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 .
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election of Group I, claims 85-106, in the reply filed on 23 December 2025 is acknowledged. Because applicant did not distinctly and specifically point out the supposed errors in the restriction requirement, the election has been treated as an election without traverse (MPEP § 818.01(a)).
Claim Objections
Claim 94 is objected to because of the following informalities: the phrase “arms is formed form one or more frame members” in line is grammatically incorrect as the words “is formed” appear to be unnecessary and should be deleted. 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.
Claims 85-106 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 regard to claim 85, the claim is indefinite as it is unclear if the limitations regarding the “one or more arms” being “movably coupled to the center support,” “movable between a collapsed position and an expanded position” and “movable in at least one direction transvers to the central axis” refer to the same movement in different ways or to different movements. For the purpose of examination, the limitations will be given the broadest reasonable interpretation.
Claims 86-106 are rejected for being dependent on claim 85.
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.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 85-92, 97 and 100 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Paver, JR. (US 2016/0213798; hereinafter “Paver”).
In regard to claim 85, Paver discloses an ultraviolet (UV) emitting device (disinfecting unit 910) comprising: a center support (track 914 and cabinet 912) positionable within a target volume and extending along a central axis (the track defines the axis); and one or more arms (lamp arms 928) movably coupled to the center support (via support arm 924) and movable between a collapsed position (either when the arms 928 are withing the cabinet 912 or when the arms 928 are telescopically contracted; see [0070] and [0072]) and an expanded position (either when the arms 928 are outside the cabinet 912 or when the arms 928 are telescopically extended; see [0070] and [0072]), each of the one or more arms including a plurality of light sources (multiple disinfecting lamps 930 are on each arm 928) coupled thereto that are configured to emit UV light, each of the one or more arms being movable in at least one direction transverse to the central axis (lamp arms can be extended away from the track with the telescoping arm 924, rotated around the axis of the arm 924, moved along the track 916 and each arm 928 can be telescopically extended). See Figures 9A-10 and paragraphs [0069]-[0074].
In regard to claim 86, Paver discloses wherein the center support (track 916) is coupled to a wall of the target volume via cabinet 912. See Figure 9B and [0069].
In regard to claim 87, Paver discloses wherein the one or more arms includes at least a first arm capable of extending along the wall when in the expanded position (one of the arms 928 can extend in at least a direction somewhat “along the wall” as the arms can be rotated around the support arm 924) and a second arm configured to extend away from the wall when in the expanded position (another of the arms 928 can extend in at least a direction somewhat “away from the wall” as the arms can be rotated around the support arm 924). See Figures 9C and 10 and [0071]-[0072].
In regard to claim 88, Paver discloses wherein the center support is coupled to a ceiling of the target volume as Paver teaches that the track 916 may be suspended from the ceiling of the room. See [0069] and Figures 9A-9C.
In regard to claim 89, Paver discloses wherein each of the plurality of light sources of each respective arm is coupled to an underside of the respective arm as the lamps 930 are coupled to the end of the arms 928 and can rotate around the arm. Thus, the lamps 930 can be viewed to be coupled, or attached, to an arbitrary underside of the arm. See Figures 9C and 10.
In regard to claim 90, Paver discloses wherein each of the one or more arms is configured to be coupled to the ceiling as the arms 928 are coupled to the track 916 which is suspended from the ceiling. See Figure 9C and [0069].
In regard to claim 91, Paver discloses wherein each of the one or more arms are capable of extending downward at an angle (the arms extend downward from the track towards the floor when outside of the cabinet and parallel or 90° is an “angle”) toward the floor when in the expanded position. See Figures 9A-9C.
In regard to claim 92, Paver discloses wherein the center support includes one or more compartments defined therein (cabinet 912 defines arbitrary compartments), each of the one or more compartments housing a respective one of the one or more arms when the respective arm is in the collapsed position. See Figure 9B.
In regard to claim 97, Paver discloses wherein each respective one of the one or more arms includes a plurality of drapes (the end of each arm 928 which is moved by respective motors 934 which contain the lamps 930) that are capable of hanging down from the respective arm, the plurality of light sources of each arm include at least one light source coupled to each of the plurality of drapes. It is held that the moving portion of the end of each arm 928 is tantamount to the recited drapes as the lamps 930 are capable of hanging in a downward position therefrom. See Figure 9C.
In regard to claim 100, Paver discloses wherein each respective arm 928 necessarily includes a tension rod or a telescoping compression rod as the arms 928 are disclosed to be telescopic. See [0072] and Figures 9C and 10.
Claims 85, 92, 94-96, 102-106 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Kreitenberg (US 2018/0256764).
In regard to claim 85, Kreitenberg discloses an ultraviolet (UV) emitting device (trolley 1) comprising: a center support (frame of the trolley 1) positionable within a target volume and extending along a central axis (the axis defining the height of the trolley); and one or more arms (arms 5) movably coupled to the center support and movable between a collapsed position (when the arms are “stowed within the foodprint of the trolley; see [0069]) and an expanded position (when the arms are extended “above the aircraft sears (11) and below the overhead storage bins (10);” see [0069]), each of the one or more arms including a plurality of light sources (UVC lamps 2) coupled thereto that are configured to emit UV light, each of the one or more arms being movable in at least one direction transverse to the central axis (arms can be extended away from the trolley with a scissors like extension/retraction mechanism 6). See Figures 1-10 and paragraphs [0066]-[0070].
In regard to claim 92, Kreitenberg discloses wherein the center support (trolley 1) includes one or more compartments defined therein (locations for receiving the collapsed arm within the footprint of the trolley), each of the one or more compartments housing a respective one of the one or more arms when the respective arm is in the collapsed position. See Figure 1 and [0069]-[0070].
In regard to claim 94, Kreitenberg discloses wherein each of the one or more arms is formed form one or more frame members coupled together (see Figure 2), and wherein the plurality of light sources (sources 2) of each respective arm are housed within the one or more frame members as the sources 2 are within the bounds defined by the frame members of the arm (see Figure 2).
In regard to claim 95, Kreitenberg discloses wherein the one or more frame members of each respective arm defines an interior space (the frame members define the external bounds of the arm and the interior space is within the external bounds) in which the plurality of light sources are mounted. See Figure 3.
In regard to claim 96, Kreitenberg discloses wherein the one or more frame members of each of the one or more arms (arms 5) includes a plurality of frame members that are foldably coupled to each other, the plurality of frame members of each respective arm being folded against each other when the respective arm is in the collapsed position, and being arranged end to end when the respective arm is in the expanded position. See at least Figure 2.
In regard to claim 102, Kreitenberg discloses wherein the one or more arms includes a plurality of arms that, when in their expanded positions, are capable of being disposed about a perimeter of the target volume. It is held that the plurality of arms being “disposed about a perimeter of the target volume” does not further limit the structure of the apparatus as it merely regards the intended use of the apparatus as the limitation necessarily requires that the apparatus is used in a target space which is coordinated to its design. Therefore, the limitation is not further limiting. The Courts have held that a statement of intended use in an apparatus claim fails to distinguish over a prior art apparatus. See In re Sinex, 309 F.2d 488, 492, 135 USPQ 302, 305 (CCPA 1962).
In regard to claim 103, Kreitenberg further discloses one or more sensors, such as sensors that monitor motion and heat or visual pattern recognition, configured to generate data associated with the target volume. See [0082]
In regard to claim 104, Kreitenberg discloses wherein at least one of the one or more sensors is configured to generate data associated with a position of the UV emitting device within the target volume, a position of one or more objects within the target volume, or both as Kreitenberg discloses that a camera can be used to remotely monitor the trolley’s progress. See [0082]. It is held that a camera is necessarily capable of generating data association with a position of the UV emitting device within a target volume and a position of one or more objects within the target volume as the camera can transmit images and/or video. See [0082].
In regard to claim 105, Kreitenberg discloses wherein the one or more sensors includes one or more cameras. See [0082].
In regard to claim 106, Kreitenberg necessarily discloses a network interface configured to communicatively coupled the UV emitting device to at least one other computing device and allow the at least one other computing device to receive information associated with operation of the UV emitting device as Kreitenberg disclose that the images or video captured by the camera can be used to “remotely monitor” the progress of the trolley. Therefore, one of ordinary skill in the art would necessarily understand that some form of network interface, such as a wireless transmitter as is well-known in the prior art, is used to transport the data created by the camera to at least one other computing device for remote monitoring by a user. See [0082].
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.
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 97 and 99-100 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kreitenberg in view of Paver.
In regard to claim 97, Kreitenberg is silent in regard to a plurality of drapes. Kreitenberg does disclose wherein the lamps 2 are used to maximize exposure to the aircraft interior surfaces. See [0068].
Paver is applied in the same manner as disclosed above. Paver discloses wherein each respective one of the one or more arms includes a plurality of drapes (the end of each arm 928 which is moved by respective motors 934 which contain the lamps 930) that are capable of hanging down from the respective arm, the plurality of light sources of each arm include at least one light source coupled to each of the plurality of drapes. It is held that the moving portion of the end of each arm 928 is tantamount to the recited drapes as the lamps 930 are capable of hanging in a downward position therefrom. See Figure 9C. Paver teaches that the lamps 930 are rotated into a desired position for necessarily applying disinfecting UV radiation to a desired location. See [0072].
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have combined the rotating lamps 920 of Paver with the arms of the apparatus of Kreitenberg for the purpose of delivering UV radiation to a desired position such that UV radiation can be targeted at the desired position. The combination of familiar elements is likely to be obvious when it does no more than yield predictable results. See KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. __,__, 82 USPQ2d 1385, 1395 – 97 (2007) (see MPEP § 2143, A.).
In regard to claim 99, Kreitenberg discloses wherein each respective arm 5 is formed from a plurality of folding linkages coupled together (see Figures 1-8), and wherein the UV emitting device further comprises a motor (the motor of the scissors like extension/retraction mechanism 6; see [0070]) configured to fold and unfold the plurality of folding linkages of each respective arm to move the respective arm between the collapsed position and the expanded position.
In regard to claim 100, Kreitenberg discloses wherein each respective arm includes a tension rod or a telescoping compression rod (a scissors like extension/retraction mechanism 6 which includes a linear actuator and motor). See [0070] and Figures 1-8.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 93, 98 and 101 would be allowable if rewritten to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 2nd paragraph, set forth in this Office action and to include all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter: the prior art fails to teach, suggest or render obvious the recited structure of a cover on a distal end of each of the one or more arms which corresponds to a respective compartment as recited in claim 93, wherein the plurality of drapes are slidably coupled to each of the respective arms as recited in claim 98, and wherein the plurality of drapes extend from a height that is level with the top end of the center support to a floor of the target volume as recited in claim 101 and in combination with the other recited structural limitations.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to TIMOTHY C CLEVELAND whose telephone number is (571)270-5041. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9:00-5:30.
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, Claire Wang can be reached at (571) 270-1051. 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.
/TIMOTHY C CLEVELAND/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1774
Prosecution Insights