DETAILED ACTION
Response to Arguments
Rejections under 35 USC 112(b)
Applicant’s remarks, with respect to the rejection under 35 USC 112(b) have been fully considered. The amendment to claim 15 overcomes the antecedent basis problem. The rejection under 35 USC 112(b) has been withdrawn.
Rejections under 35 USC 103
The amendment to claim 1 overcomes the rejection of claim 1 under 35 USC 103. Therefore, the rejection has been withdrawn. However, upon further consideration, a new ground(s) of rejection is made in view of Ibrahim, et. al. (EP 3444181 A1).
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) filed on 09/15/2022. Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
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 1-2, 6-7 and 9-10, 12-13, and 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wu, et. al. (US 20220062460 A1), hereinafter Wu in view of Gil (US 20120045363 A1) and Ibrahim, et. al. (EP 3444181 A1), hereinafter Ibrahim.
Regarding claim 1, Wu teaches a floor covering for an aircraft interior (intended use) (self-sanitizing structure that includes a body having a contact surface that can be contacted by a person, Abstract, [0002]-[0003], [0082] teaches surfaces of an airplane cabin, Fig. 1, Figs. 2, Fig. 4, Figs. 9-11), comprising:
a substrate (upper body 108, Figs. 3, 4, 8, 10, [0084]);
a plurality of lights distributed across the surface of the substrate (Figs. 3, 4, 8, 10); and
at least one sensor configured to detect the presence of an object on the substrate (local sensors 126 in Fig. 3, [0105]);
wherein at least one of the plurality of UV lights emits UV radiation when the at least one sensor detects the presence of an object on the substrate ([0073], [0079], [0105]-[0106], [0125]-[0126], [0146], [0152]).
Wu does not teach that the lights are UV lights. Wu does not teach wherein the substrate comprises a plurality of holes through the substrate and the plurality of UV lights are situated in the plurality of holes.
Gil teaches UV lights (UV-C radiation, [0007]).
Ibrahim teaches wherein the substrate (cover sheet 106, [0057], Fig. 6) comprises a plurality of holes (multiple holes 336, [0057]) through the substrate and the plurality of lights are situated in the plurality of holes (light sources 112 may extend at least partially in corresponding hole 336, [0057]).
Gil modifies the combination by suggesting using UV lights. Ibrahim modifies the combination by suggesting holes that extend all the way through the substrate, with a plurality of lights situated in the plurality of holes
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the teachings of Pierre because UV-C radiation is a unique and rapid method of surface disinfection that is lethal to bacteria, virus, pathogens, and other microorganisms, (Gil, [0006]). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the teachings of Ibrahim because such a configuration allows light from the corresponding light source to travel through the corresponding hole to provide lighting effects to the layers above (Ibrahim, [0057]).
Regarding claim 6, Wu teaches wherein the lights are configured to act as a germicide ([0002] sanitizing electromagnetic radiation, [0071], [0088]).
Wu does not teach that the lights are UV lights.
Gil teaches UV lights (UV-C radiation, [0007]).
Gil modifies the combination by suggesting using UV lights.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the teachings of Pierre because UV-C radiation is a unique and rapid method of surface disinfection that is lethal to bacteria, virus, pathogens, and other microorganisms, (Gil, [0006]).
Regarding claim 7, Wu teaches wherein the plurality of lights comprise light emitting diodes (Fig. 10).
Wu does not teach that the lights are UV lights.
Gil teaches UV lights (UV-C radiation, [0007]).
Gil modifies the combination by suggesting using UV lights.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the teachings of Pierre because UV-C radiation is a unique and rapid method of surface disinfection that is lethal to bacteria, virus, pathogens, and other microorganisms, (Gil, [0006]).
Regarding claim 9, Wu teaches wherein the sensor is configured to detect the force of an object on the substrate ([0105], [0126]).
Regarding claim 10, Wu does not explicitly teach wherein the object is a foot or footwear.
Gil teaches wherein the object is a foot or footwear (bottom of footwear including shoes, athletic shoes, socks and sandals, [0015]).
Gil modifies the combination by suggesting that the object is footwear.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the teachings of Gil because shoes contain viruses and bacteria that can be eliminated/sterilized, (Gil, Abstract).
Regarding claim 12, Wu teaches wherein the lights are configured to cease emitting radiation after a particular period of time has elapsed ([0007], [0008], [0141], Fig. 17D).
Wu does not teach that the lights are UV lights/ UV radiatio.
Gil teaches UV lights/UV radiation (UV-C radiation, [0007]).
Gil modifies the combination by suggesting using UV lights that emit UV-C radiation.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the teachings of Pierre because UV-C radiation is a unique and rapid method of surface disinfection that is lethal to bacteria, virus, pathogens, and other microorganisms, (Gil, [0006]).
Regarding claim 13, Wu teaches wherein the power source is connected to the plurality of UV lights and is arranged to energize the plurality of lights (local or remote power source 122/160, [0097]-[0098]).
Wu does not teach that the lights are UV lights.
Gil teaches UV lights (UV-C radiation, [0007]).
Gil modifies the combination by suggesting using UV lights.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the teachings of Pierre because UV-C radiation is a unique and rapid method of surface disinfection that is lethal to bacteria, virus, pathogens, and other microorganisms, (Gil, [0006]).
Regarding claim 16, Wu teaches a floor covering for an aircraft interior (intended use) (self-sanitizing structure that includes a body having a contact surface that can be contacted by a person, Abstract, [0002]-[0003], [0082] teaches surfaces of an airplane cabin, Fig. 1, Figs. 2, Fig. 4, Figs. 9-11), comprising:
a substrate (upper body 108, Figs. 3, 4, 8, 10, [0084]);
a plurality of lights distributed across the surface of the substrate (Figs. 3, 4, 8, 10); and
at least one sensor configured to detect the presence of an object on the substrate (local sensors 126 in Fig. 3, [0105]);
wherein at least one of the plurality of UV lights emits UV radiation when the at least one sensor detects the presence of an object on the substrate ([0073], [0079], [0105]-[0106], [0125]-[0126], [0146], [0152]), and
wherein the plurality of lights form a mesh with the substrate (Fig. 10 shows that the LED light array is integrated with the upper body 108 so as to form a mesh).
Wu does not teach that the lights are UV lights.
Gil teaches UV lights (UV-C radiation, [0007]).
Gil modifies Wu by suggesting using UV lights.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the teachings of Pierre because UV-C radiation is a unique and rapid method of surface disinfection that is lethal to bacteria, virus, pathogens, and other microorganisms, (Gil, [0006]).
Claim 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wu (US 20220062460 A1), in view of Gil (US 20120045363 A1) and Ibrahim (EP 3444181 A1), further in view of Rosenbaum (US 20220040352 A1).
Regarding claim 8, Wu in view of Gil does not teach wherein the plurality of UV lights are coupled to a plurality of fibre optic cables.
Rosenbaum teaches wherein the plurality of UV lights are coupled to a plurality of fibre optic cables ([0007]).
Rosenbaum modifies the combination by suggesting the plurality of UV lights are coupled to a plurality of fiber optic cables.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the teachings of Rosenbaum because the fiber optic cable allows UV light having a wavelength of 200-250 nm to be emitted along the fiber optic cable (Rosenbaum, [0007]).
Claim 11 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wu (US 20220062460 A1), in view of Gil (US 20120045363 A1) and Ibrahim (EP 3444181 A1), further in view of Pierre, et. al. (Pierre, Danielle. What is the SteriShoe UV Shoe Sanitizer. SteriShoe. https://sterishoe.com/2020/10/17/what-is-the-sterishoe-uv-shoe-sanitizer/?srsltid=AfmBOor0g9jXoRPpim-gT7nVI_XrinXay2x4R46iqYbAP55WZdcnoZFg. October 17 2020.), hereinafter Pierre.
Regarding claim 11, Wu in view of Gil does not explicitly teach wherein the UV lights are configured to cease emitting UV radiation when the at least one sensor detects that the object is no longer present on the substrate.
Pierre teaches wherein the UV lights are configured to cease emitting UV radiation when the at least one sensor detects that the object is no longer present on the substrate (see section “Completely Safe Technology”, subsection “Compression Sensor” which teaches that when the SteriShoe is compressed inside the shoe, the UVC light turns on in response, and then when the SteriShoe is removed from the shoe, the UVC light turns off in response).
Pierre modifies the combination by suggesting utilizing a compression sensor to detect when the footwear is removed from the substrate of the floor covering and consequently ceasing the UV light from being emitted.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the teachings of Pierre because doing so prevents people from coming into direct contact with UVC light as a safety feature, (Pierre, see section “Completely Safe Technology”).
Claim 14 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wu (US 20220062460 A1), in view of Gil (US 20120045363 A1) and Ibrahim (EP 3444181 A1), further in view of Shukri (US 20210386886 A1).
Regarding claim 14, Wu does not teach wherein the power source is a solar cell.
Shukri teaches wherein the power source is a solar cell ([0027]).
Shukri modifies the combination by suggesting the power source is a solar cell.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the teachings of Shukri because solar cell can act as a source of power for a UV spectrum laser emitter (Shukri, [0027]).
Claim 15 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wu (US 20220062460 A1), in view of Gil (US 20120045363 A1) and Ibrahim (EP 3444181 A1), further in view of Childress, et. al. (US 20220111087 A1), hereinafter Childress.
Regarding claim 15, Wu does not teach wherein the power source is a battery of the aircraft.
Childress teaches wherein the power source is a battery of the aircraft ([0111], [0167], [0010]).
Childress modifies the combination by suggesting the power source is a battery of the aircraft.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the teachings of Childress because a battery supplies power and is able to be recharged (Childress, [0111]).
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to LAURA E TANDY whose telephone number is (703)756-1720. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 8:00 am - 5:00 pm.
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, Robert Kim can be reached at 5712722293. 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.
LAURA E TANDY
Examiner
Art Unit 2881
/WYATT A STOFFA/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2881