DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Response to Amendment
1. The amendment filed 26 June 2026 has been received and considered for examination. Claims 1-5 are presently pending and being examined herein.
2. All rejections and objections from the previous Office action are withdrawn in view of Applicant’s amendment.
3. New grounds of rejection under 35 U.S.C. 103 are necessitated by the amendments, as detailed below.
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 1-2 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Byrnes et al (US 10130727 B1) in view of Childress (US 20220111096 A1).
6. Regarding claim 1, Byrnes teaches a method (methods for operating ultraviolet light sources to disinfect an environment, col 1 lines 6-9) comprising:
activating, by one or more processors (instructions, when executed by the one or more processors, cause the light control system 100 to carry out the various operations, col 6 line 66 to col 7 line 13), a first sanitizer (control system 114 can manage activations of the UV light sources 110A-110C based on a hierarchy, which provides a sequence for activating the UV light sources 110A-110C, col 8 lines 35-57) in response to an occupied flight cycle for an aircraft being determined (In an implementation in which the hierarchy is based on the phase of flight, the hierarchy can be based on whether the aircraft is in a takeoff, ascent, cruise, descent, final approach, and/or landing operational status, col 11 lines 4-15 ), the first sanitizer configured to emit ultraviolet radiation having an average wavelength between 200 and 230 nm (UV light sources 110A-110C can be light sources that each emit the UV light at a wavelength of approximately 222 nm, col 5 lines 8-14);
deactivating, by the one or more processors (instructions, when executed by the one or more processors, cause the light control system 100 to carry out the various operations, col 6 line 66 to col 7 line 13), the first sanitizer (deactivate the UV light sources 110A-110C…as activations of the light sources 110A-110C are completed, col 8 lines 26-34 and 47-57);
activating, by the one or more processors (instructions, when executed by the one or more processors, cause the light control system 100 to carry out the various operations, col 6 line 66 to col 7 line 13), a second sanitizer in response to deactivating the first sanitizer (activate the UV light sources 110A-110C in an order from a first of the index positions to a last of the index positions…to activate only one of the UV light sources at a time, col 8 lines 58-67).
Byrnes emphasizes the importance of ensuring that an amount of power available for each emitter is at least the amount of power required (col 1 lines 35-53) but does not teach a backup power architecture to accomplish this. Thus, Byrnes fails to teach the limitation charging, by the one or more processors, a plurality of energy storage devices simultaneously with activating the first sanitizer and the second sanitizer in succession, each energy storage device in the plurality of energy storage devices electrically coupled to a corresponding sanitizer in a plurality of sanitizers that includes the first sanitizer and the second sanitizer.
Childress teaches an analogous plurality of UV emitters for use in an aircraft () wherein each UV light source is electrically coupled to a respective power supply (par 0103), each power supply being a battery (par 0102), with each power supply being supplied by either a larger battery or a power cord to be recharged (par 0113, FIG. 14), the individual power supplies providing power to the UV light emitters to ensure reliable and efficient operation (pars 0102 and 0104). In normal operation, as Childress does not specify controls that would stop the power supply recharge architecture for any reason, the recharging would occur throughout the operation of the light sources in a similar manner to the trickle charging of the present disclosure (e.g., pars 0005 and 0036).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to electrically couple each of the first sanitizer and second sanitizer of Byrnes to a respective power supply to carry out the step of charging a plurality of energy storage devices simultaneously with activating the first sanitizer and the second sanitizer in succession as taught by Childress, because this would predictably provide the same reliable and efficient operation by having backup power available for each emitter, the modification involving combining prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results. See MPEP 2143(I)(A).
7. Regarding claim 2, Byrnes as modified by Childress teaches the method of claim 1, further comprising deactivating, by the one or more processors (instructions, when executed by the one or more processors, cause the light control system 100 to carry out the various operations, Byrnes col 6 line 66 to col 7 line 13), the first sanitizer in response to a dosage of the ultraviolet radiation from the first sanitizer exceeding a threshold dosage (each UV light source 110A-110C can be activated during an activation cycle at an intensity and/or for an exposure time that achieve a target level of antimicrobial efficacy, i.e. a UV threshold dosage, Byrnes col 5 lines 15-34).
8. Claim 3 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Byrnes et al (US 10130727 B1) and Childress (US 20220111096 A1) as applied to claim 2 above, and further in view of Kimsey-Lin (US 20180373157 A1).
Regarding claim 3, Byrnes as modified by Childress teaches the method of claim 2, further comprising: receiving, by the one or more processors, the dosage of the ultraviolet radiation from the first sanitizer (control device 122 can store, for each UV light source 110A-110C …an exposure time for activating the UV light source 110A-110C, and/or a power required to activate the UV light source e.g., at a target antimicrobial efficacy, Byrnes col 9 line 59 to col 10 line 7), to which the control timing hierarchy is set up to activate each UV light source for an intensity/exposure time that corresponds to this threshold (Byrnes col 5 lines 15-34). Byrnes does not specifically teach the step of comparing, by the one or more processors, the dosage from the first sanitizer to the threshold dosage .
Kimsey-Lin teaches an analogous method of operating a UV light source (Abstract, par 0006) that includes sensing the UV light emitted by the UV light source to measure an optical parameter of the UV light, and comparing the measured optical parameter to a target optical parameter related to the antimicrobial efficacy of the UV light (pars 0005-0006 and 0043), a mechanism for adjusting the supply power to ensure or maintain the target antimicrobial efficiency over the series of activation cycles (pars 0038-0039).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to include in combination with the method of modified Byrnes the step of comparing by the one or more processors the dosage from the first sanitizer to the threshold dosage as taught by Kimsey-Lin, because this would predictably provide the same benefit of ensuring the target antimicrobial efficiency is reached over a series of cycles as taught by Kimsey-Lin. This involves combining prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results, see MPEP 2143(I)(A).
9. Claims 4-5 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Byrnes et al (US 10130727 B1) and Childress (US 20220111096 A1) as applied to claim 2 above, and further in view of Hatti et al (US 20190030195 A1).
10. Regarding claim 4, Byrnes as modified by Childress teaches the method of claim 2, and Byrnes further teaches requesting, by the one or more processors, an energy status (light control system…to determine the amount of power available to activate the UV light sources, Byrnes col 9 lines 34-47) of an energy storage device (power source with reduced size and/or weight, Byrnes col 3 lines 53-64), the energy storage device in electrical communication with a third sanitization device (Byrnes FIG. 1, supply power to one or more of the UV light sources 110A-110C, Byrnes col 5 line 66 to col 6 line 17) disposed proximate the row in the cabin (UV light sources 110A-110C can be located at…seat-back tray tables, armrests, and/or head rests, Byrnes col 10 lines 20-28).
Byrnes further teaches that locations of the UV light sources 110A-110C can be differentiated by whether the UV light sources 110A-110C are located in zones or cabin classes so that these locations can be prioritized in a hierarchy (col 10 lines 29-60), to manage if a row within such a vehicle zone is more desired to be cleaned i.e. has a desired cleaning event. The combination does not specifically teach receiving, by the one or more processors, an indication that a row in a cabin of the aircraft has a desired cleaning event.
Hatti teaches an analogous method of disinfecting a zone in an aircraft cabin with UVC radiation (par 0025) wherein rows of passenger seats are separated in sections/zones that may be disinfected individually based on occupancy and/or the flight mode of the aircraft (pars 0035 and 0055), and rows can be singled out for extended disinfection to take place automatically (par 0053) i.e., with the controller receiving indication of a desired cleaning event.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to include in combination with the method of modified Byrnes the step of receiving, by the one or more processors, an indication that a row in a cabin of the aircraft has a desired cleaning event as taught by Hatti, because this would predictably provide the same benefit of enabling a targeted disinfection of a row of seats such as in the event of a sick passenger as taught by Hatti (par 0053). This involves combining prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results, see MPEP 2143(I)(A).
11. Regarding claim 5, Byrnes as modified by Childress and Hatti teaches the method of claim 4, further comprising: receiving, by the one or more processors (instructions, when executed by the one or more processors, cause the light control system 100 to carry out the various operations, Byrnes col 6 line 66 to col 7 line 13), the energy status (light control system…to determine the amount of power available to activate the UV light sources, Byrnes col 9 lines 34-47); and activating (responsively activating the next UV light source in the sequence, Byrnes Abstract), by the one or more processors, the third sanitization device via power from the energy storage device (Byrnes FIG. 1, supply power to one or more of the UV light sources 110A-110C, Byrnes col 5 line 66 to col 6 line 17) in response to the energy status being charged (determining when the amount of power available is equal to or greater than the amount of power required, Byrnes Abstract).
Response to Arguments
12. Applicant’s arguments, see Remarks pages 9-11, filed 26 June 2026, with respect to the rejection(s) of claim(s) 1-2 under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) and of claims 3-5 under 35 U.S.C. 103 have been fully considered and are persuasive. Therefore, the rejection has been withdrawn. However, upon further consideration, a new ground(s) of rejection is made in view of Childress (US 20220111096 A1) to address the newly recited limitations re: charging a plurality of energy storage devices while activating the first and second sanitizers.
13. Applicant’s arguments with respect to the rejection of claims 1-5 under 35 U.S.C. 101 are moot because the amended claim language eliminates the abstract idea re: the flight cycle “being determined”, and the rejection is accordingly withdrawn.
Conclusion
14. Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
15. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Eric Talbert whose telephone number is (703)756-5538. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri 8:00-5:00 Eastern Time.
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 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.
/ERIC TALBERT/Examiner, Art Unit 1758
/MARIS R KESSEL/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1758
Prosecution Insights