DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application is being examined under the pre-AIA first to invent provisions.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 1-7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
The term “”high intensity” in claims 1 and 5 is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “high intensity” is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention. It would not be clear to one of ordinary skill in the art what intensity of ultraviolet light would be sufficient to meet the claim limitations.
Claims 2-4 and 6-7 are rejected for their dependence on claim 1.
Double Patenting
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a nonstatutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13.
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer.
Claims 1-7 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 17-19 and 23 of U.S. Patent No. 11,929,247 B2 (hereinafter Stibich). Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because:
Regarding claim 1, claim 17 of Stibich teaches an apparatus comprising:
A discharge lamp configured to emit ultraviolet light, wherein the apparatus is configured such that ultraviolet light emitted from the discharge lamp is projected exterior to the apparatus (i.e. to a region which encircles the apparatus);
Wheels arranged along a bottom of the apparatus;
A motor to provide automated mobility of the apparatus across at least a part of a room or area in which the apparatus is arranged;
A processor; and
A storage medium having program instructions which are executable by the processor for activating the motor such that the apparatus is moved within the room or area while the high intensity discharge lamp is emitting ultraviolet light.
Regarding claim 2, claim 19 of Stibich teaches that the discharge lamp is a mercury vapor lamp.
Regarding claim 3, claim 18 of Stibich teaches that the discharge lamp is a xenon flashlamp.
Regarding claim 4, one of ordinary skill in the art would select an ultraviolet wavelength between 200-265 nm, as a matter of selecting an ordinary wavelength used in the disinfection art with no unexpected result.
Regarding claim 5, claim 17 of Stibich teaches that the high intensity discharge lamp is arranged lengthwise perpendicular to a horizontal plane of the apparatus.
Regarding claim 6, claim 23 of Stibich teaches that the program instructions are further for mapping doses of ultraviolet light received on one or more surfaces in the area or room.
Regarding claim 7, claim 23 of Stibich teaches a system for collecting data regarding characteristics of the room or area (i.e. a dose map).
Claims 14-20 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1, 6, 17 and 23 of Stibich in view of Lyslo (US 20110215261 A1).
Regarding claim 14, claims 1 and 17 of Stibich separately teach an apparatus, comprising:
A discharge lamp configured to emit ultraviolet light, wherein the apparatus is configured such that ultraviolet light emitted from the discharge lamp is projected exterior to the apparatus;
Wheels arranged along a bottom of the apparatus;
A motor to provide automated mobility of the apparatus across at least a part of a room or area in which the apparatus is arranged;
A processor; and
A storage medium having program instructions which are executable by the processor for activating the motor such that the apparatus is moved within the room or area while the discharge lamp is emitting ultraviolet light.
Stibich does not teach a user interface for a user to activate operation of the apparatus, or an occupancy sensor for determining presence of an individual in the room or area in which the apparatus is arranged.
Lyslo teaches a disinfection system having a user interface (claim 11) for a user to activate operation of the apparatus and an occupancy sensor (motion sensor, [0052]) for determining the presence of an individual in the room or area in which the apparatus is arranged.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art on or before the effective filing date of the current invention to modify the system of Stibich to have the user interface of Lyslo for convenient activation of the device, and the occupancy sensor of Lyslo to prevent harmful UV irradiation of a person in the area.
Regarding claim 15, Lyslo teaches that the occupancy sensor inhibits and terminates projection of ultraviolet light exterior to the apparatus upon the occupancy sensor detecting presence of an individual in the room or area ([0052]).
Regarding claim 16, Lyslo teaches that the occupancy sensor is a motion detection sensor.
Regarding claim 17, Stibich teaches a structure comprising a casing (casing of mobile carriage, claim 5) which implicitly forms at least one compartment. It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to place operational component in the casing as a simple way to arrange the parts of the device.
Stibich and Lazlo do not teach that the user interface is arranged along the casing. However it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to place the user interface of Lazlo along the casing of Stibich as a matter of arranging the parts of the device with no unexpected result.
Regarding claim 18, Lyslo teaches that the user interface is further for a user to access data collected from the apparatus (sending data on disinfection, [0034]).
Regarding claim 19, claim 21 of Stibich teaches a reflector system configured to redirect ultraviolet light emitted from the discharge lamp into an ambient area of the apparatus.
Regarding claim 20, claim 6 of Stibich teaches sensors (UV light sensor) for maneuvering the apparatus around obstacles in the room or area (i.e. guiding the apparatus).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 8-13 allowed.
The following is an examiner’s statement of reasons for allowance: the prior art does not disclose or make obvious a discharge lamp configured to emit ultraviolet light, a support structure wherein the discharge lamp extends beyond an upper surface of the support structure to propagate the UV light sideways of the apparatus and parallel to upper surface to a region exterior to the apparatus between 2 and 4 feet from the floor of a room, wheels, a motor , a processor and a storage medium having program instructions executable by the processor for activating the motor such that the apparatus is moved while the discharge lamp is emitting ultraviolet light.
In the prior art, Trapani (20140044590 A1), Huang (US 20060011397 A1) and Deal (US 6,656,424 B2) teach mobile discharge lamps but not a storage medium having instructions for determining operating parameters for the apparatus to perform a disinfection process, and activating the motor such that the apparatus is moved while emitting UV light.
Any comments considered necessary by applicant must be submitted no later than the payment of the issue fee and, to avoid processing delays, should preferably accompany the issue fee. Such submissions should be clearly labeled “Comments on Statement of Reasons for Allowance.”
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to DAVID E SMITH whose telephone number is (571)270-7096. The examiner can normally be reached M to F 8:30 AM-5:00 PM.
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, Robert Kim can be reached at 22293. 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.
/DAVID E SMITH/Examiner, Art Unit 2881
Prosecution Insights