, Dooley et al. discloses a cleaning module (col.22, lines 13-19) comprising
a vacuum (col.12, lines 10-16) having a vacuum opening that is capable of vacuuming large trash objects; and
a plurality of brushes (col.22, lines 64-67) to sweep large trash objects towards the vacuum opening,
wherein the disinfection module comprises a mop (col.22, lines 64-67; pads or cloths are used to mop surfaces) that is capable of mopping a surface on the HVAC conduit with Disinfectant.
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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claims 2-4 and 6-8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Dooley et al. (US 8,452,450 B2) as applied to claim 1, and further in view of Markesbery et al. (US 9,861,102 B2).
Regarding claims 2-4, Dooley et al. appears silent to disclose the use of an electrostatic sprayer.
Markesbery et al. discloses a method and a system for sterilizing rooms, areas, and surfaces (col.4, lines 9-11) using an electrostatic spray (col.12, lines 28-55) where the magnitude of the voltage applied to the nozzle on the electrostatic sprayer is adjusted (col.12, lines 50-55) so that high-traffic or highly contaminated surfaces in a hospital room can by quickly targeted by grounding them prior to disinfecting , facilitating a faster turnover of the room between patients (col.12, lines 33-38). 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 to add Markesbery et al. electrostatic sprayer to Dooley et al. robot system so that rooms can by disinfected, facilitating a faster turnover of the room between patients.
Regarding claim 6, Dooley et al. cleaning robot (Fig.1:10) is capable of being configured for performing cleaning and disinfection in railway system.
Regarding claim 7, Dooley et al. appears silent to disclose the use of an electrostatic sprayer.
Markesbery et al. discloses a method and a system for sterilizing rooms, areas, and surfaces (col.4, lines 9-11) using an electrostatic spray (col.12, lines 28-55) where the magnitude of the voltage applied to the nozzle on the electrostatic sprayer is adjusted (col.12, lines 50-55) so that high-traffic or highly contaminated surfaces in a hospital room can by quickly targeted by grounding them prior to disinfecting , facilitating a faster turnover of the room between patients (col.12, lines 33-38).
As to the limitation that the robot is configured to spray the droplet ranged from 0.1 to 30 meters from the electrostatic sprayer; the combined Dooly et al. robot is capable of spraying droplets that are ranged from 0.1 to 30 meters from Markesbery et al. electrostatic sprayer. 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 to add Markesbery et al. electrostatic sprayer to Dooley et al. robot system so that rooms can by disinfected, facilitating a faster turnover of the room between patients.
Regarding claim 8, Dooley et al. cleaning robot is capable of being configured to clean and disinfect an enclosed space in a more environmentally friendly (col.23, lines 1-4 and col.26, lines 25-31) approach and configured to help preventing cross infection.
Claim 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Dooley et al. (US 8,452,450 B2) in view of Markesbery et al. (US 9,861,102 B2) as applied to claim 3, and further in view of Dooley et al. (US 9,914,217 B2).
The combined Dooley et al. appears silent to disclose the use of a mechanical arm.
Dooley et al. (217) a transferable intelligent (col.2, lines 42-51) control device (Fig.1A:106) that includes mechanical arms and legs (col.5, lines 5-9) in order to provide mobility for the robot (Fig.1B:151; col.5, lines 5-9). 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 to add Dooley et al. (217) mechanical arms to the combined Dooley et al. robot in order to provide mobility.
Claim 10 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Dooley et al. (US 8,452,450 B2) as applied to claim 1, and further in view of Dooley et al. (US 9,914,217 B2).
Dooley et al. (450) appears silent to disclose the use of a mechanical arm.
Dooley et al. (217) a transferable intelligent (col.2, lines 42-51) control device (Fig.1A:106) that includes mechanical arms and legs (col.5, lines 5-9) in order to provide mobility for the robot (Fig.1B:151; col.5, lines 5-9). 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 to add Dooley et al. (217) mechanical arms to Dooley et al. (450) robot in order to provide mobility.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MONZER R CHORBAJI whose telephone number is (571)272-1271. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 5:30-12:00 and 6:00-9:00.
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, Jill J Warden can be reached at (571)272-1267. 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.
/MONZER R CHORBAJI/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1799