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 .
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election with traverse of claims 1-10 in the reply filed on 5/7/2026 is acknowledged. Claims 11-20 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected invention, there being no allowable generic or linking claim.
The traversal is on the grounds that the inventions are sufficiently related and that there is no undue search burden. Furthermore, the requirement for a restriction is claimed to be burdensome to the public. This is not found persuasive because as set forth previously, a restriction between process and apparatus for its practice is proper if the process can be practiced with a materially different apparatus or the apparatus can be used in a materially different method. Applicant has not argued against the distinctions set forth between the two inventions on this basis. Furthermore, the two inventions are process and apparatus, meaning that different search strategies would be required for each. Concerning the burden to the public, Applicant is reminded that the invention may be eligible for a rejoinder if the withdrawn process claims include every element of an allowable process claim.
The requirement is still deemed proper and is therefore made FINAL.
Claim Objections
Claim 6 is objected to because of the following informalities:
“the monitoring platform receives the report is received by the monitoring platform” in lines 2-3 of the claim requires grammatical correction.
Appropriate correction is required.
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 X 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.
Regarding claim 4, the limitation “wherein the corresponding bit in the indicator value based on a magnitude of each of the photoinduced voltage values to each of the plurality of UV lamps” is indefinite because it is unclear what relation the magnitude has to the plurality of UV lamps.
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 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 1-4 and 6-7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Trapini (US 20230114401 A1) in view of Ramer (US 20220347329 A1).
Regarding claim 1, Trapani teaches An ultraviolet (UV) sterilization system, for recording a working state of an autonomous mobile robot during UV sterilization (Fig. 1), the sterilization system comprising:
a communication module (par. 183: Control system 532 includes a wireless communication module);
an UV lamp group, configured to emit UV light (abstract: The control system monitors the amount of UVC light and controls the operation of the light sources and UV emitter module to deliver the required amount of UVC light; Fig. 15: 218);
a photoinduction element, located on a periphery of the UV lamp group, and generating a photoinduced voltage value of the corresponding UV lamp group (par. 70: When operating, the UV sensor(s) are designed and programmed to continually measure incident UV light. The intensity measured is converted into a voltage, which is sampled by an analog to digital (A/D) converter, which is part of the UV sensor sub-system); and
a control module (par. 175: Control system 532 includes a processor 534. Processor 534 includes one or more commonly known Central Processing Unit (CPU) such as a microprocessor or microcontroller),
provided on the autonomous mobile robot, the control module being connected to the communication module (par. 182: Control system 532 includes a wireless communication module)
and the photoinduction element (par. 70: The digital data may then be communicated to central computer 11; NOTE: central computer 11 is interpreted to comprise control system 532 as both receive signals from the sensors; par. 174: After sensing, sensors 530 transmit the data to a control system 532 that processes the data and controls the operation of light sources 528),
and generating a report according to the photoinduced voltage value of the photoinduction element and outputting the report via the communication module (par. 65: Computer 11 communicates with the sensing subsystem's remote UV sensors 21-24, which provide UV light level readings used by computer 11 to determine when a previously programmed dose of incident UV light has been delivered to each of the remote sensor locations; par. 193: In the present implementation, control system 532 captures and/or transmits the data such as date, time, operator, room number, cycle time and delivered UVC dose to server 554), but does not teach
wherein the report represents the working state of the UV lamp group.
Ramer teaches a control system for a UV disinfection device (abstract: A luminaire includes a luminaire control circuit and a disinfection light source to emit a disinfection light in an ultraviolet (UV) band for disinfecting a vicinity of a space of a target pathogen that is exposed to the disinfection light).
Ramer teaches wherein light sources depreciate over time and therefore it is necessary to measure and compare UV light intensities to make sure the light sources are performing normally (par. 62: failure check can be implemented in the exposure and dosage control programming 132 to ensure the disinfection light source 16 is running properly. For example, a voltage and a current of the driver circuit 11 and/or the disinfection light source 16 can be monitored by the exposure and dosage control programming 132. In addition, an optical sensor (not shown) can be incorporated into the luminaire 10 or elsewhere in the antimicrobial system 1 to ensure the disinfection light source 16 is on at an appropriate intensity level. The optical sensor can be a UV sensor or a visual sensor that monitors the fluorescence and a measured intensity level of the fluorescence of the disinfection light source 16 (e.g., in the glass) against a normal intensity range (not shown) or a normal fluorescence range (not shown) that are stored in the luminaire memory 131 to check whether the disinfection light source 16 is running properly or has failed). Furthermore, Ramer teaches wherein the monitoring of the working state of the UV lamps is done through maintenance records (par. 214: Separate total disinfection light source on time 143 records for both the first disinfection light source 2116A and the second disinfection light source 2116B can result in separate maintenance and utilization records, which facilitate efficient repair and replacement of either the first disinfection light source 2116A or the second disinfection light source 2116B) and wherein maintenance data is communicated wirelessly (par. 92: In a second example, wireless disinfection light control network 7 and commissioning network are combined, such that both control signals 170E-N for disinfection light 17 and commissioning/maintenance information pass over the above 1 GHz range wireless communication band). The maintenance information would necessarily include the intensity comparison data since it determines whether or not the UV lamps are replaced.
Trapini already teaches wherein the UV light intensity is monitored, so it can easily be modified to use to the UV light intensities to monitor a working state of the UV lamp group. Furthermore, Trapini already communicates data wirelessly to a server. Ramer provides the motivation to monitor the working state of UV lamps using detected light intensity, and to transmit maintenance information wirelessly, wherein the working state of the UV lamp would count as maintenance information.
It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the control system of Trapini to compare the UV light intensity to a certain minimum threshold and mark the corresponding UV lamp as failed if the threshold is not met, and to communicate this maintenance information and the measured intensity/voltage values via its wireless communication module to its server, as taught by Ramer, in order to easily monitor lamp health and replace/repair lamps when necessary, which prevents any reduction in sterilization effectiveness due to defective lamps. Since Trapini already measures UV intensity via voltage, it would be comparing the detected voltage to a voltage threshold in order to compare UV intensity values.
Regarding claim 2, Trapani modified by Ramer teaches the UV sterilization system according to claim 1, as set forth above, and teaches wherein the UV lamp group comprises a plurality of UV lamps and a drive circuit, each of the plurality of UV lamps is configured to emit the UV light, the drive circuit is connected to the plurality of UV lamps and the control module, the plurality of UV lamps are driven by the control module via the drive circuit (par. 35: Further, the control system controls the operation of the light sources to deliver the required amount of UVC light; par. 116: integrated circuit; Fig. 27 shows connection between each component, which is interpreted as a drive circuit), and the photoinduction element is located around one corresponding UV lamp of the plurality of UV lamps (Fig. 15-16; par. 113: Housing 220 may include one or more Ultraviolet C (UVC) sensors 222 (FIG. 16) configured for measuring power or intensity of incident UV radiation; NOTE: as long as the UV sensors are on the housing, they would be around the UV light sources 218).
Regarding claim 3, Trapani modified by Ramer teaches the UV sterilization system according to claim 2, as set forth above, and teaches wherein the report comprises an indicator value representing a light source condition of the UV lamp group and record content of the photoinduced voltage value of each of the plurality of UV lamps (see Ramer modification in claim 1 rejection, wherein the operational status, which reads on the indicator value, and intensity of each UV light source is reported as part of maintenance information that is necessary for determining whether or not the light sources need replacement).
Regarding claim 4, Trapani modified by Ramer teaches the UV sterilization system according to claim 3, as set forth above, and teaches wherein the indicator value comprises a plurality of bits, corresponding to the photoinduced voltage values of the plurality of UV lamps respectively, wherein the corresponding bit in the indicator value based on a magnitude of each of the photoinduced voltage values to each of the plurality of UV lamps is determined by the control module (NOTE: all digital devices record information in the form of binary code, which consists of bits; the voltages received by the control module would be converted to bits and bytes in order to be processed as information and any data sent by the control module wirelessly would also be made up of bits; as taught by Ramer, the operational status of each lamp is determined by a comparison of light intensity values of each lamp, which in turn would be processed as bits by the control module in order to compare the values).
Regarding claim 6, Trapani modified by Ramer teaches the UV sterilization system according to claim 2, as set forth above, and teaches wherein the communication module is in signal communication with a monitoring platform (par. 192: In one implementation, control system 532 communicatively connects to server 554 via a network 556), the monitoring platform receives the report is received by the monitoring platform, and state information of the UV lamp group according to the report is recorded by the monitoring platform (par. 193: control system 532 records the date, time, operator, room number, cycle time and delivered dose and transmits the information to server 554. Server 554 stores the data and utilizes the data for performing data analytics; see Ramer modification in claim 1 rejection wherein the operational status and intensity data of each UV light source is sent as maintenance data to an external source).
Regarding claim 7, Trapani modified by Ramer teaches the UV sterilization system according to claim 6, as set forth above, and teaches wherein the state information comprises a lamp state of each of the plurality of UV lamp, the lamp state of one corresponding UV lamp of the plurality of UV lamps is recorded by the monitoring platform , and one corresponding UV lamp the plurality of UV lamps with the photoinduced voltage value less than or equal to a startup voltage value is recorded by the monitoring platform as a damaged lamp according to the report (par. 193: control system 532 records the date, time, operator, room number, cycle time and delivered dose and transmits the information to server 554. Server 554 stores the data and utilizes the data for performing data analytics; see Ramer modification in claim 1 rejection wherein the operational status and intensity data of each UV light source is sent as maintenance data to an external source, and the operational status indicates either a failed lamp or a non-failed lamp, wherein “failed” reads on a damaged lamp).
Claim 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Trapini modified by Ramer in view of Barrios (US 20220152237 A1).
Regarding claim 5, Trapani modified by Ramer teaches the UV sterilization system according to claim 2, as set forth above, but does not teach wherein the UV lamp group further comprises:
a plurality of light shields, each of the plurality of light shields being corresponding to the photoinduction element respectively, and each of the plurality of light shields being located at one end of one corresponding UV lamp of the plurality of UV lamps, wherein the photoinduction element is located at the end of one corresponding UV lamp of the plurality of UV lamps, and located between one corresponding light shield of the plurality of light shields and one corresponding UV lamp of the plurality of UV lamps.
Trapani teaches reflectors positioned behind the UV light sources (par. 42: In another advantageous feature of the present invention, the light fixtures include highly polished, precision tuned reflectors to maximize the dosage of UVC light and minimize treatment time) but does not explicitly teach reflectors positioned behind the UV light sources on the mobile disinfection unit displayed in Fig. 15.
Barrios teaches a mobile UV disinfection unit (abstract: Embodiments of the present disclosure provide an apparatus and a method for projecting UV light towards surfaces across a path. The apparatus includes a mobile body and including opposing lateral sides and a sagittal plane passing between them; Fig. 1). Barrios teaches positioning reflectors behind the UV light sources on its mobile disinfection unit, which help with projecting UV light towards a desired direction (Fig. 14; par. 67: The first radiation unit 1204-a, the second radiation unit 1204-b, and the third radiation unit 1204-c (hereinafter collectively referred to as radiation units 1204) may include respective reflectors 1204-2 being oriented to project the UV light in different directions or planes).
Trapani already teaches that having UV reflectors maximizes the dosage of UVC light, and Barrios further provides the motivation to have the UV reflectors on the mobile disinfection unit because they can help direct UV light in a desired direction.
It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the each of the UV light sources on the mobile disinfection unit of Trapani modified by Ramer to have rotatable reflectors placed behind them, as taught by Barrios, in order to maximize UVC dosage and direct irradiation in a desired direction.
Trapani modified by Ramer and Barrios still does not teach wherein the photoinduction element is located at the end of one corresponding UV lamp of the plurality of UV lamps, and located between one corresponding light shield of the plurality of light shields and one corresponding UV lamp of the plurality of UV lamps.
Trapani teaches wherein the mobile disinfection unit has intensity sensors (par. 113: Housing 220 may include one or more Ultraviolet C (UVC) sensors 222 (FIG. 16) configured for measuring power or intensity of incident UV radiation) but does not specify the exact location of those sensors.
However, in the absence of any teaching to the contrary, the location of the intensity sensors/photoinduction elements does not affect operation so long as they are proximal to the UV light sources and are capable of reading the intensity of the light sources. Absent a showing of significance or unexpected results, the claimed locations of the components are prima facie obvious and do not modify the operation of the invention and further, do not add patentable significance. The Manual of Patent Examining Procedures discloses that in In re Japikse, 181 F.2d 1019, 86 USPQ 70(CCPA 1950), a mere rearrangement of parts for a design change has no patentable significance unless a new and unexpected result is produced. In this case, one of ordinary skill in the art would understand that an accurate reading of the light intensity output of the UV light sources can be achieved so long as the intensity sensors are near the light sources. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify each of the intensity sensors of Trapani modified by Ramer and Barrios to be located between a reflector and a corresponding UV light source, with a reasonable expectation that they would be capable of measuring the UV radiation intensity output by each UV light source.
Claim 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Trapani modified by Ramer in view of Kurz (US 20220226522 A1).
Regarding claim 9, Trapani modified by Ramer teaches the UV sterilization system according to claim 7, as set forth above, but does not teach wherein the state information further comprises a usage time of each of the plurality of UV lamp, and the usage time of one corresponding UV lamp of the plurality of UV lamps with the photoinduced voltage value not less than the startup voltage value according to the report is accumulated by the monitoring platform.
Trapani already teaches wherein a cycle time is delivered to its server/monitoring platform so that the data can be analyzed and accessed by a user (par. 193: In the present implementation, control system 532 captures and/or transmits the data such as date, time, operator, room number, cycle time and delivered UVC dose to server 554. Assuming that room disinfection system 512 installs in closed space 516, control system 532 records the date, time, operator, room number, cycle time and delivered dose and transmits the information to server 554. Server 554 stores the data and utilizes the data for performing data analytics. A user of electronic device 558 accesses the data on server 554).
Kurz teaches a portable UV disinfection device (abstract: A portable, handheld ultraviolet light delivery apparatus for sanitization target surfaces is configured to deliver ultraviolet light). Kurz teaches a timer relay for tracking the total usage duration of the UV light source, which relays the time data to an output device (par. 51: With regard to the “total usage duration,” the timer relay 30 is connected to a digital storage device that permits the ultraviolet light delivery apparatus to calculate and store the total amount of time that the light source 40 has been in an “on” state emitting ultraviolet light. The total usage duration is output to the digital display of the timer relay 30. Tracking the total usage duration is an advantageous feature because light sources generally have a life span such that the intensity or even the wavelengths of the emitted light change over time with continued use. These changes can in turn negatively impact the sanitization efficacy and safety of an ultraviolet light source. After the total usage duration of a light source reaches a predetermined life span, the light source can be replaced to ensure continued consistency and efficacy in the delivery of ultraviolet light and sanitization). This is advantageous because UV light sources will decline in performance over time and need to be replaced before the decline in performance reduces the sterilization effect.
The relaying of information to the digital display in Kurz is likened to the relaying of information to the server of Trapani, where the information can similarly be accessed. Furthermore, Trapani is concerned with data analysis of information pertaining to the disinfection device’s performance and thus there would be motivation to include the total time usage of each light source in that data analysis.
It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the control module of Trapani modified by Ramer to have a timer relay tracking the total usage duration of each UV light source, wherein this data is relayed to an output device (the server 554 in this case), as taught by Kurz, in order to provide more information for data analysis and to ensure timely replacement of the UV light sources and prevent any decline in sterilization effectiveness.
It is noted that the claim does not specify that UV light sources with voltages less than the startup voltage value are NOT monitored for usage time, and therefore, if all UV light sources are monitored, then that would include the UV light sources with voltages not less than the startup voltage, which would read on the instant claim limitation.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 8 and 10 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.
Regarding claim 8, Trapani modified by Ramer teaches the UV sterilization system according to claim 7, as set forth above, and teaches wherein the lamp state of one corresponding UV lamp of the plurality of UV lamps with the photoinduced voltage value greater than the startup voltage value and less than a normal voltage value is recorded by the monitoring platform as a decayed lamp according to the report (see Ramer modification in claim 1 rejection), but does not teach
and an adjustment command corresponding to the photoinduced voltage values of the plurality of UV lamps is generated and sent by the monitoring platform to the autonomous mobile robot, and the adjustment command is received by the control module via the communication module, and the autonomous mobile robot is controlled to lower a travel speed according to the adjustment command by the monitoring platform.
Most prior art in this field teaches increasing the voltage to the UV light sources to compensate for the lower output but do not teach varying the speed of a mobile disinfection unit instead. Pierson (US 20220143250 A1) teaches wherein the speed can depend on the UV light intensity but does not specifically teach lowering the UV light intensity in response to information from light intensity sensors.
Regarding claim 10, Trapani modified by Ramer teaches the UV sterilization system according to claim 6, as set forth above, and teaches wherein the state information further comprises the photoinduced voltage value of each of the plurality of UV lamp in the report received each time, and the photoinduced voltage value of each of the plurality of UV lamp is recorded by the monitoring platform also according to the report (par. 193: control system 532 records the date, time, operator, room number, cycle time and delivered dose and transmits the information to server 554. Server 554 stores the data and utilizes the data for performing data analytics; see Ramer modification in claim 1 rejection wherein the operational status and light intensity/voltage data of each UV light source is sent as maintenance data to an external source),
but does not teach and an average voltage value of all the plurality of UV lamps is recorded by the monitoring platform during a time cycle, wherein the average voltage value is obtained by the monitoring platform according to the photoinduced voltage values of all the plurality of UV lamps, and the average voltage of each time cycle is periodically recorded by the monitoring platform.
Fan (CN 113577327 A) teaches averaging light intensity values of a plurality of UV light sources during a disinfection cycle but does not teach doing so periodically during the disinfection cycle.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to CHANGRU CHEN whose telephone number is (571)272-1201. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 7:30-5:30.
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 on (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.
/C.C./Examiner, Art Unit 1796
/SEAN E CONLEY/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1799
Prosecution Insights