DETAILED ACTION
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 6/8/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Amended claims 2, 13, and 18 are accepted and have overcome the 35 USC 112(b) rejection for being indefinite. Therefore the rejection is withdrawn.
Amended claim 6 has corrected the minor informalities. Therefore the objection is withdrawn.
Applicant argues that the prior art of record does not teach or disclose an operation interface such that a UV light source is configured to emit UV radiation on the operation interface. Examiner disagrees as applicant later further defines an operation interface to be a an elevator control panel, a keyboard or touch panel, which can be operated by a user in claims 7, 8, and 10. A person of ordinary skill in the art would recognize the disclosed surfaces within a public or private space within the range of the disinfectant device of Clark (specifically paragraph [0024]) would include surfaces of which a user can operate (such as a keyboard or elevator control panel).
Applicant further argues that the prior art of record does not teach or disclose a first predetermined period preset in the controller according to the disinfectant area size of the operation interface. Examiner disagrees as Clark teaches the light source is configured to emit a UV light to clean the surfaces within the emission range of the emitted UV light to kill or inactivate microorganisms present on the exposed surfaces (dependent on light intensity for an extended period of time, see paragraph [0030]). Clark further teaches when the exposure time is deactivated for a period of time (via the motion sensor or proximity sensor), the controller 106 may determine if the exposure time is within a predetermined emission range (see paragraph [0055]). It can be seen that a disinfectant device of Clark inherently possesses a predetermined period preset in the controller.
Applicant further argues that the prior art of record does not teach or disclose a motion detecting sensor configured to detect any motion in the vicinity of the operation interface. Examiner disagrees as Fig. 3A of Clark discloses the disinfectant device has an emission range 105 of the UV light source 104 and a detection range 107 of the detection sensors 108 such that the detection range 107 is greater than the emission range 105 (see paragraph [0041]). Clark further discloses the detection sensors 108 include motion sensors (see paragraph [0004]). Therefore, Clark discloses a motion detecting sensor detects motion in the vicinity of an operation interface (e.g. the desired surfaces for disinfection operable by a user, see above argument) placed within the emission range 105.
Applicant further argues that the prior art of record does not teach or disclose the frame is positioned in an idle position when the UV light source is not in the operation mode and is moved to an operation position (and later in claim 5, moved manually by a user) such that the UV light source mounted in the frame is positioned to provide coverage of specific portions of the operation interface when in the operation mode. Examiner disagrees as the disinfectant device is portable and the base 118 is configured to be mounted and enables a user to adjust the orientation and/or position of the housing such that the exposure surface can be moved (see paragraph [0034]). A person skill in the art would recognize the disinfectant device can be positioned (manually by a user) such that when not in operation, the frame can be adjusted to an idle state and when exposure is desired, to adjust the frame such that an operation interface (e.g. the desired surfaces for disinfection operable by a user, see above argument) is within the exposure range (for example Fig. 3A emission range 105 of UV device 100).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 1-6 and 12-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Clark et al. (US PGPub 2023/0065832, hereinafter Clark).
Regarding claim 1, Clark discloses a disinfectant device (UVC disinfection device, see abstract), comprising:
an operation interface (surfaces within the emission range of the UV light, see paragraph [0024]);
a UV light source configured to emit UV or UV-C radiation on the operation interface (light source 104 configured to emit UVC light, see Fig. 1 and paragraph [0025], to expose a surface within the emission range of the light source 104, see paragraph [0024]);
a motion detecting sensor configured to detect any motion in the vicinity of the operation interface (one or more subject detection sensors 108 includes a motion sensor, see paragraph [0032]);
a controller (controller 106, see paragraph [0032]) configured to
after the operation interface is used by a user, output an operation mode signal to set the UV light source in an operation mode for emitting the UV-C radiation to kill pathogens on the operation interface for a first predetermined period preset in the controller according to the disinfectant area size of the operation interface (light source 104 configured to emit a UV light to clean and/or effect disinfection of the surface within the emission range, the light source emits UVC light, see paragraph [0030]; controller 106 may determine that no subject is within the emission range 105 of the light source 104 and may cause the light source 104 to emit UV light, see paragraph [0076]);
when the motion detecting sensor detects any motion in the vicinity of the operation interface during the UV light source in the operation mode, output a pause signal to set the UV light source in a pause mode to pause the UV light to emit UV-C radiation for a second predetermined time to prevent the user from harming by the UV-C radiation (a subject 202a is within the emission rage 105, the controller 105 may receive detection data from the subject detection sensors and determine that the subject 202a was within the emission range 105, as such the controller 105 may cause the light source 104 to cease emitting UV light, see paragraph [0074]); and
after the UV light source has been in the pause mode for the second predetermined time and the motion detecting sensor does not detect any motion in the vicinity of the operation interface, output another operation mode signal to the UV light source, thereby resuming the UV light source for emitting UV-C radiation so as to complete the entire procedure to kill pathogens on the operation interface (at a second time t2, following the first time t1 and prior to the user specified stop time, the controller 106 may determine that no subject is within the emission range 105 of the light source 104 and may cause the light source 104 to emit UV light, see paragraph [0076]).
Regarding claim 2, Clark discloses an indicator light configured to show in the operation mode in response to the operation mode signal output from the controller, and in the warming mode in response to the pause mode signal output from the controller (one or more light sources (e.g. LED lights) may provide a visual indication to subjects that light source 104 is actively emitting UV light, see paragraph [0033]).
Regarding claim 3, Clark discloses a frame for accommodating the UV light source therein, wherein the UV light source is positioned to provide coverage of specific portions of the entire of the operation interface (housing 102 comprises a window 114 such that the UV light emitted by the light source 104 may pass therethrough, see paragraph [0033]; to emit an emission range 105 of the UV light, see paragraph [0041]).
Regarding claim 4, Clark discloses the frame is positioned in an idle position when the UV light source is not in the operation mode, and is moved to an operation position such that the UV light source mounted in the frame is positioned to provide coverage of specific portions of the entire operation interface when the UV light source is in operation mode (UV device 100 maybe portable and base 118 may be mounted and configured to allow the user to adjust the orientation and/or position of the housing 102, see paragraph [0034]).
Regarding claim 5, Clark discloses the frame is moved between the idle position and the operation position manually by the user (UV device 100 may be portable and base 118 may be mounted and configured to allow the user to adjust the orientation and/or position of the housing 102, see paragraph [0034], to adjust the area to be exposed to UV light).
Regarding claim 6, Clark discloses the frame is moved from the idle position to the operation position in accordance with the operation mode signal output from the controller (UV device 100 maybe portable and base 118 may be mounted and configured to allow the user to adjust the orientation and/or position of the housing 102, see paragraph [0034]).
Regarding claim 12, Clark discloses a disinfectant device (UVC disinfection device, see abstract), comprising:
an operation interface (surfaces within the emission range of the UV light, see paragraph [0024]);
a UV light source configured to emit UV-C radiation on an operation interface (light source 104 configured to emit UVC light, see Fig. 1 and paragraph [0025]; to expose a surface within the emission range of the light source 104, see paragraph [0024]);
a controller (controller 106, see paragraph [0032]) configured to
after the operation interface is used by a user, output an operation mode signal to set the UV light source in an operation mode for emitting the UVC radiation to kill pathogens on the operation interface for a first predetermined period preset in the controller according to the disinfectant area size of the operation interface (light source 104 configured to emit a UV light to clean and/or effect disinfection of the surface within the emission range, the light source emits UVC light, see paragraph [0030]; controller 106 may determine that no subject is within the emission range 105 of the light source 104 and may cause the light source 104 to emit UV light, see paragraph [0076]);
when the operation interface is used by any users during the UV light source in the operation mode, output a pause signal to set the UV light source in a pause mode to pause the UV light to emit UVC radiation for a second predetermined time to prevent the user from haring by the UVC radiation (a subject 202a is within the emission rage 105, the controller 105 may receive detection data from the subject detection sensors and determine that the subject 202a was within the emission range 105, as such the controller 105 may cause the light source 104 to cease emitting UV light, see paragraph [0074]); and
after the UV light source has been in the pause mode for the second predetermined time and the operation interface is not used, output another operation mode signal to the UV light source, thereby resuming the UV light source for emitting UVC radiation so as to complete the entire procedure to kill pathogens on the operation interface (at a second time t2, following the first time t1 and prior to the user specified stop time, the controller 106 may determine that no subject is within the emission range 105 of the light source 104 and may cause the light source 104 to emit UV light, see paragraph [0076]).
Regarding claim 13, Clark discloses an indicator light configured to show in the operation mode in response to the operation mode signal output from the controller, and in the warming mode in response to the pause mode signal output from the controller (one or more light sources (e.g. LED lights) may provide a visual indication to subjects that light source 104 is actively emitting UV light, see paragraph [0033]).
Regarding claim 14, Clark discloses a frame for accommodating the UV light source therein, wherein the UV light source is positioned to provide coverage of specific portions of the entire of the operation interface (housing 102 comprises a window 114 such that the UV light emitted by the light source 104 may pass therethrough, see paragraph [0033]; to emit an emission range 105 of the UV light, see paragraph [0041]).
Regarding claim 15, Clark discloses the frame is positioned in an idle position when the UV light source is not in the operation mode, and is moved to an operation position such that the UV light source mounted in the frame is positioned to provide coverage of specific portions of the entire operation interface when the UV light source is in operation mode (UV device 100 maybe portable and base 118 may be mounted and configured to allow the user to adjust the orientation and/or position of the housing 102, see paragraph [0034]).
Regarding claim 16, Clark discloses the frame is moved between the idle position and the operation position manually by the user (UV device 100 maybe portable and base 118 may be mounted and configured to allow the user to adjust the orientation and/or position of the housing 102, see paragraph [0034], to adjust the area to be exposed to UV light).
Regarding claim 17, Clark discloses the frame is moved from the idle position to the operation position in accordance with the operation mode signal output from the controller (UV device 100 maybe portable and base 118 may be mounted and configured to allow the user to adjust the orientation and/or position of the housing 102, see paragraph [0034]).
Regarding claim 18, Clark discloses the frame is slidable within the two slots positioned at both sides of the operation interface (base 118 is configured to be mounted to and/or removed from an external bracket to easily couple and decouple the housing, see paragraph [0034]), and
when the UV light source is in the operation mode, the frame is moved from one end of the operation interface towards the other end of the operation interface in response to the operation mode signal output from the controller (base 118 may be configured to allow a user to adjust the orientation and/or position of the housing 102, see paragraph [0034]).
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 7-11 and 19-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Clark.
Regarding claim 7, Clark discloses the frame is an elongated housing (housing 102 includes a window 114, see Fig. 2 and paragraph [0033]) where the base 118 can be mounted to a surface within a public or private space (see paragraph [0034]). Clark discloses the UV light disinfects the surfaces within the emission range of the UV light (see paragraph [0024]).
While Clark does not explicitly disclose the operation interface is an elevator control panel and the frame is mounted next to the entire elevator control panel, it would have been obvious to the ordinary artisan before the effective filing date to mount the base of the UV light such that a desired surface (e.g. elevator control panel) is within the emission range 105 for disinfection by UV light for the desired target of disinfection. Furthermore, the object being disinfected (e.g. the elevator control panel) is merely a functional/intended use limitation that does not structurally distinguish the claimed invention over the prior art. While features of an apparatus may be recited either structurally or functionally, claims directed to an apparatus must be distinguished from the prior art in terms of structure rather than function. In re Schreiber, 128 F.3d 1473, 1477-78, 44 USPQ2d 1429, 1431-32 (Fed. Cir. 1997).
Regarding claim 8, Clark discloses the frame is an elongated housing (housing 102 includes a window 114, see Fig. 2 and paragraph [0033]) where the base 118 can be mounted to a surface within a public or private space (see paragraph [0034]). Clark discloses the UV light disinfects the surfaces within the emission range of the UV light (see paragraph [0024]).
While Clark does not explicitly disclose the operation interface is a keyboard and the frame is positioned next to the keyboard, it would have been obvious to the ordinary artisan before the effective filing date to mount the base of the UV light such that a desired surface (e.g. keyboard) is within the emission range 105 for disinfection by UV light for the desired target of disinfection. Furthermore, the object being disinfected (e.g. the keyboard) is merely a functional/intended use limitation that does not structurally distinguish the claimed invention over the prior art. While features of an apparatus may be recited either structurally or functionally, claims directed to an apparatus must be distinguished from the prior art in terms of structure rather than function. In re Schreiber, 128 F.3d 1473, 1477-78, 44 USPQ2d 1429, 1431-32 (Fed. Cir. 1997).
Regarding claim 9, Clark discloses when the UV light source is not in the operation mode, the frame is in an idle position where the frame together with the UV light source, and when the UV light source is in the operation mode, the frame is moved to an operation position in response to the operation mode signal output from the controller (UV device 100 maybe portable and base 118 may be mounted and configured to allow the user to adjust the orientation and/or position of the housing 102, see paragraph [0034]).
While Clark does not explicitly disclose the operation interface is a keyboard and the frame is positioned next to the keyboard, it would have been obvious to the ordinary artisan before the effective filing date to mount the base of the UV light such that a desired surface (e.g. keyboard) is within the emission range 105 for disinfection by UV light for the desired target of disinfection. Furthermore, the object being disinfected (e.g. the keyboard) is merely a functional/intended use limitation that does not structurally distinguish the claimed invention over the prior art. While features of an apparatus may be recited either structurally or functionally, claims directed to an apparatus must be distinguished from the prior art in terms of structure rather than function. In re Schreiber, 128 F.3d 1473, 1477-78, 44 USPQ2d 1429, 1431-32 (Fed. Cir. 1997).
Regarding claim 10, Clark discloses the frame is a U shape housing and two ends of the U shape frame is pivotally mounted (UV device 100 maybe portable and base 118 may be mounted and configured to allow the user to adjust the orientation and/or position of the housing 102, see paragraph [0034]).
While Clark does not explicitly disclose the operation interface is a touch panel and the frame is mounted on both sides of the touch panel, it would have been obvious to the ordinary artisan before the effective filing date to mount the base of the UV light such that a desired surface (e.g. touch panel) is within the emission range 105 for disinfection by UV light for the desired target of disinfection. Furthermore, the object being disinfected (e.g. the touch panel) is merely a functional/intended use limitation that does not structurally distinguish the claimed invention over the prior art. While features of an apparatus may be recited either structurally or functionally, claims directed to an apparatus must be distinguished from the prior art in terms of structure rather than function. In re Schreiber, 128 F.3d 1473, 1477-78, 44 USPQ2d 1429, 1431-32 (Fed. Cir. 1997).
Regarding claim 11, Clark discloses when the UV light source is not in the operation mode, the frame is in an idle position where the frame together with the UV light source, and when the UV light source is in the operation mode, the frame is moved to an operation position in response to the operation mode signal output from the controller (UV device 100 maybe portable and base 118 may be mounted and configured to allow the user to adjust the orientation and/or position of the housing 102, see paragraph [0034]).
While Clark does not explicitly disclose the operation interface is a touch panel, it would have been obvious to the ordinary artisan before the effective filing date to mount the base of the UV light such that a desired surface (e.g. touch panel) is within the emission range 105 for disinfection by UV light for the desired target of disinfection. Furthermore, the object being disinfected (e.g. the touch panel) is merely a functional/intended use limitation that does not structurally distinguish the claimed invention over the prior art. While features of an apparatus may be recited either structurally or functionally, claims directed to an apparatus must be distinguished from the prior art in terms of structure rather than function. In re Schreiber, 128 F.3d 1473, 1477-78, 44 USPQ2d 1429, 1431-32 (Fed. Cir. 1997).
Regarding claim 19, Clark discloses the frame is an elongated housing (housing 102 includes a window 114, see Fig. 2 and paragraph [0033]) where the base 118 can be mounted to a surface within a public or private space (see paragraph [0034]). Clark discloses the UV light disinfects the surfaces within the emission range of the UV light (see paragraph [0024]).
While Clark does not explicitly disclose the operation interface is a keyboard and the frame is positioned next to the keyboard, it would have been obvious to the ordinary artisan before the effective filing date to mount the base of the UV light such that a desired surface (e.g. keyboard) is within the emission range 105 for disinfection by UV light for the desired target of disinfection. Furthermore, the object being disinfected (e.g. the keyboard) is merely a functional/intended use limitation that does not structurally distinguish the claimed invention over the prior art. While features of an apparatus may be recited either structurally or functionally, claims directed to an apparatus must be distinguished from the prior art in terms of structure rather than function. In re Schreiber, 128 F.3d 1473, 1477-78, 44 USPQ2d 1429, 1431-32 (Fed. Cir. 1997).
Regarding claim 20, Clark discloses when the UV light source is not in the operation mode, the frame is in an idle position where the frame together with the UV light source, and when the UV light source is in the operation mode, the frame is moved to an operation position in response to the operation mode signal output from the controller (UV device 100 maybe portable and base 118 may be mounted and configured to allow the user to adjust the orientation and/or position of the housing 102, see paragraph [0034]).
While Clark does not explicitly disclose the operation interface is a keyboard and the frame is positioned next to the keyboard, it would have been obvious to the ordinary artisan before the effective filing date to mount the base of the UV light such that a desired surface (e.g. keyboard) is within the emission range 105 for disinfection by UV light for the desired target of disinfection. Furthermore, the object being disinfected (e.g. the keyboard) is merely a functional/intended use limitation that does not structurally distinguish the claimed invention over the prior art. While features of an apparatus may be recited either structurally or functionally, claims directed to an apparatus must be distinguished from the prior art in terms of structure rather than function. In re Schreiber, 128 F.3d 1473, 1477-78, 44 USPQ2d 1429, 1431-32 (Fed. Cir. 1997).
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 HANWAY CHANG whose telephone number is (571)270-5766. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 7:30 AM - 4:00 PM EST.
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, Georgia Epps can be reached at (571) 272-2328. 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.
Hanway Chang
/HC/ Examiner, Art Unit 2878
/GEORGIA Y EPPS/ Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2878
Prosecution Insights