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 .
Drawings
The drawings are objected to as failing to comply with 37 CFR 1.84(p)(4) because reference character “508” has been used to designate the controller, the drive unit for linear motion and the drive unit for rotary arm -1 in Figure 5. Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
Claim Objections
Claims 1, 9, 13 and 20 are objected to because of the following informalities: the word --the-- is missing before the word “scanner” in the third to last line of claims 1 and 13 and the word --the-- is missing before the word “emission” in the first line of each of claims 9 and 20. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Interpretation
The term “focus” in the last line of claim 1 will be given the broadest reasonable interpretation which is viewed to be the dictionary definition of “the center of interest or activity” as recited by the Oxford Languages Dictionary.
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 1-20 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.
Claim 1 recites the limitation "the sensor" in line 13. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. For the purpose of examination, the limitation is interpreted as --the one or more sensors--.
Claim 2 recites the limitation "the one or more scanners" in line 5. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. It is noted that claim 1 recites “a scanner” in line 8. It is further noted that “the one or more scanners” is further recited in claims 7-8.
In regard to claim 9, it is unclear whether the limitation of “a four-quadrant scanner” is in addition to or further modifying the limitation of “a scanner” of claim 1 and/or “the one or more scanners” of claim 2.
Claim 10 recites the limitation "the at least one sensor" in line 2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. For the purpose of examination, the limitation is interpreted as --the one or more sensors--.
Claim 11 recites the limitation "the at least one sensor" in line 2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. For the purpose of examination, the limitation is interpreted as --the one or more sensors--.
Claim 13 recites the limitation "the sensor" in line 14. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. For the purpose of examination, the limitation is interpreted as --the one or more sensors--.
Claim 14 recites the limitation "the one or more scanners" in line 5. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. It is noted that claim 13 recites “a scanner” in line 9. It is further noted that “the one or more scanners” is further recited in claims 18-19.
In regard to claim 20, it is unclear whether the limitation of “a four-quadrant scanner” is in addition to or further modifying the limitation of “a scanner” of claim 13 and/or “the one or more scanners” of claim 14.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
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)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1 and 4-6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Paver, JR. (US 2016/0213798; hereinafter “Paver”).
In regard to claim 1, Paver discloses a disinfection system (disinfecting unit 910) comprising a base (the connection of support arm 924 to the track 916 as seen in Figure 10, such as the up/down limiter 938 or the structure connected to the limiter); a first arm (support arm 924) mechanically coupled to the base at a first joint (the connection between the arm 924 to the limiter 938), wherein the first arm is configured to rotate along a first axis (“support arm 924 may rotate around its axis”; see [0071]); a second arm (one of lamp arms 928) mechanically coupled to the first arm at a second joint (connection between arms 924 and 928), wherein the second arm is configured to rotate along a second axis (anticipated by the disclosure of “the disinfecting lamps 930 are also rotated relative to the lamp arms 928”; see [0072]); an emission module (structure comprising disinfecting lamps 930) mechanically coupled to the second arm at a third joint and configured rotate along a third axis (disinfecting lamps 930 are depicted in Figures 9C and 10 as being capable of rotating on an axis which is perpendicular to the lamp arm 930) comprises a scanner (one of disinfecting lamps 930) configured to emit electromagnetic energy upon a first surface, wherein the electromagnetic energy is configured to disinfect the first surface; one or more sensors (people sensor 1118) configured to detect the presence of a person at the first surface; and a controller (control panel 1114) communicatively coupled to the emission module and the one or more sensors, wherein the controller necessarily comprises: at least one processor; and a memory coupled to the at least one processor, the memory having instructions stored upon that, when executed by the at least one processor, causes the controller to: determine an absence of a person adjacent to the first surface; activate the scanner; and cause the scanner to focus (i.e. “direct”) the electromagnetic energy on the first surface (see [0075]). See Figures 9A-11 and paragraphs [0069]-[0075].
In regard to claim 4, Paver discloses wherein the electromagnetic energy is configured as ultraviolet light. See the title.
In regard to claims 5-6, Paver discloses wherein the sensor (people sensor 1118) is configured as a motion sensor (motion sensor, radar sensor) or as an infrared sensor (infrared sensor). It is noted that the disclosure of the specific types of sensors was discussed in a previous embodiment, but it would clearly be understood that the types of sensors would be applicable to the other embodiment as well. See [0045] and [0075].
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claims 2 and 7-8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Paver in view of Jules et al. (US 2021/0349462; hereinafter “Jules”).
In regard to claim 2, Paver is silent in regard to a focusing lens.
Jules discloses an ultraviolet end effector for sterilizing surfaces wherein an emission module (UV end effector 440 having UV light source 416) comprising a focusing lens (lens 414); a lens frame (housing 432 and body of the lens 414); and a rotary actuator (deformation mechanism 418 comprising a mechanical actuator to push or pull the lens which is viewed as functionally equivalent to the recited rotary actuator) communicatively coupled to the controller configured to deform the lens to adjust the focus of the lens. See Figure 4C and [0062]-[0064].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have combined the lens structure of Jules with the disinfection system of Paver for the purpose of adding the functionality of being able to change the shape of the emitted UV light to control the irradiation of a surface.
In regard to claims 7-8, it is held that the deformation mechanism 418 of Jules is necessarily capable of moving the lens 414 into and out of alignment with the UV light source 416 so as to emit a narrowly focused or broadly focused beam as Jules teaches that the focal length and intensity pattern can be controlled. See [0063]-[0064].
Claim 3 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Paver in view of Jules as applied to claim 2 above and further in view of Baarman (US 2022/0088250).
In regard to claim 3, Paver and Jules are silent in regard to the base being configured to attach to a passenger seat.
Baarman discloses wherein UV lights can be attached to a passenger seat so as to irradiate and disinfect areas which are likely to come into contact with the human body. See [0083] and Figure 6.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the base of the above combined invention so as to be configured to attach to a passenger seat as disclosed by Baarman for the purpose of allowing for manipulation of the UV lights so as to be capable of irradiating more surfaces surrounding the passenger seat which are likely to come into contact with the human body.
Claims 9-11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Paver in view of Jules as applied to claim 2 above and further in view of Lee et al. (KR 101724447 with reliance upon the English-language machine translation; hereinafter “Lee”).
In regard to claim 9, Paver and Jules are silent in regard to wherein the emission module comprises a four-quadrant scanner.
Lee discloses a UV sanitizing robotic device wherein the UV lights can be provided in a four-quadrant scanner. See Figure 11b and the third to last paragraph of page 6 of the translation.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have combined the UV light arrangement of Lee with the above combined disinfection system for the purpose of irradiating UV light in a 360 degree region.
In regard to claims 10-11, Paver is silent in regard to the sensor (people sensor 1118) being positioned on the base or the emission module.
Jules discloses wherein the robot 100 can have a variety of sensors such as visual light cameras, infrared cameras, microphones, Lidar devices, and Radar devices which would all be capable of detecting the presence of a person.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have combined the sensors of Jules with the above combined disinfection system and to have located the sensor on either the emission module and/or the base without creating any new or unexpected results. The mere rearrangement of parts, without any new or unexpected results, is within the ambit of a person of ordinary skill in the art. See In re Japikse, 86 USPQ 70 (CCPA 1950) (see MPEP § 2144.04).
Claims 12-13 and 15-17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Paver as applied to claim 1 above and further in view of Baarman (US 2022/0088250).
In regard to claim 12, Paver is silent in regard to wherein the disinfection system further comprises a passenger seat.
Baarman discloses wherein UV lights can be attached to a passenger seat so as to irradiate and disinfect areas which are likely to come into contact with the human body. See [0083] and Figure 6.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have combined the passenger seat of Baarman with the disinfection system of Paver for the purpose of allowing for manipulation of the UV lights so as to be capable of irradiating more surfaces surrounding the passenger seat which are likely to come into contact with the human body.
In regard to claim 13, Paver is applied in the same manner as for claim 1 above.
Paver is silent in regard to wherein the disinfection system is part of a passenger seat.
Baarman discloses wherein UV lights can be attached to a passenger seat so as to irradiate and disinfect areas which are likely to come into contact with the human body. See [0083] and Figure 6.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have combined the disinfection system of Paver with the passenger seat of Baarman for the purpose of providing a passenger seat with manipulatable UV lights so as to be capable of irradiating surfaces surrounding the seat which are likely to come into contact with a human body.
In regard to claim 15, Paver discloses wherein the electromagnetic energy is configured as ultraviolet light. See the title.
In regard to claims 16-17, Paver discloses wherein the sensor (people sensor 1118) is configured as a motion sensor (motion sensor, radar sensor) or as an infrared sensor (infrared sensor). It is noted that the disclosure of the specific types of sensors was discussed in a previous embodiment, but it would clearly be understood that the types of sensors would be applicable to the other embodiment as well. See [0045] and [0075].
Claims 14 and 18-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Paver in view of Baarman as applied to claim 13 above and further in view of Jules.
In regard to claim 14, Paver and Baarman are silent in regard to a focusing lens.
Jules discloses an ultraviolet end effector for sterilizing surfaces wherein an emission module (UV end effector 440 having UV light source 416) comprising a focusing lens (lens 414); a lens frame (housing 432 and body of the lens 414); and a rotary actuator (deformation mechanism 418 comprising a mechanical actuator to push or pull the lens which is viewed as functionally equivalent to the recited rotary actuator) communicatively coupled to the controller configured to deform the lens to adjust the focus of the lens. See Figure 4C and [0062]-[0064].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have combined the lens structure of Jules with the combined passenger seat disinfection system of Paver and Baarman for the purpose of adding the functionality of being able to change the shape of the emitted UV light to control the irradiation of a surface.
In regard to claims 18-19, it is held that the deformation mechanism 418 of Jules is necessarily capable of moving the lens 414 into and out of alignment with the UV light source 416 so as to emit a narrowly focused or broadly focused beam as Jules teaches that the focal length and intensity pattern can be controlled. See [0063]-[0064].
Claim 20 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Paver in view of Baarman and Jules as applied to claim 14 above and further in view of Lee.
In regard to claim 20, Paver, Baarman and Jules are silent in regard to wherein the emission module comprises a four-quadrant scanner.
Lee discloses a UV sanitizing robotic device wherein the UV lights can be provided in a four-quadrant scanner. See Figure 11b and the third to last paragraph of page 6 of the translation.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have combined the UV light arrangement of Lee with the above combined disinfection system for the purpose of irradiating UV light in a 360 degree region.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to TIMOTHY C CLEVELAND whose telephone number is (571)270-5041. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 7:30 AM - 3:30 PM ET.
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, Claire Wang can be reached on (571) 270-1051. 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.
/TIMOTHY C CLEVELAND/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1774
