DETAILED ACTION
This is the first action in response to US Patent Application No. 18/549,845, filed 08 September, 2023, as the National Stage Entry of International Application PCT/JP2022/002380, filed 24 January, 2022, with priority to Japanese application JP 2021-174849, filed 26 October, 2021, and Japanese application JP 2021-037424, filed 09 March, 2021.
The preliminary amendments filed 08 September, 2023, are acknowledged. Claims 16 and 22-27 are cancelled. Claims 12-13 are amended to remove multiple dependencies from the claims. Claims 1-15 and 17-21 are pending and have been fully considered.
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 .
Claim Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f). The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f). The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitation(s) is/are: “an irradiation region changing mechanism” and “a driving unit” in claim 1.
With respect to the “irradiation region changing mechanism”, the limitation: A) recites the generic placeholder “mechanism”; B) modifies the generic placeholder with the functional language “changes an irradiation direction of the ultraviolet light of the light source unit”; and C) claim 1 does not state the actual structures which perform the recited function. Based on the disclosure at Fig. 2 and [0098], an irradiation region changing mechanism is interpreted as referring to a mount for a light source configured for rotational movement, or equivalents thereof.
With respect to the “driving unit”, the limitation: A) recites the generic placeholder “unit”; B) modifies the generic placeholder with the functional limitation “drives the irradiation region changing mechanism to change the irradiation direction of the ultraviolet light source unit”; and C) claim 1 does not recite the actual structures which perform the recited function. Based on the disclosure at [0104], a driving unit is understood to refer to an actuator, motor, control circuit, or combination thereof which causes rotation of the irradiation region changing mechanism, or equivalents thereof.
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f).
Claim Objections
Claims 15 and 17 are objected to for the informalities indicated below.
Claim 15 is objected to because the claim recites “the driving unit drives the irradiation region changing mechanism to irradiate with a principal ray of the ultraviolet light, an outside of a sensing region at a time of human sensing of the human detection unit that has sensed the presence of the human” (lines 4-7). The claim is not grammatically clear and should be adjusted to more clearly convey the intended meaning. For example, the claim could be adjusted to read: “the driving unit drives the irradiation region changing mechanism to direct towardregion outside of a sensing region that has sensed the presence of the human”. The suggested adjustment reflects how the claim has been interpreted for purposes of examination.
Claim 17 is objected to because “the human detection unit is provided to have the sensing region that moves according to the irradiation region changing mechanism driving by the driving unit” (lines 2-3) should read “the human detection unit is configureddriven
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.
Claims 1, 3 and 12-13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated Imamura et al. (US 2024/0042075 A1, with foreign priority dated 14 September, 2020, and cited in the IDS filed 10 September, 2024).
Regarding claim 1, Imamura teaches an apparatus for inactivating bacteria or viruses in a space (sterilization system and control method—title, abstract), the apparatus comprising:
a light source unit (21) that emits ultraviolet light having a peak wavelength within a wavelength range of 190 nm or more and less than 240 nm (light source unit 21 irradiates sterilization target space with ultraviolet rays having a wavelength between 190 nm and 230 nm—[0058]);
an irradiation region changing mechanism (vertical angle adjustment unit 4 and horizontal angle adjustment unit 4 supporting main body portion 2 which houses light source unit 21—[0038]) that changes an irradiation direction of the ultraviolet light of the light source unit (horizontal angle adjustment unit 4 adjusts pan direction by rotation light source unit in horizontal direction—[0061]—and vertical angle adjustment unit rotates light source unit 21 in tilt direction—[0060]); and
a driving unit (first and second motors 32 and 42) that drives the irradiation region changing mechanism to change the irradiation direction of the ultraviolet light of the light source unit (first motor 32 rotates main body portion 2 about a supporting shaft—[0060]—and second motor 42 rotates arm portion 31 about a supporting shaft—[0061]).
See the apparatus of Imamura below.
PNG
media_image1.png
572
458
media_image1.png
Greyscale
For clarity, it is noted that “an irradiation driving unit” has been interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) as essentially referring to a rotatable light mounting structure, and a “driving unit” is interpreted as referring to the motors (and optionally associated actuators and controllers) that cause rotation of the light mounting structure. Accordingly, the claimed irradiation driving unit corresponds to the light mounting structure of Imamura defined by the body portion (2), arm portion (31), base portion (41), and the supporting shafts connecting said structures (see Fig. 1, [0060], [0061]), and the claimed driving unit corresponds to the first (32) and second motors (43) (and any associated control circuitry and actuators) which drive the body (2) and arm (31) portions to rotate (see Fig. 1, [0060]-[0061]).
Regarding claim 3, Imamura teaches the apparatus for inactivating the bacteria or the viruses according to claim 1. Imamura further teaches a control unit (52) which drives the control of light source (21) and driving unit (3242) ([0042]) based on setting information ([0072], Figs. 6-7), wherein the setting information is stored in the control unit (52) and includes a plurality of sets of positions (horizontal angle and vertical angle) and irradiation times and/or intensities associated with said positions (Fig. 9, [0084]; Figs. 11-12 and [0092]-[0093]). Thus, the control unit (52) of Imamura clearly includes a pattern storage (e.g., the memory unit H2 of the control unit 52 which stores a program for operations—Fig. 5, [0069]-[0070]) that stores data of an operation pattern (setting information) of the irradiation region changing mechanism (setting information includes horizontal and vertical positions of irradiation region changing mechanism), wherein the driving unit drives the irradiation region changing mechanism on a basis of the data stored in the pattern storage (control unit 52 controls motors 32 and 42 –[0042]—based on setting information—[0072]).
Regarding claim 12, Imamura teaches the apparatus for inactivating the bacteria or the viruses according to claim 1. As discussed with respect to claim 3 above, the control unit (52) of Imamura stores setting information ([0072], Figs. 6-7), such as on a memory unit (H2) thereof (Fig. 5, [0069]), wherein the setting information includes on/off instructions for the ultraviolet emitter as a function of position (irradiation control unit C3 has a function of turning on and off the ultraviolet rays…based on the setting information—[0072]; setting information includes sets of horizontal angle, vertical angle, and irradiation time—[0084]—as well as irradiation intensity—Fig. 12, [0093]; setting information includes irradiation time, intensity, wavelength, and distance—[0097]). It is thus evident that the memory of Imamura can store which areas are not to be irradiated (e.g. when the set of setting information at a position indicates 0 second irradiation time and/or 0 intensity). Thus, Imamura fairly teaches a direction data storage (component of control unit 52, such as memory H2) that stores direction data of a direction in which irradiation with the ultraviolet light is not performed (setting information for positions where intensity or irradiation time are 0)
Regarding claim 13, Imamura teaches the apparatus for inactivating the bacteria or the viruses according to claim 1. As discussed with respect to claims 3 and 12 above, the control unit (52) of Imamura stores setting information ([0072], Figs. 6-7), such as on a memory unit (H2) thereof (Fig. 5, [0069]), wherein the setting information includes irradiation time and intensity as a function of emitter position ([0072]; [0084]; [0093]; [0097]). Thus, Imamura teaches that a direction data storage (component of control circuit unit 52, such as memory H2) that stores direction data of a direction in which irradiation with the ultraviolet light is performed (setting information where intensity and irradiation time are non-zero values).
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.
Claim 2 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Imamura et al. (US 2024/0042075 A1), as applied to claim 1 above, in further view of Childress (US 2022/0023477 A1, filed 11 August, 2020).
Regarding claim 2, Imamura discloses the apparatus for inactivating the bacteria or the viruses according to claim 1. Imamura teaches a preferred wavelength range of 190 nm to 230 nm, and indicates that wavelengths greater than 230 nm can be undesirable because ultraviolet light having a wavelength greater than 230 nm can be absorbed by human cells and damage DNA therein ([0058]). Thus, Imamura suggests limiting the emission of ultraviolet light having a wavelength in the range of 240 nm or more and less than 280 nm. Nonetheless, Imamura does not teach achieving such limiting by way of the light source unit including an optical filter configured to reduce a light intensity at least in a wavelength range of 240 nm or more and less than 280 nm.
However, in the analogous art of ultraviolet decontamination devices (title, abstract), Childress teaches a UV light (104) coupled with a filter (114) ([0024]), wherein the filter is a low pass filter that allows UV radiation of wavelengths shorter than 240 nm to pass through ([0025]). Childress further recognizes that the sub 240 nm range of UV radiation is effective for pathogen decontamination while being safe to humans ([0025]). By only allowing light having a wavelength of less than 240 nm to pass, the low pass filter of Childress is understood to block or significantly attenuate the emission of light having a wavelength greater than 240 nm, which includes the claimed wavelength range of 240 nm to 280 nm.
Therefore, it would be obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art to modify the apparatus of Imamura to include an optical filter configured to reduce a light intensity at least in a wavelength range of 240 nm or more and less than 280 nm, as suggested by Childress, for the benefit of reducing the amount of dangerous ultraviolet light emitted into the environment while still achieving pathogen decontamination (Imamura indicates wavelengths greater than 230 nm can damage human cells and DNA—[0058]; Childress indicates that wavelengths between below 240 are safe for humans and effective for pathogen decontamination—[0025]).
Claims 4, 7 and 9-11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Imamura et al. (US 2024/0042075 A1), as applied to claim 1 above, in further view of Sure et al. (US 20220118135 A1, with foreign priority date 16 October, 2020).
Regarding claim 4, Imamura teaches the apparatus for inactivating the bacteria or the viruses according to claim 1. It is noted that claim 4 is understood to be directed toward a system configured for switching between an upper-room disinfecting mode and lower-room disinfecting mode.
Imamura does not particularly suggest the driving unit drives the irradiation region changing mechanism to switch a direction of irradiation with the ultraviolet light of the light source unit between a first space and a second space in the space, the first space is a space located at a height of less than 2 m from the floor, and the second space is a space located at a height of more than2m from the floor.
However, systems which alternate between an upper room air disinfection mode and lower room surface disinfection mode—as essentially claimed—are known. For example, Sure—in the analogous art of air and surface disinfection systems (title)—teaches a disinfection system (10) comprising an ultraviolet light (12), irradiation region changing mechanism (reflector 16), and driving mechanism (motor 14) ([0021]), wherein when the room is occupied the reflector is rotated so that ultraviolet rays are emitted parallel to the ceiling surface ([0054]) and above the body of any person (60) within the room (54) (see Fig. 6, [0058]), and when the room is unoccupied the reflector is rotated so that light rays are emitted toward surfaces in the lower part of the room (Fig. 5, [0054], [0057]). Sure recognizes that the room-occupied configuration achieves air disinfection (air disinfection position—see [0059], [0061], [0065], [0071]) of upper air in the room (claim 2) that is preferably circulated by convection in the room (claim 3), and that the room-unoccupied configuration achieves surface disinfection (surface disinfection—[0061], [0067], [0073]). Sure also suggest switching from surface disinfection to air disinfection when a person is detected by an occupancy sensor (28) ([0035]).
Therefore, it would be obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art to configure the system of Imamura so that the driving unit drives the irradiation unit changing mechanism to switch a direction of irradiation from a first lower room space for surface disinfection mode to a second upper room space air disinfection mode when a person is detected in the room, as seen in Sure ([0035]), for the benefit of reducing the exposure of a person occupying the room to ultraviolet light while simultaneously effectuating air disinfection (Sure at [0059], [0061], [0065], [0071], and claims 2-3 indicates that upper room irradiation achieves air disinfection).
Furthermore, when making said modification it would be evident to a person having ordinary skill in the art that the second space (upper room) should be defined at a height of more than 2m from the floor in order to avoid irradiating persons in the room, as the typical standing height of most humans will be slightly or significantly below 2 m. Similarly, the first space (lower room) should include surfaces at a heigh of less than 2m from the floor in order to target touch surfaces in the room for disinfection (i.e., most touch surfaces will be at or below the standing height of humans, which is typically at or below 2m).
Regarding claim 7, Imamura in view of Sure teaches the apparatus for inactivating the bacteria or the viruses according to claim 4. Imamura further teaches a timer that measures an irradiation time of the ultraviolet light (timer incorporated in the control unit 52—[0118]; setting information includes irradiation time…the irradiation time settable in accordance with position so that a predetermined sterilization effect can be achieved—[0084]). Imamura indicates that the irradiation time at each position is set to achieve a desired sterilization effect ([0084]). Nonetheless, Imamura does not particularly suggest that the driving unit drives the irradiation region changing mechanism to switch the irradiation of the first space with the ultraviolet light and the irradiation of the second space with the ultraviolet light on a basis of a time measured by the timer.
However, Sure suggests adjusting an irradiation region changing mechanism (reflectors) between predetermined positions for predetermined amount of time ([0074]), said positions including upper room and lower room disinfection positions (consider Fig. 4 showing different positions of Sure). Therefore, it would be obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art to configure the apparatus of Imamura to spend a set period of time irradiating the first space before switching to irradiating the second space for a set period of time for the benefit of achieving a desired sterilization effect in each region (consider Imamura at [0084], and Sure at [0074]).
Regarding claim 9, Imamura in view of Sure teaches the apparatus for inactivating the bacteria or the viruses according to claim 4. Imamura further teaches a human detecting sensor that senses whether a human is present in the space (human sensor 400 for detecting the presence of a person in the space—[0050]), and suggests adjusting the ultraviolet irradiation based on the detection of a human ([0128]). Although Imamura does not clearly teach that the detection of a human triggers a switch from lower room irradiation (first space) to an upper room irradiation (second space), Sure does substantially does teach this feature as discussed with respect to claim 4 above, and it would therefore be obvious to configure the modified system of Imamura such that when the human detecting sensor has sensed presence of the human in the space, the driving unit drives the irradiation region changing mechanism to cause the light source unit to irradiate the second space with the ultraviolet light, and when the human detecting sensor has sensed absence of the human in the space, the driving unit drives the irradiation region changing mechanism to cause the light source unit to irradiate the first space with the ultraviolet light. Such modification evidently reduces the exposure of a person in the room to ultraviolet radiation from the system and enables air disinfection when the room is occupied (consider Sure at Figs. 5-6, [0035], [0059], [0061], [0065], [0071], and claims 2-3).
Regarding claim 10, Imamura in view of Sure teaches the apparatus for inactivating the bacteria or the viruses according to claim 9. Imamura indicates the human detecting sensor may have a wide range around the sterilizer of a narrow range corresponding to the irradiation range of ultraviolet rays ([0050]). The human sensor (400) is depicted as attached to the main body portion (2) which houses the light source unit (21), and thus the sensing region moves according to the irradiation region. Thus, Imamura does not clearly teach the human detecting sensor is provided to have a sensing region that is fixed. However, Sure teaches the function of switching between an upper room disinfection and lower room disinfection based on a detection by a human sensor (occupancy sensor 28; see rejections of claims 4 and 9 above), wherein the human sensor is associated with a fixed housing (22) or arranged remotely on a wall ([0021], [0034]), wherein such arrangements would yield a fixed sensing region. Therefore, it would be obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art to rearrange the human sensor (400) of Imamura to be positioned with a fixed sensing range, as seen in Sure, because such rearrangement would not modify the function of the apparatus in alternating between an upper and lower irradiation region in response to the detection of a human (as evidenced by the fixed sensing region of Sure achieving said result); additionally, the rearrangement may provide the benefit of a sensing region encompassing an entire room when appropriately positioned. Also consider MPEP 2144.04(VI.)(C.) regarding the obviousness of the rearrangement of parts.
Regarding claim 11, Imamura in view of Sure teaches the apparatus for inactivating the bacteria or the viruses according to claim 9. Imamura further teaches that the human detecting sensor (400) is provided to have a sensing region that moves according to the irradiation region changing mechanism driving by the driving unit (Fig. 1 depicts the human sensor 400 is depicted as attached to the main body portion 2 which houses the light source unit 21, such that the sensing region would move in accordance with the irradiation region).
Claims 5-6 and 8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Imamura et al. (US 2024/0042075 A1), in view of Sure et al. (US 20220118135 A1), as applied to claim 4 above, and further in view of Lloyd (US 2017/0246329 A1, cited in the IDS filed 08 September, 2023).
Regarding claim 5, Imamura in view of Sure teaches the apparatus for inactivating the bacteria or the viruses according to claim 4. Imamura further teaches a first lighting controller that controls an emission intensity or a lighting time of the light source unit (irradiation control unit C3 [of control unit 52] changes the intensity of the ultraviolet rays—Fig. 6, [0072]; irradiation intensity is set in the setting information—Fig. 9, [0092]).
Furthermore, Imamura teaches an operating mode wherein the system recognizes a first set of positions wherein it is possible for a person to be present, recognizes a second set of positions wherein it is not possible for a person to be present, and controls the wavelength of the emitted ultraviolet light so that light having a wavelength exceeding 230 nm is only emitted in the second set of positions ([0094]) to avoid possible damage to humans with harmful UV light ([0058] indicates UV rays having a wavelength longer than 230 nm can damage human DNA; [0059] suggests including multiple UV sources). Thus, Imamura suggests employing a safer irradiation pattern in portions of a room more likely to be occupied by a person. Also, as substantially discussed with respect to claim 4 above, a person of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that a person is more likely to be located in the lower portion of a room below a height of 2m, as the standing height of most typical humans is less than 2m. Thus, Imamura, as modified in view of Sure with respect to claim 4, fairly suggests employing safer irradiation pattern in a first space below a height of 2 m within a room.
Nonetheless, Imamura and Sure do not particularly suggest the first lighting controller controls the light source unit to cause an amount of irradiation per unit time (i.e., intensity) of the first space with the ultraviolet light to be smaller than the amount of irradiation per the unit time of the second space with the ultraviolet light.
However, in the analogous art of systems for disinfecting occupied environments with direction controlled germicidal radiation (title), Lloyd teaches a direction controlled emitter (20) including an electromechanically activating rotating mounting arrangement (base 90 and disc 91) which support a laser scanner (92) ([0097]), wherein the emitter is controlled to adjust at least one of direction or intensity of emitted radiation based on determining whether a position is safe (no person detected) or unsafe (person detected) ([0060]). In a particular embodiment, the system can expose unsafe (human occupied) areas to low amounts of radiation while exposing safe (not human occupied) areas to high amounts of radiation ([0117]); the dose is controlled by the intensity and speed with which the emitted radiation beam passes over the areas ([0117]).
Therefore, it would be obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art to further modify the apparatus of Imamura such that irradiation emitted into the first space—which is less safe to irradiate because people are likely to occupy a space below 2m in a room—is emitted at a lower intensity than the irradiation emitted into the second space—which is a more safe area because people are unlikely to occupy a space above a height of 2m in a room—for the benefit of preventing the exposure of humans to unsafe levels of ultraviolet radiation (Lloyd at [0117] suggests that unsafe areas occupied by humans can be irradiated with low dosages of UV light).
Regarding claim 6, Imamura in view of Sure and Lloyd teaches the apparatus for inactivating the bacteria or the viruses according to claim 5 As modified with respect to claim 5, the apparatus of Imamura is configured such that the first lighting controller controls the light source unit to cause the emission intensity of the light source unit at a time of irradiation of the first space with the ultraviolet light to be lower than the emission intensity of the light source unit at a time of irradiation of the second space with the ultraviolet light (see rejection of claim 5 above).
Regarding claim 8, Imamura in view of Sure teaches the apparatus for inactivating the bacteria or the viruses according to claim 7. Imamura and Sure do not clearly teach that the driving unit drives the irradiation region changing mechanism to cause a time during which the light source unit will irradiate the second space with the ultraviolet light to be longer than a time during which the light source unit has irradiated the first space with the ultraviolet light immediately before.
However, as discussed with respect to claims 5 and 6 above, Imamura does fairly suggest operating the system to use safer disinfection techniques in the portions of a room more likely to be occupied by a human and harsher disinfection techniques elsewhere (see Imamura at [0094]), wherein such regions that are more likely to be occupied by a human would be expected to correspond with a space less than 2m off the floor of a room (see rejection of claims 4-6 above).
Furthermore, as also discussed with respect to claims 5 and 6 above, Lloyd suggests delivering a lower amount of germicidal radiation to portions of a space that are occupied by a human, and greater amounts of radiation elsewhere ([0117]), wherein the amount of radiation delivered is a function of light source intensity and scanning speed ([0117]). It is evident that a higher scanning speed would yield a shorter exposure time at the irradiated positions, and a lower scanning speed would yield a prolonged exposure time.
Combining these teachings, it would be obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art to configure the apparatus of Imamura such that an irradiation time in the first space is lower than an irradiation time in the second space for the benefit of reducing the total amount of irradiation delivered to a region where humans may be present, thus improving safety (consider Imamura at [0094] and Lloyd at [0117] and [0060]).
Claims 14-15, 17-18, and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Imamura et al. (US 2024/0042075 A1) in view of Lloyd (US 2017/0246329 A1).
Regarding claim 14, Imamura teaches the apparatus for inactivating the bacteria or the viruses according to claim 13. Imamura teaches estimating a distance, and a second lighting controller that controls an emission intensity or a lighting time of the light source unit on a basis of the estimated distance (the controller estimates a distance to a floor surface from the vertical angel int eh setting information and changes the irradiation time, intensity, or wavelength in order to achieve a predetermined sterilization effect—[0133]; also see [0008], [0090],[0095]-[0096]).
Imamura does not teach the distance is determined using a distance sensor that measures a distance of separation between the light source unit and an irradiation target object that is irradiated with the ultraviolet light according to the direction data, wherein the second lighting controller controlling the emission intensity or a lighting time of the light source unit on a basis of a measurement result of the distance sensor.
However, Lloyd teaches the analogous system discussed with respect to claim 5 above, wherein the system of Lloyd comprises sensors (40) such as infrared depth sensors which can determine the distance between objects (a three-dimensional image of the environment can be obtained using infrared laser scanning techniques—[0060], [0096], [0115]; also [0082], [0091]). Lloyd recognized that the 3D spatial information allows for the system to ensure that objects closer to the emitter do not receive too much information and that more distant objects do not receive too little irradiation ([0081], [0121]).
Therefore, it would be obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art to equip the apparatus of Imamura with an infrared depth sensor for determining a distance between the emitter and an object, as suggested by Lloyd ([0060], [0096], [0115]) for the benefit of enabling the system to ensure every surface in the space receives a sufficient dosage of ultraviolet radiation for a desired sterilization effect (consider Imamura at [0133] and Lloyd at [0081], [0121]).
Regarding claim 15, Imamura discloses the apparatus of claim 1. Imamura teaches a human detection unit that senses whether a human is present in the space (human sensor 400 detects the presence of a person in vicinity of the main body—[0050]). As best understood (see objection of claim 15 above), claim 15 requires that wherein when the human detection unit has sensed presence of the human in the space, the driving unit drives the irradiation region changing mechanism to irradiate a region outside of the region where the human was detected. Imamura does not clearly teach this feature.
However, Lloyd teaches the analogous system discussed with respect to claim 5 above, wherein embodiments of the system of Lloyd are configured to direct the beam of germicidal radiation to avoid regions where humans have been detected (“unsafe areas”) and only irradiate regions where humans are not detected (“safe areas”) ([0058], [0064]; see scanning patterns of Figs. 11-15). Therefore, it would be obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art to modify the device apparatus of Imamura such that the driving unit causes the irradiation unit to irradiate outside of a region in which a human is detected, as suggested by Lloyd, for the benefit of reducing the exposure of people in the environment to unsafe levels of irradiation (see Lloyd at [0058], [0064], Figs. 11-15).
Regarding claim 17, Imamura in view of Lloyd teaches the apparatus for inactivating the bacteria or the viruses according to claim 15. Imamura further teaches the human detection unit (400) is configured to have the sensing region move according to the irradiation region changing mechanism driven by the driving unit (see Fig. 1 of Imamura; the human sensor 400 is attached to the main body portion 2 which houses the light source. Such that the sensing region of the sensor 400 will move in accordance with the irradiation region).
Regarding claim 18, Imamura in view of Lloyd teaches the apparatus for inactivating the bacteria or the viruses according to claim 17. Lloyd further teaches when the human detection unit has sensed a human absence region where the human is absent in the sensing region, the driving unit drives the irradiation region changing mechanism to at least temporarily maintain the irradiation direction of the principal ray of the ultraviolet light emitted from the light source unit in the human absence region (control unit 52 may irradiate sterilization target space S during a time zone with absence of any person in the sterilization target space—[0076]; ultraviolet ray irradiation may be performed as long as no person is detected—[0128]; thus understood the device Lloyd will continue to direct ultraviolet rays toward a target space where no humans are detected for a period of time).
Regarding claim 20, Imamura in view of Lloyd teaches the apparatus for inactivating the bacteria or the viruses according to claim 15. As discussed with respect to claim 17, the human sensor (400) of Imamura is positioned to move with the irradiation region; thus, Imamura does not teach that the human detection unit is provided to have the sensing region that is fixed.
However, Lloyd teaches the analogous system discussed with respect to claim 5 above, wherein the system of Lloyd includes sensors (40) which are installed in fixed positions throughout a space and assist in tracking persons within the environment (sensors 40 track person in environment 100 and may include a plurality or network of sensors—[0060]; sensors 40 located through the environment 100 are equipped to determine the depth of the objects from each perspective so that a three-dimensional model of the environment can be created—[0096]; multiple sensors can track each person’s movement through a multi-room environment—[0109]; additional sensors provided in environment allow full person tracking and continuous body position monitoring –[0123]).
Therefore, it would be obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art to equip the apparatus of Imamura with a plurality of human detection units at fixed positions within the environment (and thus having fixed sensing regions) for the benefit of enabling the system to build a three dimensional model which can more precisely track a person’s movement through the environment (consider Lloyd at [060], [0096], [0109], and [0123]).
Claim 19 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Imamura et al. (US 2024/0042075 A1) in view of Lloyd (US 2017/0246329 A1), as applied to claim 17 above, and further in view of Sure et al. (US 20220118135 A1),
Regarding claim 19, Imamura in view of Lloyd teaches the apparatus for inactivating the bacteria or the viruses according to claim 17. As substantially discussed with respect to claim 15 above, Imamura in view of Lloyd teaches that when the human detection unit has sensed the presence of the human in the space, the driving unit drives the irradiation region changing mechanism to cause the light source unit to at least temporarily irradiate a different area with the ultraviolet light (see rejection of claim 15 above).
Imamura and Lloyd do not particularly indicate that the different area is a second space, the second space being a space located at a height of 2 m or more from the floor.
However, as discussed with respect to claim 4 above, Sure teaches an analogous system wherein
wherein when a sensor indicates that a room occupied, a reflector is rotated so that light ultraviolet rays are emitted parallel to the ceiling surface ([0054]) and above the body of any person (60) within the room (54) (see Fig. 6, [0058]), and when the room is unoccupied the reflector is rotated so that light rays are emitted toward surfaces in the lower part of the room (Fig. 5, [0054], [0057]). Also, Sure recognizes that the occupied configuration achieves air disinfection (air disinfection position—see [0059], [0061], [0065], [0071], claims 2 and 3), and Sure particularly suggest switching from surface disinfection (Fig. 5) to air disinfection (Fig. 6) mode when a person is detected by an occupancy sensor (28) ([0035]).
Therefore, it would be obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art to configure the system of Imamura so that the driving unit redirects the irradiation region to an upper room area that is at least 2 m or more from the floor for the benefit of reducing human exposure to UV light while achieving air disinfection within the room (see Fig. 6 of Sure wherein the UV radiation 50 is not directed toward the human 60 in the room; also see sure at [0059], [0061] and claims 2-3 indicating that directing UV irradiation toward an upper room area achieves UV irradiation).
Claim 21 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Imamura et al. (US 2024/0042075 A1) in view of Lloyd (US 2017/0246329 A1), as applied to claim 17 above, and further in view of Andersson et al. (US 2019/0192710 A1, corresponding to IDS documents WO 2018/041986 A1 and JP 2019536492 A)
Regarding claim 21, Imamura in view of Lloyd teaches the apparatus for inactivating the bacteria or the viruses according to claim 20. As modified with respect to claim 20, the apparatus of Imamura includes a plurality of the human detection units that is provided to have the sensing region that is fixed in the space (see rejection of claim 20 and Lloyd at [060], [0096], [0109], and [0123]).
Imamura and Lloyd do not clearly teach when any of the plurality of the human detection units has sensed the presence of the human, the driving unit drives the irradiation region changing mechanism to change the irradiation direction of the principal ray of the ultraviolet light of the light source unit to the outside of the sensing region of the human detection unit that has sensed the presence of the human.
However, in the analogous art of light control systems, Andersson teaches a system configured to illuminate a sub portion of a space based on the detection of a human in the space (abstract). Particularly, Andersson teaches an embodiment wherein when a person is detected in a second region (108b) of a space (100) by a sensor (106), a different first region (108a) of the space is illuminated by a UV light source without directing UV light toward the first second region so that the person in the second region is not contacted with the UV light (118) (see Fig. 1B; [0065] indicates that sensor 106 detects location 112 of human in space 100; emitted light 118 includes ultraviolet light to kill germs—[0071]). Related embodiments of Anderson utilize a plurality of sensors (106) to track the position of persons within different sub areas of a larger space ([0088], Figs. 3a-b). Therefore, it would be obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art to further modify the apparatus of Imamura such that the plurality of sensors are each equipped to sense a person in a particular sub-area of the space and ultraviolet light is directed away from a sub area when a person is detected by the sensor corresponding to that sub area, as seen in Andersson; such configuration provides the benefit of directing UV light away from occupied areas and toward unoccupied areas to prevent human exposure to harmful amounts of UV light.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Waterbury (US 2021/0290814 A1, with earliest priority date 23 March, 2020) teaches an apparatus for sterilizing a pace with UV light from a laser that produces germicidal ultraviolet (abstract), which may operate in an upper-room disinfecting mode wherein the laser scans a space within a room defined by a lower horizontal plane that is above the height of any humans present within the room ([0064]).
DuPuis et al. (US 2016/0175475 A1) teaches7 an ultraviolet light germicidal sanitizing system for use in an enclosed space comprising a room occupancy sensor and a UV light generation unit (abstract), wherein the UV light generating unit includes a rotating shutter (sidewall 26—[0030]) which can restrict the emission of UV light to only an upper room portion when a person is detected ([0045]; see Fig. 13).
KR 20160113353 A teaches an apparatus for sterilizing a room which includes an ultraviolet light source (sterilizing module 130) supported by a rotatable mount (moving module 140) (see abstract Figs. 1-3 and 5-6).
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