DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
1. 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
2. Claims 11-17 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected invention, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Election was made without traverse in the reply filed on 05/05/2026.
Applicant’s election without traverse of Group I in the reply filed on 05/05/2026 is acknowledged.
Claim Objections
3. Claims 2 and 4 are objected to because of the following informalities:
Regarding claim 2, in line 6, “is to adapted to” is grammatically incorrect and should be corrected to “is adapted to”. Appropriate correction is required.
Regarding claim 4, the limitation of “at least one of humidity level in said user space and sanitizer level in said user space, and duty cycle time of said sanitizer circulating device” is inconsistent with the instant Specification [0030], where the specification recites “the sensory information sent by the sensor module (114) to the controller unit (112) to initiate sanitizer regeneration cycle is at least one of humidity level in the user space, duty cycle of sanitizer circulating device (110) and sanitizer level in the user space”.
Examiner suggests to the Applicant to amend the limitation to state “at least one of humidity level in said user space,
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
4. 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.
5. Claims 1, 3, and 8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over He et al. (CN 112023086 A), further in view of Pecchia et al. (US 20220153084 A1).
Regarding claim 1, He teaches a system for sanitizing user space of a vehicle (Fig. 7), said system comprising:
a module (Fig. 1), said module includes at least one sanitizer dispensing unit (nozzles 101-106, Fig. 1);
a sanitizer storage tank (8, Fig. 1) adapted to store sanitizer fluid (“sterilizing liquid containing pot 8 for containing sterilizing liquid”, Fig. 1 and p.7, 1st paragraph of English translation);
a sanitizer circulating device (pump 3, Fig. 1) in fluid communication with said sanitizer storage tank (8, Fig. 1) and said sanitizer dispensing unit (nozzles 101-106, Fig. 1);
a controller unit (control module including controller 7 and control circuit 5, Fig. 14) in communication with said sanitizer circulating device (p.2, last paragraph of English translation); and
said sanitizer circulating device (pump 3, Fig. 1) is adapted to circulate sanitizer fluid from said sanitizer storage tank (8, Fig. 1) to said at least one sanitizer dispensing unit (nozzles 101-106, Fig. 1); and
said sanitizer dispensing unit (nozzles 101-106, Fig. 1) is adapted to dispense sanitizer fluid to said user space thereby sanitizing said user space (p.3, 1st paragraph of English translation).
He fails to teach a sensor module adapted to sense and communicate at least one sensory information to said controller unit,
wherein said controller unit adapted to initiate a sanitizing cycle in which said controller unit activates said sanitizer circulating device based on said at least one sensory information received from said sensor module, where said sensory information is a parameter relevant to sanitizing said user space of said vehicle.
Pecchia teaches a sanitization system for a vehicle interior (Fig. 2) similar to He’s sterilization system, utilizing a controller (15, Fig. 2) to initiate a sanitization cycle ([0003]), further teaching a sensor module (occupancy sensors, [0057]) adapted to sense and communicate at least one sensory information (occupancy detection data, [0057-0058]) to said controller unit (controller 15, Fig. 2),
wherein said controller unit adapted to initiate a sanitizing cycle in which said controller unit activates said sanitizer circulating device (step 82, Fig. 3) based on said at least one sensory information received from said sensor module (step 78, Fig. 3), where said sensory information is a parameter relevant to sanitizing said user space of said vehicle (occupancy data, [0057-0058]), collectively for the purpose of
He and Pecchia are both considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of vehicle sanitization fluid systems utilizing controllers to initiate/stop sanitizing cycles.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the control module of He by incorporating an occupancy sensor in operative connection to the controller as taught by Pecchia, because doing so would allow sanitizing cycles to only initiate when a user/occupant is not present within the vehicle interior (Pecchia, [0057-0058]) with a reasonable expectation of success.
Regarding claim 3, the He/Pecchia combination teaches wherein said sensory information (Pecchia, occupancy data, [0057-0058]) sent by said sensor module (Pecchia, occupancy sensors, [0057]) to said controller unit (Pecchia’s controller 15 in Fig. 2 being equivalent to the control module in Fig. 14 of He) to initiate said sanitizing cycle is occupant presence (Pecchia, occupancy data, [0057-0058]) and input(s) from the user(s) (He, “the user is connected with the vehicle-mounted T-BOX vehicle through the internet APP; and the vehicle sterilizing instruction is sent by the internet APP”, p.3, 6th paragraph of English translation); and
said sanitizer circulating device (He, pump 3, Fig. 1) is configured to act as a compressor in said sanitizing cycle (He, the fluid pressure generated by the pump 3 towards the nozzles 101-106 during a sterilizing cycle means the pump generates a compressive force and thus acts like a compressor, Fig. 1).
Regarding claim 8, modified He teaches wherein the system (Fig. 7) initiates a sterilization cycle based on instruction received by the controller unit (p.3, 6th paragraph of English translation), but fails to teach an indication module adapted to indicate sanitization status to the user(s), wherein said indication module is at least one of an audio indicating means, a visual indicating means, a user interface unit and an olfactory indicator.
Pecchia further teaches an initiation of a sanitizing cycle (step 76, Fig. 3), where steps/parameters like this can be communicated through a “wireless communication system (not shown) that is configured to provide a user with status updates by transmitting a signal to a user's smartphone or other device, to thereby alert a user that a cleaning cycle has been initiated, a cleaning cycle is in process, a notification that the cleaning cycle has been completed (or halted), and/or the length of time remaining for the cycle” ([0068]).
Modified He and Pecchia are both considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of vehicle sanitization fluid systems utilizing controllers to initiate/stop sanitizing cycles.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the control module of modified He by incorporating a wireless communication system connected to a user interface such as a smartphone as taught by Pecchia because doing so would provide a status indication/alert to the user regarding the sterilization/sanitizing cycle (Pecchia, [0068]) with a reasonable expectation of success.
6. Claims 2 and 4 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over He et al. (CN 112023086 A), further in view of Pecchia et al. (US 20220153084 A1), as applied to claim 1 above, further in view of Parker (US 20100234812 A1), further in view of Sekine et al. (JP 2016087082 A).
Regarding claim 2, the He/Pecchia combination teaches wherein said controller unit (He, control module including controller 7 and control circuit 5, Fig. 14) is adapted to activate said sanitizer circulating device (He, pump 3, Fig. 1) based on at least one sensory information received from said sensor module (Pecchia, occupancy sensor, [0057]), where said sensory information is a parameter relevant to sanitizer regeneration from said sanitized user space (Pecchia, occupancy data [0057-0058]).
However, the He/Pecchia combination fails to teach wherein said controller unit is adapted to initiate a sanitizer regeneration cycle, where said sanitizer circulating device is to adapted to circulate unutilized sanitizer fluid from said sanitized user space to an auxiliary sanitizer storage tank through said sanitizer dispensing unit.
Sekine teaches a decontamination liquid spray device (100, Fig. 1) utilizing a pump (230, Fig. 1) to spray a decontamination solution (from tank 251, Fig. 1) via the nozzles (211-212, Fig. 1), where the controller (240, Fig. 1) activates a sanitizer regeneration cycle (decontamination liquid recovery process, Fig. 3C-D) in the case of an operation abnormality (p.6, 5th paragraph of English translation) causing some decontamination fluid to enter an auxiliary tank/bottle (252, Fig. 3C-D), where at first (Fig. 3C) the flow is stopped via pump inactivation (p.7, 4th paragraph of English translation) and subsequent pump reversal (p.7, 6th paragraph of English translation) to recollect any decontamination fluid in the delivery pipe (222, Fig. 3C-D) and the auxiliary tank/bottle (252, Fig. 3C-D), providing an effective use of the decontamination liquid (p.7, 6th paragraph of English translation).
The He/Pecchia combination and Sekine are both considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of sanitization fluid systems utilizing controllers to initiate/stop sanitizing cycles via a pump.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the control module and pump of the He/Pecchia combination with a decontamination fluid recovery/regeneration cycle/step by incorporating: one, a reversible pump feature to suck back in the decontamination fluid into the original tank, two, a collection bottle in fluid connection with the decontamination liquid pipe, collectively taught by Sekine because doing so would provide an effective use of the decontamination liquid in the case of an operational abnormality (Sekine, p.7, 4th and 6th paragraph of English translation) with a reasonable expectation of success.
With this modification, it is important to note that the occupancy detection taught by Pecchia ([0057-0058]) would still trigger a sanitizing cycle when the vehicle is vacant (Pecchia, [0058]), and the sanitizer regeneration cycle of Sekine would only, but still, trigger during an abnormality during the sanitizing cycle. Thus, the sanitizing regeneration cycle (i.e., abnormality during the sanitizing cycle) would still be “based on at least one sensory information received from said sensor module”.
Regarding claim 4, the He/Pecchia/Sekine combination teaches wherein said sensory information sent by said sensor module (Pecchia, occupancy data from occupancy sensors, [0057-0058]) to said controller unit (Pecchia’s controller 15 in Fig. 2 being equivalent to the control module in Fig. 14 of He) initiates a sanitizer regeneration cycle (Sekine, decontamination fluid recovery process, Fig. 3C-D); and
said sanitizer circulating device (He, pump 3, Fig. 1) is configured to act as a suction pump in said sanitizer regeneration cycle (Sekine, reversibility of pump 230 acting as a suction force for the incoming recovered decontamination fluid, Fig. 3C-D).
However, the instant combination fails to teach wherein the sensory information is at least one of humidity level in said user space and sanitizer level in said user space.
Sekine mentions that an abnormality occurs when decontamination fluid flows to the auxiliary tank/bottle (252, Fig. 1) instead of the decontamination space (300, Fig. 1), to which not enough decontamination fluid (which is a water-based hydrogen peroxide solution, p.1, last paragraph of English translation) sprayed into the decontamination space means the humidity and sanitizer level within the decontamination/user space is not at a desired level. It is important to note that the humidity level is synchronous/correlated with the sanitizer level, because the hydrogen peroxide solution of Sekine is at a set concentration.
Thus, the operational abnormality triggering the sanitizer regeneration cycle is directly dependent on the humidity level within the decontamination/user space. Even then, the instant combination does not provide sensory information of the humidity level (i.e., includes sanitizer level) within the decontamination/user space.
Pecchia further teaches a humidity sensor (14A, Fig. 2) operatively connected to the controller (15, Fig. 2) to record the ambient humidity in the vehicle ([0004]) and to subsequently control the humidity (and thus the sanitizer level) to reach a predetermined target level (claim 9). It is important to note that during the sanitizing cycle the humidity level is once again synchronous/correlated with the sanitizer level, because the hydrogen peroxide solution is at a set concentration ([0072]).
The instant combination and Pecchia are both considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of vehicle sanitization fluid systems utilizing controllers to initiate/stop sanitizing cycles.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the controller/control module of the instant combination by incorporating a humidity sensor in operative connection with the controller as taught by Pecchia, because doing so would provide an indication of the humidity level (i.e., sanitizer level as well) within the vehicle interior (Pecchia, [0004]) and subsequently allow the humidity level to reach a predetermined target level (Pecchia, claim 9) with a reasonable expectation of success.
Allowable Subject Matter
7. Claims 5-7 and 9-10 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
Regarding claim 5, the prior art, alone or in combination, fails to teach or fairly suggest the structural limitations of the present claim. The closest prior art to the claimed invention (He – of record), alone or in combination, is set forth above but does not teach or suggest a first non-return valve adapted to allow sanitizer fluid flow from said sanitizer storage tank to said sanitizer circulating device, where said first non-return valve is adapted to restrict sanitizer return flow to said sanitizer storage tank.
Sekine teaches the storage tank (251, Fig. 1) with a valve (283, Fig. 1). Incorporating an additional one-way valve in the decontamination fluid supply pipe (222, Fig. 1) or alternatively substituting the two-way valve (283, Fig. 1) with the one-way valve as claimed by Applicant would render the decontamination device’s operation impossible. Orienting the one-way valve to “allow sanitizer fluid flow from said sanitizer storage tank to said sanitizer circulating device” and “restrict sanitizer return flow to said sanitizer storage tank” (i.e., towards the nozzle, away from the tank shown in the arrow directions in Fig. 3B) would prevent the decontamination fluid recovery process. This is because the fluid recovery process during an abnormality requires the same fluid delivery pipe (dotted line for conduit/pipe sections in Fig. 3C) as normal operation – it is merely in a reverse direction. A one-way valve in said direction would make the fluid recovery process impossible (since there would be no recovery flow).
Parker (US 20100234812 A1) teaches a fluid recovery system (Fig. 1a, 3a-4b) having a dual-configuration of potential fluid pathways (Fig. 4a vs. 4b) to control the flow direction of the fluid within the conduit, utilizing a one-way check valve (45, Fig. 3a). However, the reverse flow returns the fluid back to its original reservoir instead of an auxiliary/secondary tank. Furthermore, the fluid delivery process is directed towards vaccination of animals with a syringe ejector head, not the decontamination/sanitization of an environment with a cleaning/sanitizing fluid.
The remaining claims are allowable due to a dependency basis from claim 5.
Conclusion
8. The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Line et al. (US 20200269738 A1), directed towards a vehicle seat fluid sanitization system.
9. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Aham Lee whose telephone number is (703)756-5622. The examiner can normally be reached Monday to Thursday, 10:00 AM - 8:00 PM EST.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Maris R. Kessel can be reached at (571) 270-7698. 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.
/Aham Lee/Examiner, Art Unit 1758
/MARIS R KESSEL/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1758
Prosecution Insights