DETAILED ACTION
This is the first action on the merits in response to US Patent Application No. 18/536,991, filed 12 December, 2023, with priority to foreign application TW 112128246, filed 27 July, 2023. Claims 1-20 are pending, and claims 1-11 have been fully considered; claims 12-20 are withdrawn from consideration.
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 Invention I (Claims 1-11) in the reply filed on 26 May, 2026, is acknowledged. The traversal is on the ground(s) that examination without election would not present an undue search burden as the claims are sufficiently related, and that the requirement for restriction is burdensome for the Patent Office, the applicant, and the public. This is not found persuasive because the method of independent claim 12 (of Invention II) and the apparatus of impendent claim 1 (Invention I) include non-overlapping subject matter. Particularly, claim 1 requires an autonomous mobile robot, a plurality of UV lamps, a driving circuit, and a microcontroller, whereas claim 12 does not recite such structures. Also, claim 12 recites steps of operating an electronic device including receiving a signal via a network, wherein such network based signaling is not present in claim 1. Therefore, a complete search of independent claims 1 and 12 would require searching two distinct scopes of invention with different search strategies, e.g., requiring different search queries to encompass the different scope of the inventions. Accordingly, the examiner maintains that there would be a serious search and/or examination burden if restriction were not required.
Therefore, the requirement is still deemed proper and is thus made FINAL.
Accordingly, claims 12-20 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b), as being drawn to a nonelected Invention, there being no allowable generic or linking claim.
However, the examiner emphasizes that the withdrawn method claims will be considered for rejoinder should the withdrawn claims be amended to incorporate allowable subject matter identified within the elected claims.
Claim Interpretation
The examiner’s understanding of certain features of claims 7-9 is set forth below, and is followed by further comments regarding claim 1.
Claim 7 recites that in a case that a speed requirement is smaller than or equal to a threshold speed corresponding to the disinfection need, a speed option is selected by the microcontroller for setting the travel speed to the speed requirement, or closest to and greater than the speed requirement.
The claim does define what is required by a “speed requirement”, and a “threshold speed” is broadly indicated to “correspond to the disinfection need” without precisely setting forth how the speed corresponds. While this language is broad, the claim language is at least clear in establishing that a “speed requirement” and a “threshold speed” are not the same (at least because claim 7 refers to the speed requirement being smaller than a threshold speed); the claim language is also clear in requiring that the microcontroller be configured to set the travel speed to be equal to [or set to a closest available speed setting without going under] the speed requirement when the speed requirement is less than the threshold speed.
In view of the instant specification, it is understood that in most practical embodiments of the device of claim 7, the term “speed requirement” will typically refer to a desired speed value received by the microcontroller from an external device, such as by a user selection and/or instruction from a remote server (consider instant specification at [0044], [0048]). A “threshold speed” is understood to be a maximum speed at which the autonomous mobile robot can move through a space while still meeting a disinfection need, based on a UV output (e.g., intensity) of the UV lamps and a target dosage associated with the disinfection need (consider instant specification at [0055]).
Accordingly, the features of claims 7-9 are generally understood to be directed toward comparing the speed desired by a user (the speed requirement) with a maximum allowable (threshold) speed for proper disinfection (i.e., meeting the disinfection need) of a space. With respect to claim 7, when the user desired speed (speed requirement) is less than the maximum allowable (threshold) speed, the device operates at the user desired speed because the slower speed would not prevent the system from meeting the disinfection need (slower speeds allow for greater exposure time and thus greater UV dosages, such that a disinfection need can be reached or surpassed at slower speeds). With respect to claims 8-9, when the user desired speed (speed requirement) is faster than the maximum allowable speed, the device operates at the maximum allowable speed (claim 9) and the user is alerted that the device is operating at the maximum allowable speed (claim 8) in order to ensure the disinfection need is met (otherwise, if the travel speed is set at a speed above the maximum allowable speed, the dwell/exposure time of areas within the space would decrease, and said areas may not receive a sufficinet UV dosages to meet the disinfection need). Also, it is understood that since maximum allowable speed (threshold speed) is a function of both the disinfection need (i.e., target dose) and UV intensity, claim 9 requires that all UV lamps are activated so that the output UV intensity is maximized which in turn increases the maximum allowable (threshold) speed, such that the disinfection process can be completed as quickly as possible while still achieving the disinfection need.
However, it is reiterated that claims 7-9 do not define “a speed requirement” and “threshold speed” as described above, with the current claim language encompassing broader embodiments.
Claim 1 includes limitations describing how the claimed device functions, the limitations stating: “a travel speed of the autonomous mobile robot being controlled by the microcontroller; the driving circuit being driven by the microcontroller according to a disinfection need, and a number of UV lamps in the plurality of UV lamps being driven by the microcontroller to emit an UV light, the number of UV lamps being related to the travel speed and the disinfection need; and the travel speed with respect to brightness of the UV light being adjusted by the microcontroller”. The phrases “according to”, “with respect to”, and “being related to” recited in the claim limitations are interpreting as broadly encompassing any relationship between the features linked by the phrases. Accordingly, an ultraviolet robot device which receives or determines a disinfection need (e.g., a target UV dosage for an area to be disinfected) and controls both the number of UV lamps which are activated and the travel speed of the robot device to satisfy the disinfection need (e.g., achieve a target UV dosage at an area) is understood to satisfy the core functions of the limitations recited above (limitations of claim 1, lines 11-18).
Also, it is noted that the phrasing and grammar of claim 1 is somewhat irregular. The irregularities of the claim language are not considered to impede a clear understanding of the scope of the claims, and thus no rejection under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or formal objection is set forth. However, a suggested claim amendment is presented below intended to improve the form and legibility of the claim, which the applicant may optionally adopt or adopt portions thereof.
1 (Suggested Amendment). An Ultraviolet (UV) disinfection electronic device[[,]] for an autonomous mobile robot, the UV disinfection electronic device comprising:
a[[n]] UV lamp group[[,]] disposed at the autonomous mobile robot, the UV lamp group including:
a plurality of UV lamps; and
a driving circuit[[,]] electrically connected to the plurality of UV lamps[[,]] and disposed at the autonomous mobile robot,
a microcontroller[[,]] electrically connected to the autonomous mobile robot and the driving circuit, wherein:
a travel speed of the autonomous mobile robot is
the driving circuit is such that a number of UV lamps in the plurality of UV lamps being driven by the microcontroller to emit is related to the travel speed and the disinfection need; and
the microcontroller adjusts the travel speed with respect to a brightness of the UV light
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)(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.
Claim 1 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by West et al. (US 2023/0288938 A1, filed 14 March, 2023).
Regarding claim 1, West teaches an Ultraviolet (UV) disinfection electronic device, for an autonomous mobile robot (UV exposure device or mobile disinfecting device 400 including one or more UV lamps 402 attached to an autonomous vehicle unit or base 404—Fig. 4, [0028]; UV exposure device 500 may include one or more aspects of mobile disinfecting device 400—Fig. 5, [0033]; Figs. 6-9 also disclose embodiments of mobile disinfecting devices 606, 702, 802, 902, which correspond to device 500 of Fig. 5—see [0037]-[0040]) the UV disinfection electronic device comprising:
an UV lamp group, disposed at the autonomous mobile robot (one or more UV lamps 402 attached to autonomous vehicle unit or base 404—[0028]), the UV lamp group including:
a plurality of UV lamps (one or more UV lamps 402—[0029]); and
a driving circuit, electrically connected to the plurality of UV lamps, disposed at the autonomous mobile robot and the plurality of UV lamps being driven by the driving circuit (mobile disinfecting device 400 includes…a computing device 408—[0030]; computing device 408 includes…various components to facilitate the mobile disinfecting device 400 to…operate one or more UV lamp devices…the computing device 408 including a computer readable medium that stores instructions that when executed configures the robot to perform the disclosed functions and methods—[0031]; such disclosed methods include adjusting a UV characteristic by altering the number of lamps which are activated—see [0051], [0059], [0066]; thus evident that the device of West must include circuitry which drives the UV lamps in response to signals from the computing device 408); and
a microcontroller (408), electrically connected to the autonomous mobile robot and the driving circuit (mobile disinfecting deice 400 includes one or more implementations of a computing device 408 which includes at least a central processing unit which executes software instructions stored on a computer readable medium to cause the robot to perform the disclosed functions and methods—see [0030]-[0031]; such functions include at least turning UV lamps [402] on and off—see [0032], [0051], [0059], [0066]—and controlling movement of the device—see, e.g., [0059]; thus evident that computing device 408 comprises a controller connected with driving circuitry of the UV lamps and motion controls of the autonomous robot; also, based on how a microcontroller is described at [0036] of the instant application and the similar description of the computing device 408 of West at [0031], the term “microcontroller” does not imply a particular structure or configuration which would distinguish the claimed microcontroller from the identified controller of West), wherein:
a travel speed of the autonomous mobile robot being controlled by the microcontroller (computing device 408 configures robot to perform the disclosed functionalities and methods—see [0031]; West discusses the robot being controlled to change speeds while moving throughout a room to achieve a greater dwell time near areas requiring a greater UV exposure—see [0016], [0018], [0021], [0044], [0051], [0059], [0062], [0064]; thus, the computing device 408 clearly controls the travel speed of the robot).
West further discusses the device operating following methods (1300, 1400—Figs. 13-14) which at least include steps of determining a disinfecting need (target dosage score) for areas of a room to be disinfected (default dosage score for a space is determined or obtained based on the type of room to be disinfected at step 1302—[0049]—and additional dosage scores are determined for objects of interest, such as high touch objects, at step 1304—[0050]; step 1418 requires ensuring a default of object of interest dosage score is met for all areas of the space—[0061]—such that method 1400 must include establishing a default and object specific target dosage scores) and adjusting operating parameters including the number of UV lamps which are activated and the travel speed of the robot to ensure that the disinfecting need (target dosage score) is met at all areas of the space being disinfected (“the mobile disinfecting device may then take a second pass through the space to be disinfected, with a route already mapped out, such as including a path to traverse, whereby different segments of the path may be associated with one or more of a speed or velocity, a UV lamp intensity or UV radiation pattern characteristic, which may also include a number of lamps powered on or activated, an amount of power supplied to one or more of the UV lamps, a direction of the one or more lamps…”—[0051]; mobile disinfecting device identifies areas that are below the default dosage score and navigates the mobile disinfecting device proximate those areas…until the entire room/objects have met or exceeded the default or threshold score—[0055]; operations 1406 and 1408 include determining if the speed of the device should be reduced near identified objects and operation 1409 includes modifying a UV radiation characteristic, such as a number of activated UV lamps, to ensure that the entire identified object receives the required dosage score—[0059]; West also discusses at [0021] how the exposure dosage delivered to an object can be reduced by traveling past the object at a greater speed and/or only activating a subset or less UV lamps when near the object, and vice versa when a greater UV exposure is required, and West discusses similar functions and logic at [0018] and [0027]). Also, as indicated above, the identified microcontroller (computing device 408) of West controls or facilitates all disclosed operations of the device (see [0031])
Therefore, the device of West operates according to a control algorithm/logic wherein the driving circuit is driven by the microcontroller according to a disinfection need (target/threshold dosage score), and a number of UV lamps in the plurality of UV lamps being driven by the microcontroller to emit an UV light, the number of UV lamps being related to the travel speed and the disinfection need (as discussed above, the device of West is configured to account for and control the travel speed and number of activated UV lamps as the device moves through and disinfects a room to ensure that all areas and target objects receive a target dosage score); and
the travel speed with respect to brightness of the UV light being adjusted by the microcontroller (as discussed above, the travel speed of the robot is adjusted with consideration for the characteristics of the emitted UV light to ensure all areas in a space achieve a target dosage score).
Accordingly, West discloses all limitations of the device of claim 1.
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 2-4 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over West et al. (US 2023/0288938 A1), as applied to claim 1 above, in further view of Braverman et al. (US 2022/0088241 A1) and Dayton (US 2016/0121007 A1).
Regarding claim 2, West teaches the UV disinfection device according to claim 1. West discusses recording a UV lamp intensity (mobile disinfecting device may record the actual route through a room to be disinfected, including…UV lamp number and orientation or direction…or UV lamp intensity—[0024]; also see [0054], [0060]) and modifying the output UV intensity by adjusting a power output of one or more UV lamps or adjusting the number of UV lamps in operation ([0018], [0027], [0059], [0066]).
Although West teaches various sensors (408, 410, 412, 414, 416—[0032]), West does not teach a plurality of light sensors, wherein the plurality of light sensors are connected to the microcontroller and respectively correspond to the plurality of UV lamps, each of the light sensors is disposed at a periphery of the corresponding UV lamp, and a photoinduced voltage of the corresponding UV lamp is acquired by each of the plurality of light sensors.
However, in the analogous art of robotic mobile apparatuses for disinfection of a room (tittle), Braverman teaches a mobile apparatus (1) comprising a disinfection device (2) mounted on a wheeled carriage (3) ([0047]), the disinfection device including at least a plurality of tubular UV-C emitting lamps (10) and the apparatus further including a controller (14) housed within an enclosure (15) of a framework (8) of the carriage (3) ([0047]). A plurality of first UV sensors (39) are mounted in fixed positions on the carriage and are linked to the controller (14), the sensors (39) being arranged beneath a casing such that each sensor only receives UV-C radiation from a respective one of the lamps (10) and each sensor functions to monitor the level of said radiation when the lamps (10) are in operation ([0058]; claim 45). The sensor readings (39) are relayed to the controller (14) and forwarded to a human interface (5) or a central monitoring station so that a malfunctioning lamp can be identified and replaced ([0058]; information from sensor 39 can be stored at controller 14, free-standing unit 6, or a remote monitoring station—[0073]).
Thus, Braverman clearly teaches a plurality of light sensors (39), wherein the plurality of light sensors are connected to a controller (14) and respectively correspond to the plurality of UV lamps (10), each of the light sensors is disposed at a periphery of the corresponding UV lamp ([0058]).
Additionally, based on an ordinary understanding of standard light sensor and signaling operations, it is fairly implied that the light sensor of Braverman acquires a photoinduced voltage in response to incident UV-C radiation, and the photoinduced voltage serves as the basis of signal indicating the intensity of UVC radiation received at the light sensor, wherein said signal is forwarded to the controller. This finding is supported at least by Dayton (US 2016/0121007 A1) disclosing a photodiode as a suitable intensity sensor (48) for measuring the intensity of light emitted by a UVC bulb (14) and providing an intensity signal to a controller (16) (Dayton [0038]); photodiodes are electronic components which generate an electronic signal (i.e., a photoinduced voltage) when exposed to light.
Therefore, it would be obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art to modify the device of West to include a light sensor at the periphery of each UV lamp which acquires an electric signal (photoinduced voltage) indicative of the intensity of UV light emitted by a corresponding UV lamp, as seen in Braverman (with support from Dayton), for the benefit of validating that each UV lamp is outputting UV light at the intended intensity and for detecting malfunctions of the UV lamps (see Braverman at [0058]: ensure UV-C lamps operate and operate correctly by emitting correct intensity of UV-C radiation…lamps not operating correctly can be flagged for replacement).
Regarding claim 3, West in view of Braverman [and with support from Dayton] teaches the UV disinfection device according to claim 2. West discusses tracking the irradiation dose received at areas throughout a space based [in part] on the intensity with which UV light is emitted (dosage scores may be assigned to areas of the space based on the location of the mobile disinfecting device at operation 1316, and the intensity of the UV lamp or lamps, direction or use of mirrors proximate to the UV lamp or lamps, and/or direction of radiation of the lamps may be taken into account when assigning dosage scores—[0054]) and adjusting operations of the device—including the travel speed of the device and the number of activated UV lamps—to ensure that a target irradiation dose is achieved (generating and/or modifying a route which includes a speed or dwell time and/or one or more UV radiation characteristics associated with one or more locations or segments of a path through the space to be disinfected may be an iterative process whereby the route is updated or changed as the mobile disinfecting device moves through the space to be disinfected—[0062]; determining the route includes determining a reduced speed, modified path, and/or an ultraviolet radiation characteristic for at least one segment of the path—[0064]; a UV radiation characteristic, such as a number of UV lamps active, may be modified to ensure that the entire identified object receives the requisite dosage score—[0059]).
Accordingly, the microcontroller of West essentially operates such that an irradiation dose according to the UV lamp intensity and the travel speed corresponding to a speed requirement is obtained by the microcontroller (dosage score is a cumulative UV lamp radiation an area has been exposed to, which can be calculated based on a record of the actual route of the device through the room, including locations, speeds, dwell time, UV lamp number and orientation, UV lamp intensity, and mirror positioning—[0024]; a “speed requirement” in this instance can amount to whichever speed the controller drives the device to move at for a particular position), and the travel speed is reduced by the microcontroller or the number of UV lamps is increased by the microcontroller according to the irradiation dose (dosage score) and the disinfection need (threshold dosage score) in a case that the irradiation dose is smaller than the disinfection need (as the UV robot traverses the room, the dosage score is accumulated. For areas of the room that are below the threshold dosage score, the robot can do one or more of the following to increase dosage scores in said areas and reach the required dosage…increasing the dwell time of the UV robot near the area, or increasing the intensity of the UV lamps—[0027]; a greater dwell time corresponds to a slower speed—[0044]; intensity of UV lamp may be modified to increase the UV exposure of certain areas by activating additional UV lamps—[0018]).
West does not particularly indicate that a plurality of light sensors provide a photoinduced voltage signal for each of the UV lamps emitting UV light, which signals are received by the microcontroller and used as an intensity signal to calculate the irradiation dose.
However, as substantially discussed with respect to claim 2 above, Braverman (with support from Dayton) teaches the use of UV light sensors to determine the intensity of each of a plurality of UV lamps, with an intensity signal from the UV light sensors being delivered to a controller for processing (see Braverman at [0058], [0073]), said intensity signal essentially comprising a photoinduced voltage (consider Dayton at [0038] discussing the use of a photodiode as a UV intensity sensor, wherein such a photodiode evidently operates by generating a photoinduced voltage in response to UV light) indicative of an actual intensity of UV light emitted by each lamp.
Accordingly, it would be obvious to modify the device of West such that the record of UV lamp intensity over the path of the device (West: record of actual route…including UV lamp intensity—[0024]) is generated using signals (i.e., photoinduced voltages) acquired by light sensors associated with each light source and forwarded to the microcontroller for processing (as similarly seen in Braverman and Dayton), for the benefit of improving the accuracy of the intensity data used for calculations of irradiation dosage.
Regarding claim 4, West in view of Braverman [and with support from Dayton] teaches the UV disinfection device according to claim 3. West teaches a communication apparatus connected to the microcontroller (computing device 408 may include…various network connectivity devices, such as WiFi/wireless internet, Bluetooth…USB inputs—[0031]—which can establish communication with remote computing resources—see [0036]).
West also teaches the device is configured to determine if the irradiation dose is smaller than the disinfection need (at operation 1322, it is determined if all of the default/objects of interest dosage scores have been met for all areas of the space—[0055]; at operation 1418, it is determined if all of the default/objects of interest dosage scores have been met for all areas of the space—[0061]), and in some embodiments the device generates a heat map (1000) which marks areas (1026) where a required dosage threshold has been exceeded and areas (1022,1024) where the dosage threshold has not yet been reached (Fig. 10, [0042]). The heat map may be output to enable an operator or other system to verify compliance or traceability ([0046]).
Such a heat map (1000) included markings of regions (1022,1024) where the irradiation dose (dosage score) is smaller than the disinfection need (required dosage threshold) fairly defines a notification message generated by the microcontroller and transmitted to a monitoring platform or a client via the communication apparatus (the heat map may be generated as the mobile disinfecting device traverses the space to be disinfected…and may be used to provide real time updates to… an automated system or … an operator monitoring the progress of the device—[0062]; mobile disinfecting device is in communication with backend system/resources—[0024], [0031], [0055], [0061]—such as servers or cloud computing resources—[0036]).
Claim 10 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over West et al. (US 2023/0288938 A1), as applied to claim 1 above, in view of Duncan (US 2022/0054675 A1), and evidenced by Imamura et al. (US 2024/0123100 A1, filed 10 March, 2023).
Regarding claim 10, West teaches the UV disinfection electronic device according to claim 1. West further teaches a communication apparatus connected to the microcontroller (computing device 408 may include…various network connectivity devices, such as WiFi/wireless internet, Bluetooth…USB inputs—[0031]) which can establish communication with remote computing resources ([0036]).
West does not particularly indicate that an operation time of each of the UV lamps emitting the UV light is accumulated by the microcontroller, and in a case that the operation time of any of the UV lamps is greater than or equal to a threshold time, a warning notification is generated by the microcontroller, and the warning notification is transmitted to a monitoring platform or a client via the communication apparatus.
However, in the analogous art of automatic UV environmental sanitization (title), Duncan teaches a system for sanitizing an environment (100) comprising UV sanitization devices (102, 202) in communication with a user interface device or computing device (126, 226) and a remote server or cloud (128, 240) (Figs. 1-2, [0041]-[0044], [0057]). Each sanitization device (102, 202) include at least a UV light source (104, 204) and a controller (106, 236) associated with a network interfaces (232) ([0043]-[0044], [0049]). The controller is configured to operate according to a process (300) (Fig. 3, [0059]) which includes a step (314) of logging the cumulative usage of a light source (block 314 includes logging an activation time, duration, and/or deactivation time associated with the light source…which can be appended to an existing log of light source usage—[0067]), a step (316) of determining an expected remaining lifespan of the light source ([0068]), and a step (320) of generating a maintenance prediction alert when the expected remaining lifespan of the light source drops below a threshold ([0069]). Duncan fairly indicates the alert is displayed to a user on a remote computer device (see [0056], [0074], [0083]-[0085]).
Duncan indicates that the criteria for generating the alert is the expected remaining lifespan dropping beneath a threshold ([0068]), whereas claim 11 defines the criteria for generating a warning notification is the accumulated operation time of the UV lamp exceeding a threshold. A person of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that these criteria are obvious variants of each other. Particularly, the expected remaining lifespan of Duncan is, at least in some embodiments, may be determined by subtracting the cumulative usage time from an expected lifespan associated with the light source (light source specification information includes an expected lifespan—[0032]; light source specification information received at step 306—[0062]; expected remaining lifespan can be determined based on the light source specification information from block 306 and the light source usage from block 314—[0068]). This is further supported by Imamura (US 2024/0123100 A1) teaching that a remaining lifetime of a UV light source is calculated by subtracting an “ON” time of the light source from the total lifetime of the light source ([0091]). Accordingly, it is evident that a remaining lifespan dropping beneath a threshold would directly correspond to a cumulative usage time exceeding a threshold, and it is well within the skill of a person having ordinary skill in the art to swap the criteria (i.e., replace a lower boundary condition on an expected remaining lifetime with an upper boundary condition on a cumulative usage) within a control algorithm as they are functionally equivalent.
Therefore, it would be obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art to modify the device of West such that an operation time of each of the UV lamps emitting the UV light is accumulated by the microcontroller, and in a case that the operation time of any of the UV lamps is greater than or equal to a threshold time, a warning notification is generated by the microcontroller, and the warning notification is transmitted to a monitoring platform or a client via the communication apparatus (functionally equivalent process steps for an analogous system are disclosed by Duncan at blocks 314, 316, and 320 of Fig. 3, and a person of ordinary skill in the art would readily swap between a threshold condition on an expected remaining lifetime and threshold condition on a cumulative operating time, as disused above, to achieve the same, predictable result) for the benefit of alerting a system operator when the light sources need to be replaced, and thus avoiding failure of the system due to light sources being used past their useful lifespans (Duncan: expected remaining lifespan includes information about the expected remaining time until the light source may fail to provide adequate output for sanitizing….the maintenance alert indicates which light source needs to be replaced and when it needs to be replaced—[0036]).
Claim 11 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over West et al. (US 2023/0288938 A1), as applied to claim 1 above, in view of Toh (US 2025/0090706 A1, with PCT filed 23 July, 2022, and previously published as WO 2023/003474 A1).
Regarding claim 11, West discloses the UV disinfection electronic device according to claim 1. West discusses a communication apparatus connected to the microcontroller (computing device 408 may include…various network connectivity devices, such as WiFi/wireless internet, Bluetooth…USB inputs—[0031]) which can establish communication with remote computing resources ([0036]). West does not particularly suggest the microcontroller is further configured to receive a disinfection signal from a monitoring platform or a client via the communication apparatus, the disinfection signal comprises an activation command, and the disinfection signal further comprises a need requirement of the disinfection need, a speed requirement, or both the need requirement of the disinfection need and the speed requirement.
However, in the analogous art of disinfection robots (title), Toh discloses a disinfection robot (2) ([0087]) including at least an ultraviolet radiation source (4) ([0088]), movement means (6), and a controller (10) (claim 1; Figs. 1-2D, [0087]-[0088]). Toh further teaches the robot (2) communicates with a monitoring platform (server computer 52) and a client (mobile device 54) via a communication device (30) of the robot (Fig. 7, [0155]-[0156]; robot provided with communication device 30 for exchanging information with an external source, such as a server computer or user—[0109]). The robot receives an activation command (instruction to disinfect a space) from the client (user may instruct the robot to start disinfecting the space—[0165]; via remote computer, such as mobile device 54, user instructs the robot to start mapping the space—[0164]), and the robot further receives disinfection information (68) including a disinfection need (e.g., minimum exposure threshold) for the space from the client (54) or monitoring platform (52) (server computer 52, mobile computer 54, and controller arranged to exchange disinfection information with each other—Fig. 7, [0163], [0160]; disinfection information includes a minimum exposure threshold for a space or portion thereof—[0119]—and a type of pathogen and/or allergen against which the space is to be disinfected, a required disinfection level, and a radiant power of the radiation source—[0120], [0160], claim 11). Remotely sending instructions to the robot allows a user to operate the robot from a safe distance from the radiation source ([0155]), and sending the disinfection need (disinfection information, including minimum UV exposure threshold) to the robot enables the robot to plan and execute a path through the space at a velocity which will achieve the target disinfection need (controller 10 of the robot determines a path and velocity through the space during disinfecting based on the disinfection information in order to achieve a target level of disinfection—see [0090], [0136], claim 10).
Therefore, it would be obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art to configure the device of West such that the microcontroller is further configured to receive a disinfection signal from a monitoring platform (e.g., consider server computer 52 of Toh) or a client (e.g., via mobile computer 54 of Toh) via the communication apparatus (see Toh at [0109], [0155]-[0156], [0160],[0163]), the disinfection signal comprising an activation command (Toh: instruct robot to start disinfecting—[0165]) and a need requirement of the disinfection need (disinfection information including minimum exposure threshold—[0119]-[0120], claim 11—exchanged between server 52, mobile computer 54, and controller 10—Fig. 7, [0160], [0163]), as substantially seen in Toh, for the benefit of allowing a user to safely initiate the robot to perform a disinfection process (see Toh at [0155] discussing user being a safe distance from radiation source 4 of robot 2) at a desired disinfection level (see Toh at [0090], [0136], and claim 10 discussing how the controller operates the robot to achieve a target level of disinfection included with the disinfection information).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 5-9 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 5, West in view of Braverman [and with support from Dayton] teaches the UV disinfection device according to claim 2.
As similarly discussed with respect to claims 2-4 above, it would be obvious to modify West such that the device includes a plurality of UV sensors, each UV sensor positioned at the periphery of a corresponding UV light source and in communication with a microcontroller so that a record of the intensity of each UV lamps intensity over time can be compiled (West: record actual route through room including UV lamp intensity—[0024]; Braverman: UV sensors 39 each only receive UV-C radiation form a respective one of the lamps 10…and forward received intensity signal to controller 14; Dayton at [0038] exemplifies how light sensor signals typically include a photoinduced voltage); said modification provides the benefit of enabling the lamps to be monitored to ensure they are operating correctly and allowing an operator to be alerted when replacement is required (see Braverman at [0058]). That is, West in view of Braverman [and Dayton] fairly suggests configuring the device of West such that the photoinduced voltage of each of the UV lamps emitting the UV light is periodically received and recorded by the microcontroller.
West, Braverman, and Dayton, do not particularly teach that the device is further configured such that the photoinduced voltages of the same UV lamp at adjacent two receptions are compared by the microcontroller, and in a case that the photoinduced voltage of any of the UV lamps is reduced, the travel speed is reduced by the microcontroller or the number of UV lamps is increased by the microcontroller.
In essence, claim 5 is understood to be directed toward the controller detecting decreases in UV lamp intensity and compensating for the decrease in the intensity of a UV lamp by either activating additional UV lamps or decreasing the travel speed of the device so that the device can continue to operate to deliver a sufficient UV dosage to meet the disinfection need.
Generally, such a compensation mechanism is similar to the compensation techniques West suggests when a location is identified as not having received a sufficinet UV dosage (some areas of a room may have insufficient dosage scores after the robot covers the obstacle-free areas of the room…these areas can get a sufficinet dosage score by …increasing the dwell time of the robot in the area…or increasing the intensity of the UV lamps—[0027]; intensity of UV lamp may be modified by activating additional UV lamps—[0018]; dwell time is correlated to the speed of the mobile UV device—[0044]). It is evident that if the intensity of a UV lamp were to decreases, the disinfection plan would need to be adjusted or else the planned route would not be sufficient to meet the disinfection need at with the decreased UV lamp intensity. Accordingly, it would be advantageous to implement compensatory measures such as activating an additional UV lamp or slowing down the travel speed of the device to ensure that the disinfection need is met when a UV lamp is detected as operating at a decreased intensity.
Nonetheless, West, Braverman, and Dayton do not provide sufficient support for configuring a microcontroller for the particularly claimed functions, such that the microcontroller tracks and compares consecutive readings from each UV lamp to detect a decrease in intensity, and the microcontroller is further configured to reduce a travel speed or increases a number of operating lamps of the mobile device when a decrease in intensity is detected. No prior art was found which teaches or fairly suggests such configuration of a microcontroller in combination with all further limitations of claims 1 and 2. Accordingly, the subject matter of claim 5 is novel and non-obvious over the prior art.
Claim 6 contains allowable subject matter by virtue of dependency on claim 6.
Regarding claim 7, West discloses the UV disinfection electronic device according to claim 1.
Claim 7 recites that in a case that a speed requirement is smaller than or equal to a threshold speed corresponding to the disinfection need, a speed option is selected by the microcontroller for setting the travel speed to the speed requirement, or closest to and greater than the speed requirement.
The examiner’s understanding of this claim language is set forth in the claim interpretation section above.
As discussed with respect to claim 1 above, the device of West determines and executes a path through a space with each segment of the path having an assigned velocity and UV characteristic (such as number of lamps) to ensure that each area of the room receives sufficient UV exposure to achieve a target dosage score (see [0051], [0059], [0062], [0064]). Accordingly, said assigned velocities of West are understood to define threshold speeds, and West thus teaches the microcontroller setting the travel speed to be equal to the threshold speed.
Also, West recognized that reducing the speed of an ultraviolet disinfecting device as it moves past an area will increases the dwell time of the device near the area and thus deliver a greater UV dosage to the area (see, e.g., [0016], [0021], [0027], [0044]).
Nonetheless, West does not clearly teach a speed requirement which the microcontroller compares to the threshold speed, wherein the microcontroller sets the travel speed to be equal to the speed requirement when the speed requirement is less than the threshold speed, and wherein the speed requirement is understood to be a distinct parameter from the threshold speed (see claim interpretation above).
Certain disinfection devices are known which allow a user to set or operate with a predetermined speed requirement, or wherein feedback is provided regarding the speed of the device.
- Michalakos et al. (US 2022/0047734 A1) teaches an aircraft disinfecting system including a trolley equipped with an electromagnetic radiation apparatus, wherein the trolley moves along an aisle of an aircraft while emitting disinfecting, especially UV ([0018], claim 2), radiation (abstract). Michalakos indicates that the speed of the trolley can be set by a user via a user interface (65) ([0029]). Michalakos also discloses embodiments wherein the trolley speed is programmed based on a required disinfection rate and a radiation intensity ([0037]). While these speeds correspond to a speed requirement and threshold speed, respectively, Michalakos does not indicate that a controller is configured to follow a logic wherein it compares the speed requirement to the threshold speed and controls the travel speed of the trolley to match one of the speed requirement or threshold speed based on the comparison.
-In a related publication, the same inventors, Michalakos et al. (US 2022/0226525 A1) disclose a mobile sanitization system comprising a movable trolley (120) (abstract) including light sources (190) and a controller (138), wherein in an embodiment in which the output of the light sources is fixed, the controller sends an alert whenever the speed of the trolley is detected to deviate from a predetermined speed ([0140]).
-Flaherty et al. (US 2023/0158188 A1, cited in IDS filed 14 March, 2024) teaches a mobile ultraviolet disinfection device comprising a control board, sensors, and UV LEDs (abstract). The device (100) provides an indication to a user via a feedback system (170) when the speed of the device approaches or exceeds a speed which does not allow a proper UV irradiation level from the device, prompting the user to slow movement of the device ([0025]).
Nonetheless, the cited references do not clearly suggest a microcontroller comparing a speed requirement and threshold speed, and controlling the travel speed of the device to be equal [or substantially equal] to the speed requirement when the speed requirement is less than the threshold speed. No prior art was found which clearly teaches or suggests such configuration of a microcontroller within a mobile disinfecting device. Accordingly, claim 7 is novel and non-obvious over the prior art.
Claims 8-9 contain allowable subject matter at least by virtue of dependency on claim 7.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
-Douglas (US 2012/0280147 A1) teaches a mobile sanitizer comprising an ultraviolet light source (abstract), wherein a user can input a disinfection need (panel 154 has buttons that indicate the predetermined dosage that is to be applied—[0016]—which may correspond with a target organism—[0018]; e.g., selection of mold A provides a target dose of 10,000 µWs/cm2—[0037]) and a desired number of passes over an area, the combination of which with the intensity of output light sets a target movement rate for operating the device (A selection of “one pass” provides a target movement rate based on the calculated intensity at the surface and the dose—[0037]). The target movement rate may be displayed to a user alongside other information, and the display may also indicate to a user if the user’s input goals for disinfection cannot be accomplished with the available intensity and speed options ([0040]). Douglas also indicates that the mobile device may be a robotic floor cleaner ([0027]), and that a controller may increase or decrease the intensity of the UV light source with the speed of the device (claims 2-4; [0020]).
-Trevor et al. (US 2021/0347048 A1) teaches a cleaning robot 1100 (Fig. 11, [0122]) including a processor 1102 ([0123]), a memory 1104, a communication interface 1106 ([0124]), a storage device 1108, a sensor module 1110 ([0125]), a UV end effector 1112 which includes a UV light source ([0127], [0129], [0132]), and a mobility apparatus 1114. Operations of the cleaning robot can be initiated by the robot receiving an instruction from a remote location such as a command center or cleaning service executed on a computing device ([0135]), wherein the instructions for operation can be specific ([0136]). The robot may provide an activity report (1218) about any or all activity ([0162]) in real time to a remote database ([0163]). Trevor also determining an exposure threshold and monitoring that a point is exposed to the designated threshold ([0107]-[0108]).
-Pierson et al. (US 2022/0143250 A1) teaches an autonomous mobile robotic device equipped with one or more UVC radiation sources which operates to traverse a path while disinfecting an interior space (abstract); the speed of the robot along different portions of the path is determined based on the UVC light source configuration of the robot along the path such that a disinfection dosage sufficient to neutralize or kill harmful pathogens is applied to areas within the space ([0018], [0022], [0025], [0049]).
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to BRADY C PILSBURY whose telephone number is (571)272-8054. The examiner can normally be reached M-Th 7:30a-5:00p.
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 at (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.
/BRADY C PILSBURY/Examiner, Art Unit 1799
/JENNIFER WECKER/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1797
Prosecution Insights